asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now make a further statement on the proposed siting of an aluminium smelter in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the plans for the provision of an aluminium smelter in the Highlands.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave in the House on 6th December.—[Vol. 755, c. 1432.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern at the repeated leaks, rumours and wrangling over this important new arrangement and, as six Government Ministries now seem to have their fingers in this pie and several nationalised industries are also involved, would be assure us that he will cut through the massive confusion and ensure a decision soon?

1 really have nothing to add, as I said. I am aware of the complexity of the matter, as the hon. Gentleman obviously is, and I can assure him that we will try to cut through the complexity and arrive at the right solution.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is so interested in this matter that he did not even attend last night's debate on the subject? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the possibility of firing such a smelter with Scottish coal has been excluded or not?

I can assure my hon. Friend, as he will probably have learned last night in the debate which he initiated, that all possible considerations are being taken into account in dealing with the proposals before us.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that although the problem of what fuel should be used may be very complex, the single factor that this is desperately needed in Invergordon will be in the forefront of his mind?

That has not left my mind since this matter first arose.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make a further statement on his inquiries into the rating burden on commercial buildings in Glasgow.

No, Sir.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a serious and urgent problem, with many shops being forced to close in Glasgow? What organisations is he consulting and to what extent will the Glasgow retail trade be taken into consultation?

My noble Friend the Joint Under Secretary of State has received two deputations, on 1st and 14th December, which submitted a considerable number of facts and points which are now being processed. I hope that, after these matters are checked, Ministers will be able to consider the matter afresh.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now introduce legislation to curb the crime wave in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends taking to combat the growth of crimes of violence.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to deal with the rising number of crimes of violence.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now concluded all his consultations with interested parties on the question of new criminal legislation; and when he expects to introduce such legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he now proposes to take to reverse the growing crime wave and increases in acts of violence, in view of his recent discussions with interested parties; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend, the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), on 23rd January—[Vol. 757, c. 100–101]—he is still considering the proposal to give the police a power of search under the Prevention of Crime Act. But I believe that for the prevention of crime we must chiefly look to social measures within the existing powers of local authorities, the police and voluntary organisations and to the co-operation of the public. For this reason I have undertaken the task of surveying this field and, where appropriate, encouraging fresh initiatives for the prevention of crime.

Why is it that, if the Department is so keen to do something about this, the hon. Gentleman's Government blocked the Private Member's Bill to include search for offensive weapons last Friday afternoon?

As I said, this question is still open; the hon. Member understands the procedure of the House as well as I do. The exclusion in that Bill of a specific power of arrest would imply that it already existed in common law. It therefore follows that the subsection of the Prevention of Crime Act under which an arrest can be made "with reasonable cause to believe" is an extension of that common law power. If that were so, it would obviate the need for powers of search altogether.

How long will the hon. Gentleman go on considering this? Does he realise that people are extremely concerned? If motorists have to put up with the breathalyser, surely people who carry weapons should be treated more rigorously?

There has been no delay on this matter. The Act gives the police power to arrest where they have reasonable cause to believe that a weapon is being carried. We are now being asked —this is why we and hon. Members opposite should give thought to this—to compel the police to prove that a weapon is being carried before arresting. This fight weaken, rather than strengthen, their powers.

However laudable these long-term considerations may be, does the hon. Gentleman not realise that this situation is becoming explosive in the short-term and that, particularly among the police, there is a real sense of frustration and a feeling they are not getting the backing from him and his hon. Friends in dealing with crime in Scotland?

I do not think that it helps when hon. Members opposite use such words as "explosive". On the police, it is precisely because of the possible extra risk to them involved under the request for search that we must also consider this. Whether they might be better protected without such powers is something which we would consider.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of combating this increase in crime is to increase police recruitment? Can he give any figures to show whether or not there has been an improvement in the last three years or otherwise?

Yes, I agree completely with what my hon. Friend says. The interesting figures, especially when one considers the manpower available to the police, including officers and full-time civilians, are that, from 1962, the number rose by about 1,500, from 10,817 to 12,284. The manpower of the police themselves rose from 9,692 in 1962 to 10,247 and we are making earnest efforts to increase this rate.

Is my hon. Friend aware that recently an innocent died as a result of an attack by someone using steel combs? Does he realise that the police felt that they did not have adequate powers to make a search, and that, if they had those powers, this element of detection would probably help to prevent such crimes? Would he act before it is too late?

Again, there is absolutely no proof that extended powers of search would have stopped this specific case. We must not spread this kind of irresponsible statement. I assure my hon. Friend that his view is not universally shared by the police.

Will the hon. Gentleman move quickly from consideration to action? Will he not recognise that there is a growing and responsible demand for a power of search in circumstances of this kind? Would he not, if only as an interim measure, consider a power of search for the police for a limited experimental period?

This is one of the aspects which we are considering, and I agree that there is a responsible attitude as well as that shown by the kind of irresponsible requests which we have heard this afternoon. We are examining this time factor also. A good deal has been done, especially following my meetings with the Glas- gow magistrates, including the establishment of the working party to take positive action to deal with the social problems, which in Glasgow is also a fruitful line of development.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us think that his course of action is the right one, but that those who have studied this question think that it is exceedingly difficult to know exactly what the Glasgow police are asking for, even when they see it in black and white? Would he therefore continue his close study and not give way to political pressure by hon. Members opposite?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Glasgow magistrates yesterady requested the Chief Constable to seek a meeting with the Lord Advocate to get further clarification of the powers as we have already outlined them to him.

Will the hon. Member not consider that his use of words just now was a little wrong? Hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as policemen on both sides of this question are acting entirely responsibly, in their view, in trying to get a very serious problem across. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to take some action.

I accept, of course, that there is a legitimate anxiety and responsible expression of view on this. What I was suggesting was that some of the exaggerated statements made about this subject do not help anyone—not the police, the magistrates or ourselves—and I hope that we will see this kind of restraint in pressing for these measures.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice has been given to him by the Economic Planning Council regarding pit closures in 1968.

The advice given to me by the Scottish Economic Planning Council on this and other matters is, and must remain, confidential.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this continued uncertainty about pit closures in Scotland is causing much alarm and despondency in the areas likely to be affected? Will Fauldhead be kept open until the summer?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Ministerial responsibility here is. not mine, but special arrangements have been made to bring into close consultation for advice the Economic Planning Council and, through me, the Minister of Power. This is being done— [Interruption.]—someone asks why it should be confidential. The very statement of the fact indicates the need for confidentiality in respect of advice given.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the miners' trade union has gained the impression that there will be no pit closures before the closest possible examination and consultation by the Economic Planning Council? Does he not think that it would be in the interests of the miners if he verified this impression?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have already met the trade union and that it knows the position well in respect of the liaison which has been promised them, and which has been carried out. A sub-committee of the Economic Planning Council has already visited and had discussions with the N.C.B. at the pits which were highlighted for closure in Scotland. They have already reported to me and I have conveyed my findings and the advice which they have given to the Minister of Power.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Scottish Planning Department to carry out an up-to-date survey of the reasons for the increase in emigration overseas from Scotland and the decline in the population of Scotland since 1964.

A detailed study and analysis of migration movements is being carried out by a working party of the Scottish Economic Planning Board as part of a wider examination of population problems.

Surely it is not a coincidence that there has been this rapid and sustained rise in emigration overseas since the right hon. Gentleman took office? If he cannot think of anything better to do, would he consider seeking an assisted passage to Australia for himself and his family and, if the Australians will not assist his passage, asking the people of Scotland, who would?

As far as I recall, the last Member of Parliament who went to Australia from this place was a Conservative, and he came back. This rise in migration started back in 1951–52. What we have been able to do in two years is stem considerably the flow to the south. We are also concerned with the overseas migration. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this must have worried his Ministers, but there was no evidence of highlighting this in their considerations of industrial and economic policies in Scotland in this House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, though, that there is a case for surveying the reasons for this increase in emigration overseas? Particularly, will he look at some evidence which exists that people go overseas on unreasonable assumptions about the standard of living which they will get and so on? Perhaps there is something which we can do in this direction.

This is true. It is difficult to get at motives, because this entails interviewing the people who have already gone, and it is not easy to reach them, but we have got together a working party of the Scottish Development Department, the Ministry of Labour, the Registrar-General and the Scottish Statistical Office, which is going into the facts. We are studying the places which these people leave and those to which they go, and we are satisfied that we may get from an analysis of these facts an indication of motives which will back up some of the other things we have been given. Sometimes, also, the justifications for going are unrelated to the true motives.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has always been much emigration from Scotland overseas? Is he further aware that it is not always economic reasons that persuade people to go abroad; that we have always had a spirit of adventure and loyalty and a wish to advance Scotland's cause? Many of them have proud records which should not be trailed through the mud.

My hon. Friend is right in pointing out that Scotsmen have often been footloose. The prosperity of the world would have been less if it were not for Scotsmen going abroad. This will always be so. The pattern today is not one of people going from Scotland because they have no jobs, but of people being lured from jobs in Scotland because manpower is scarce elsewhere. We have to ensure that we should create the right opportunities—properly paid opportunities—in Scotland for our own people.

When was the working party set up?

An announcement was made in this House, or in another place by Lord Hughes, on 6th December.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the full extent of cuts in public sector spending programmes in Scotland resulting from the Government's latest economy measures.

I do not have this information, but as regards the services for which I am responsible I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 17th January to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).— [Vol. 756, c. 591; Vol. 756, c. 687–8.]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to have devised a new sort of motto—that it is better to travel hopelessly than to arrive. What on earth is the point of retaining targets for public sector investment while at the same time admitting that there is no hope of reaching them?

The hon. Member seems neither to travel nor ever to arrive anywhere definitely in any of his Questions. He asked a Question and I have given the Answer, which is related to the fact that there are certain matters concerning defence and the nationalised industries which can be included in the term "public sector spending programmes". He should know that these are not matters which can be properly and easily analysed in geographical areas.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the serious cuts in the housing programme——

Order. There is a Question on housing on the Order Paper.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the cuts announced in reply to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and see whether more of the money could be used to help to relieve the situation resulting from the disaster of the recent hurricane?

I think the hon. Member is slightly mixed in his motives. He wants to restore cuts and at the same time to increase expenditure. He had better take these things separately in relation to their actual priorities.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if we take the recent cuts in public expenditure in Scotland as a proportion of total public expenditure, the figure is only about half of the figure for Great Britain as a whole and this is still a continuing example of the demand for development of the Scottish economy?

This is perfectly true and it carries out the pledge we have given in relation to Scotland and the development areas. A matter which is often overlooked is that in relation to public expenditure tied to achievement in economic expansion and growth in Scotland this is where we have made no cuts at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recommendations he has received from the Highlands and Islands Development Board on the improvement of the A9 road south of their area; and what action he is taking.

In a Press statement of 16th May, 1967, on the report of the Highland Transport Board, the Highlands and Islands Development Board recommended that the PerthPitlochry section of A9 should be included in the priority roadworks to be completed by 1975. Various improvements of this stretch are already in hand, or being planned, but my right hon. Friend is considering what general improvement can be included in the road programme for the 1970s.

Will the Minister ensure that the recent cuts in the road programme will not fall in any way upon the stretch of the A9 from Perth to Blair Atholl since this is the main access by road to the north and central Highlands?

Work in hand at the moment is £300,000 in three schemes. We are about to authorise two schemes totalling £135,000 and we have some minor schemes which may be in the programme. They will be in addition to the consideration we are making of the programme for the early 1970s.

Does the Minister realise that it would be greatly to the advantage of Scotland to spread industrialisation instead of having it cornered in the South-West?

I do not know about concentration in the South-West, but it is certainly the policy of the Government to seek industrialisation all over Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a progress report on the first half of the period covered by his White Paper on the Scottish Economy.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies given to the hon. Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 25th October and 6th December, respectively. —[Vol. 751, c. 1725–6; Vol. 755, c. 1426.]

As the halfway point in the six-year period covered by this White Paper was reached a month ago, at the end of 1967, and in view of the drastic changes in policy which the Government have made since the publication of the White Paper, why does the Secretary of State not seek to inform Parliament and the country of the facts?

The hon. Member will appreciate that he has not been reluctant in questioning me on various changes in policy in various debates in this House and elsewhere and getting the kind of information he seeks. We also publish regularly progress reports on various aspects of the economy in the quarterly bulletin on Scottish development.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will now publish a revised version of his White Paper, The Scottish Economy 1965–1970, in the light of the Government's latest economic measures;

With permission, I will answer Questions 26 and 27 together.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear that the Government will continue to give special priority to the economic growth of the development areas.

With great respect, Operations Nos. 26 and 27 are totally separate. I wish to ask a supplementary question on each. Is that permissible, Mr. Speaker?

No such right exists. Mr. MacArthur: Then my supplementary question is directed to Question No. 27. Why will not the right hon. Gentleman publish a White Paper detailing the effect on the Scottish economy of the cuts following devaluation? Is he aware that three solemn pledges given by the Prime Minister in November have now been broken? Is he aware that the housing programme and school building programme have been cut, and that the hospital programme has been slashed? Will he and his right hon. Friend now make a full and clear statement about the total effect of the cuts on the Scottish economy?

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. Perhaps he will appreciate exactly what was said about the infrastructure expenditure and look at what is being done about that. He talks about cuts when in fact we are spending more than before, though not as much more as we had recently planned. In the past three years we had hoped to approve about 96,000 houses. We have actually approved 100,000, and we are well ahead of our house building target. If we can get the response from the private sector on a very considerable increase we shall reach our target there. The hon. Gentleman should know quite well that the statement my hon. Friend made about the school building programme shows that we are still building towards the rate that we intended. The same is true about hospital building. The financial resources placed at the disposal of the regional hospital boards are still higher than was originally proposed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the third or fourth revised plan for which the hon. Gentleman has called? In view of the debate on Monday, could he tell us how many additional civil servants and how much additional Government expenditure would have been required to produce those three or four additional plans?

There have been a considerable number of demands for more civil servants, and we must add to them all the other demands about local authorities. As usual, hon. Gentlemen opposite are speaking with two voices.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the words used by the Prime Minister on 19th November when he said:

"But the priority programmes of housing, school building, and hospital building will be safeguarded in all these measures, and the job of bringing work to development areas will be given a still higher priority."

How does that fit in with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that my hon. Friend was wrong on all three counts?

The amount of work being done on housing and in the school building and hospital building programmes is higher than last year. It may not have been as high as hon. Gentlemen opposite would like, but they should appreciate that we are talking about what was said in the White Paper on the Scottish economy, where we gave a figure for what we would spend on the infrastructure. We are well up to that target.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the review his Department has been holding with Edinburgh Corporation about traffic and transport problems in the city is yet completed.

With respect, I am not quite sure what review the hon. Member has in mind. Edinburgh Corporation is now considering the letter which my right hon. Friend sent to it on 9th January indicating his provisional decisions on its proposals for a new road network; and a study is being made of transportation and land uses in the whole of East Central Scotland.

I understood that the Minister was helping Edinburgh Corporation. Does he realise that, with what is proposed in the Transport Bill regarding railways and difficulties about the ring road, we do not know where they are and that there is utter confusion in Edinburgh? Will he not bring forward some scheme so that the citizens may know what is happening?

After the letter of 9th January, my right hon. Friend advised me on things I could say to Edinburgh Corporation when I met them on 12th January. These were extensively reported in the Press. We hope that the transportation study for East Central Scotland will be ready by the end of the year. As to the specific matter arising from the public inquiry on the quinquennial review, that matter is being considered by the Corporation next month I understand. We hope thereafter to get ahead with both the internal Edinburgh study and other matters affecting the whole question.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that tremendous improvement could be made in Edinburgh by having one-way streets in many places with very little public expenditure? Is his Department giving as much help as possible to the Corporation in looking into this?

The Corporation has done some work in this regard which has not always been appreciated publicly. The suggestion made by the hon. Member will be borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request the local authorities in Scotland to institute a register of all those in their respective areas who are suffering from physical disabilities but who are not in receipt of industrial, war or other pensions or special tax allowances or grants.

Local welfare authorities are already required to keep registers of permanently disabled persons in their areas. Where persons on these registers appear to be entitled to financial assistance, the local authority's officers notify the Ministry of Social Security. I doubt whether special registration, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, would achieve any more.

Does the Under-Secretary realise that if we wish to help the category of people mentioned in my Question it is necessary to identify them explicitly? This is the suggestion. Can he press on with the work because many of these people are in dire difficulties?

I appreciate that. Already a great deal is done to identify them, as my Answer demonstrates. A survey under the Government Social Survey is being initiated dealing with the particular question of identifying the disabled living at home. I hope that that will give us additional information.

Is the Minister aware that the system of registration is at present not comprehensive and it does not supply all the information required? Can he say whether the Social Survey, announced in reply to a Question put by me, has yet started?

I believe the Answer that was given to the hon. Member was that it would be starting some time in the current year. That still stands.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the purpose of his policy of listing certain buildings as being of historic or architectural merit; and if he will make a statement.

The purpose is to guide local authorities in performing their functions under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947. Statutory listing is going ahead as fast as resources allow.

Would the Minister of State agree that this magnificent work of listing which is going on will be quite fruitless unless it is carried to its logical conclusion of implementing many building preservation orders? Does he realise that the record in Scotland over building preservation orders is deplorable when compared with that of England?

The answer to the first question is "Yes", and on the second I would not agree. There are one or two outstandingly bad examples—I concur in that—but the record generally is fair. Putting the past aside, in future both local authorities and the Government intend to do better.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cumulative acreage of woodlands in Scotland classified as unproductive scrubland; what proportion of this he estimates it would be in the national interest to clear and replant with timber-producing trees; and what conclusions he has reached as a result of his study of the reason for their not being so treated.

The area of unproductive scrubland in Scotland is estimated to be about 200,000 acres. Nearly half of this area is unsuitable for forestry, owing mainly to exposure and inaccessibility; and it would not necessarily be in the national interest to convert all the remainder to forestry because much of it provides useful shelter for stock

In the interests of wise land use, would the Minister of State do as much as he can to encourage the bringing into use of that part which could be turned into profitable forestry land and, if necessary, consider re-introducing the scrub clearance grant which, sadly, was abolished by the last Government?

I much appreciate the noble Lord's comment about the last Government. We are still paying the grant under the 10-year scheme, which was introduced in 1963. The Government at that time thought that the worst of the wartime scrub had been dealt with. We are examining the matter again. I do not want to raise any false hopes. I think that we should look again at the latest returns, which will shortly be available, and see if we should do anything further in this regard.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends taking to encourage the growth of private house building.

Through the local authorities and the Land Commission we are trying to make more land available. We are continuing even closer consultations between the construction industry and the Scottish Office using the working party comprising representatives of the Scottish Association of Registered Housebuilders and the Scottish Development Department. Above all, we must build up the prosperity of Scotland so that far more people feel able to buy their own houses.

Does the Minister of State agree that the real reason is, not so much the lack of land, as the unreasonably low rents of local authority houses, which make rates so high on private houses? If this is not the reason, can he explain why proportionately such a vastly greater number of private houses are built in England and Wales? Wales is not any richer than Scotland. There must be some reason.

The Welsh do not pay so much for their houses. There are other points. Other comments could be made. It is wrong to fasten on one reason as there are many. The builders have agreed with us that action to counter the lack of availibility of land might help. We are tackling this task with some energy.

Does not the Minister of State agree that one of the reasons for rates being higher in Scotland is that industry is still derated by 50 per cent.? Is my hon. Friend further aware that I am not arguing that the rate burden on industry should be increased? Hon. Members opposite should remember that the rate burden must be borne by other people when industry is derated.

There are a number of points which we could debate for some time on this issue. To answer the question simply, I am aware that this is the impression. I do not know whether factually it is correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to terminate the feudal system in Scotland.

As my right hon. Friend announced in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) on 26th July last, he is having an intensive examination made of the possibility of major reform of the Scottish system of land tenure. In recent months officials have been in consultation with a number of bodies with a view to developing proposals.—[Vol. 751, c. 146.]

I am aware of what the Minister has just told the House. Is he aware that most of those concerned in Scotland—feu-ers, vassals and those who pay feu duties—would be quite satisfied if they were given the legal right to redeem their feu duties and if at the same time a legal right was given to planning authorities to over-rule those conditions contained in feu charters which affect planning?

These are among the proposals which have been reaching us. They will be considered.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that there have been many intensive examinations of the feudal system in Scotland, including one very authoritative one by an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland, Tom Johnston, into the noble families? Does not my hon. Friend realise that local authorities which build houses and which then wish to lay sewage pipes along river beds are being bled white as a result of this system? What we want is not intensive examination but action.

I will take that advice very much to heart. I assure my hon. Friend that noble families will be part of the matter under consideration at the end of this exercise.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in regard to the payment of multures when the mill concerned no longer exists.

These payments, whatever their origins, are now in effect land burdens and they will be considered as part of the examination of possible land tenure reform which my right hon. Friend announced on 26th July last in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie).—[Vol. 751, c. 146.]

I am very glad to hear that this is also under consideration, but is the Under-Secretary aware that in practically every case that I have examined the mill concerned no longer exists and it is an utterly obsolete conception that a man should pay a mill duty for the right to have his corn ground in a mill which probably has not existed for 100 years?

This is true. The multures still exist. Unfortunately, they have now established themselves as a recognised condition of the occupation of individual properties. I recognise their archaic nature. To some extent they were replaced by the Thirlage Act, 1799. They are still written into the system. They are one of the factors which we shall be reviewing.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that speedy legislation to sweep away the archaisms of practically 1,000 years would not be welcomed by every hon. Member on this side and that the burdens of landholding which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) existed even at the time of the last Liberal Government?

I am certainly aware that these burdens existed, both under the last Liberal Government and under other previous Governments. I think my hon. Friend was stressing that he would not want over-speedy action. I hope that a modicum of speed would not be unwelcome.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what cuts are envisaged in the school building pro- gramme in 1968 as a result of devaluation.

Capital expenditure on school building will be reduced by £2·4 million and £3·5 million in 1968–69 and 1969–70 respectively. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of Circular 667 on this matter, which my Department sent to education authorities on 23rd January.

Is the Under-Secretary aware, subject to his answer, that there may be differences of opinion in Scottish education circles about the school leaving age but that there is no difference of opinion about comprehensive education? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] There is very little difference of opinion in Scotland about comprehensive education. Will my hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that there will be no cuts in relation to the further movement towards comprehensive education in Scotland?

As my hon. Friend will see when he reads the Circular, one of the priorities that we have asked education authorities to adhere to is any key project for comprehensive reorganisation.

Is not that a shocking reply? Is not the Under-Secretary aware that what he has just said flies completely in the face of the assurance given to the House by the Prime Minister that there would be no cut in the education building programme?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. It was obviously clear from my right hon. Friend's statement on 16th January that the reason for deferring the raising of the school leaving age was to make these savings in school building in 1968–69 and 2 1969–70.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what examination he has made of the financial and social burdens falling on exporting local authorities under overspill agreements; and if he will make a statement.

At present Glasgow is the only Scottish exporting authority. A continuing examination of the complex financial problems and social consequences is proceeding both within the Government and in conjunction with the Corporation of the city of Glasgow, the local authority associations and a number of other bodies.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that he has my support in his sympathetic approach to Glasgow, even though the rate support grant exercise has been a failure? In the light of the persistent political prejudice against Glasgow Corporation on behalf of commercial undertakings, which suggest that it is only due to a low rent policy, will my hon. Friend agree to set up a high-powered independent committee to examine the social and financial implications of overspill?

On the second point, my hon. Friend will know what I said in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). That is a separate matter which is being studied by Ministers presently in the light of facts and points submitted to them on the 1st and 14th December. On the second point, my hon. Friend is wrong in saying that the adjustment of the rate support grant has failed. This matter is still being discussed with the local authority associations among themselves in the working party which has met at St. Andrews House several times this month and which will continue its meetings until later this year, when it can make recommendations. As for the meetings of Glasgow Corporation, I think that they begin on 22nd March for the purpose of discussing this. If my hon. Friend wants any figures, which are complex, I shall be happy to write to him.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what savings in expenditure by local authorities are estimated arising from the circular issued on 18th December, 1967; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend cannot yet make an estimate because some local authorities have not yet reported, and some will wish to review their decisions in the light of his discussion with the local authority associations on 26th January.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had in relation to the siting in Scotland of the headquarters of the Meat and Livestock Commission; and if he will make a statement.

I have received various representations, including those sent to me by the hon. Gentleman, on the suitability for this purpose of locations in Montrose, Perth and Cumbernauld.

The location of the Commission's headquarters is still under consideration, and I have nothing to add to what was said on the subject on 24th January by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.—[Vol. 757, c. 403–4.]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that no final decision has yet been taken regarding the location of the headquarters? Second, will he accept our assurance that, in his efforts to secure the headquarters for Scotland, he will have the support of every Scottish Member?

I am quite sure of that. We have the support of Scottish Members for anything which we think is right for Scotland. However, we must take a balanced view on this question. It is a matter which affects the whole of the United Kingdom, affecting all producers, distributors and traders. No final decision has yet been reached.

Is not Ayrshire a great agricultural county, and would not the ideal place be the town of Ayr?

I am not sure that I agree that Ayrshire is just a great agricultural county. I think that it is the greatest agricultural county. We must not understate our advantages in Ayrshire. However, having certain advantages, we must be prepared to give way to others who are more in need of additional support

Will the Secretary of State impress upon his right hon. Friends the value of the staff of between 150 and 250 which the Meat Commission will employ to a town in Scotland like several of those which have been mentioned? Further, if the matter is still just in the balance, will the right hon. Gentleman throw in a little of his charm and make certain that we get the headquarters?

I shall do what I can in proclaiming the advantages of having it in Scotland. But there are other considerations as well. I should like to think that mine was the decisive voice, but it is one of the voices.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the close estimates already required from and submitted by grant-aided schools in Scotland for the financial year 1967–68 will be allowed to have added to them the salary increases due to teachers in April 1968 before being treated as the final estimates for the year.

No, Sir.

Do the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend appreciate the significance of that reply? We have already been warned that there are cuts in the direct grants to schools, and we are now being advised, are we not, that parents will face a double blow when the close estimates become final? Is it the Minister's intention to destroy grant-aided schools. or does he intend to force them to be independent of the State school system?

The cuts already announced in the assistance to grant-aided schools have been very modest. In a. period when Government expenditure as a whole is being cut, it is only right that the grant-aided schools should bear their part of the burden.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is proposing to take in order to prepare a report on Scottish trade statistics similar to the Catto Report of 1952.

It is not practicable for the reasons given in the Catto Report itself, to prepare comprehenseive trade statistics for Scotland, although records of overseas trade through Scottish ports are now published in the Digest of Scottish Statistics.

Does the Minister of State fully realise that, since last November or thereabouts when there was a prominent by-election, the relationship of Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom has been a subject of vast concern in Scotland? Will he reconsider his view on this matter and consider a Commission which might investigate the total financial relationship, including foreign policy and defence, of Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom?

To the first part of that supplementary question, the answer is "Yes, Sir". In reply to the second part, I remind the hon. Gentleman that many industrial and commercial firms have establishments on both sides of the Border and could not produce meaningful trade statistics except in relation to their operations as a whole. Whether we should be justified in setting up such a Commission or employing additional civil servants and, at the same time, asking these firms to give us a breakdown of returns, I do not know. At present, I am inclined to think not.

Was the Minister's point about its not being practicable made with reference to expense? If so, is he aware that the known cost of Catto was only £900 for printing and publishing, and many investigations cost a great deal more than that?

The hon. Lady has missed the point. It has nothing to do with the actual expense as such. It has to do with the employment of manpower, not just in the public sector but also in relation to the demands which we should have to make on many industrial and commercial firms which have establishments in both Scotland and England in asking them to break down their accounts. This is the trouble we have to face in this matter. I would ask the hon. Lady not to make guesses at these things but to realise how complicated the whole matter is.

Is my hon. Friend aware that an effort to analyse how much of the "Queen Elizabeth II", which is assembled in Scotland, is produced in Scotland and what comes from England and other parts of the United Kingdom would be a fantastic operation to carry out in every firm concerned? It would be ridiculous to waste money on this exercise.

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I should add that the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) does good service for Scotland in giving us estimates of exports from Scotland to overseas markets. But the Council would never pretend that these are exact. They are not official returns, and, moreover, they require a great deal of willingness on the part of firms in Scotland which help in giving the information.

This is a perfectly reasonable request. Is not the Minister aware that there is a good deal of concern in Scotland on this matter and it is quite reasonable to ask that the question be settled once and for all? Even if it is not possible to obtain precise information, would not an approximation be of some value?

I would say "Yes" to the first and second points which the hon. Gentleman makes. As to the third, there would never be any satisfaction in having approximate figures. We must do it properly or not at all. I have explained the immense difficulties in having it done, in the demands it would make on the Government and—I emphasise this—on private industry, too.

I appreciate the great difficulties in carrying out such a survey, but will my hon. Friend give further thought to it? Scottish people like the truth, and there are so many misleading statements on this subject made in Scotland. Would it not be a good thing if we had the truth?

I have never yet said "No" to my right hon. Friend. Yes, Ma'am.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scotland's hauliers and lorry drivers about the Transport Bill; and what reply he has sent.

None, apart from representations from the Traders' Road Transport Association and a circular from the Road Haulage Association. My right hon. Friend has replied, reaffirming the Government's view that the Bill will increase the efficiency of transport services to the Scottish economy but that certain technical aspects of the Bill, in particular the provisions about abnormal loads, are being specially considered by the Transport Committee of the Scottish Economic Planning Council.

That reply is totally unsatisfactory. Does not the Minister recognise that there are two additional points at issue which are of extreme importance to Scotland's economy: first, the rise in costs due to transport charges, estimated in my part of the world at a minimum of 20 per cent.; second, the need for flexibility, particularly for exporters and those engaged in the food and fish industries, who are directly threatened by the provisions of the Bill?

With respect, there has been a great deal of nonsense uttered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, either through ignorance or because they are misinterpreting the Bill's provisions. It is quite wrong of them to go about the country saying what they are saying, without proper examination of the Bill.

The answer I gave was an exact and precise answer to the Question. If there are further representations to be made to us, Scottish Ministers would be happy to receive them.

Does my hon. Friend realise, from representations which I have made to him, that the hauliers and carriers in Aberdeen associated with the fish trade regard the Bill as a threat to their existence? Will he make representations to the Minister of Transport accordingly?

The Minister of Transport has received copies of any representations from the organisations I have mentioned or from my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite immediately they have come to our office. She is aware of them. But, as I said, there is a great deal of exaggeration. I admit that fears are being raised because of misunderstanding about the Bill and we shall do all we can to allay them. There is a great deal of misreading of the Bill's provisions.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it customary to discuss on the Floor of the House the provisions of a Bill which is at present being considered by a Standing Committee?

It may be referred to.

Do the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State consider that the Bill, if enacted in its present form, will be good for Scotland?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what cuts will take place in the housing programme in 1968 as a result of devaluation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he estimates is the annual saving on housing under the new economy cuts.

The number of public sector houses approved in 1968 and 1969 will be about 34,500 and 36,500, respectively, which is 1,500 less in each year than we had expected to approve. This should reduce housing investment by about £2 million and £5 million in the financial years 1968–69 and 1969–70, respectively.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the case has now been made for no housing cuts in Scotland because of the recent storm damage? Although hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the fact that we are building more houses than ever, a response such as I have suggested would, I am sure, receive the appreciation of the House.

I think that my hon. Friend is aware from the official returns that not only was last year a record one for completions in Scotland but that we approved a large number of houses, which will ensure that we achieve the figure of 50,000, given sufficient private sector development, in 1970. I have met on behalf of my noble Friend the conveners of 40 authorities in the past four or five days, and I have assured them that no houses will be taken from the list if they are related to economic growth, replace unfit houses, or are in an area which has a serious local shortage. On my hon. Friend's point about the storm damage, my right hon. Friend is waiting to see the final outcome of the disaster.

Can my hon. Friend also give us an assurance that there will be no cut in the allowance of houses to local authorities with a long waiting list?

Yes, Sir.

Did the Minister say that it remains the Government's intention to build 50,000 houses in 1970? If so, has he clearance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that statement?

What I have said is that we still hope to be able to build 38,000 houses in the public sector and 12,000 in the private sector. I have been trying to make these matters clear to private builders in the past few days, and there are reports in the Press today about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the Scottish Fishing Protection Squadron is at sufficient strength to protect Scottish fisheries; and if he will make a statement.

I think my Department's fishery cruisers are generally effective in keeping down infringements of the regulations governing methods of fishing. The strength of the fleet is, however, one aspect of the protection service which will be looked at by the committee of inquiry which my right hon. Friend announced on 8th December last.—[Vol. 755 c. 423–4.]

Does the Minister agree that with the partial lifting of the 3-mile limit for the inshore fishermen part of the strength of his squadron can now be deployed in keeping foreigners at bay? What plans has he for the use of helicopters to strengthen the squadron in the future?

The question of the use of helicopters will be within the remit of the committee, and I should not like to comment on that. A great deal of the problem of foreign vessels is the responsibilrty of the naval protection service.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied as to the level of the incentives to the Scottish agricultural, fishing and forestry industries to expand in the national interest; if he will given an assurance that they will be exempted from the cut-backs in public expenditure: and if he will make a statement.

The level of incentives for agriculture will be closely scrutinised during the Annual Review. I cannot anticipate the outcome. As to the fishing industry, I have nothing to add to the reply that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 24th January. The rate of grants for private forestry under the dedication and related schemes is under review.

As to the second part of the Question, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply he received from my hon. Friend, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 24th January.—[Vol. 757, c. 398, Vol. 757, c. 111.]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, with a good deal more sympathetic help from the Government, the resources of Scotland could supply much of the food which we now import?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that he will not expect a reply in advance of the outcome of the review.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that up to £10 a day is now charged in many Scottish rivers for a day's salmon fishing? Does he think that that helps to increase the food supply for Scotland or the fishing owners' rights? Can he do anything to deal with those charges?

That is a little outside the Question on the fishing industry here, but I assure my hon. Friend that we have been looking into it under the Hunter Report. There is another Question on the Order Paper to which I am giving an Answer today. But I could tell my hon. Friend of other rivers where he could fish for a lot less than £10 a day.

Although the right hon. Gentleman has been obliged to go into purdah on the subject of the Review, will he admit that the fall in Scotland's food output in the past three years must show that the present incentives are totally inadequate?

That fall may not be related to incentives. The hon. Gentleman will remember the bad autumn for hill farming which we had about two years ago. That was not related to incentives but rather to the weather of the previous winter.

Order. The Chair tries to protect the interests of hon. Members who put Questions on the Order Paper, but it is rather difficult if the supplementary questions and answers in the exchanges become long, as they have become today. We have had only 28 Questions today.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to raise with you a point of order, of which I have given you private notice. It appears that under Rulings which, I think, have not been publicly promulgated, a limit is being applied by the Table Office to the number of words that may be included in a Parliamentary Question intended for Oral Answer, and it also appears—as, for example, from Question No. 80 today— that there is a certain variety in the application of these unpublished rules. It would be of great assistance to right hon. and hon. Members if you would be prepared to give us some guidance as to the limit which you in your wisdom intend to apply so that hon. Members may not in their innocence offend.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice. The limit to which he refers has been applied for many years, but I think he is right in suggesting that private Rulings made by Speakers from time to time on this matter might very well be made public. My own researches show that the only existing public Ruling on this issue was given by Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown on 6th April, 1943, in c. 472 of HANSARD, when he insisted that Questions should not exceed ten lines, which is equivalent to something over 100 words.

Since that date, the Table has had to cope with an ever-increasing number of Questions and from time to time has advised Mr. Speaker on the need to keep the limit under review. Several private Rulings by my predecessors made the limit 100 words, and in May 1966, on advice, I asked the Table Office to limit the length of an Oral Question to roughly 70 words, counting the necessary periphrases as one word and using discretion in cases of special difficulty.

I agree that a further public Ruling on this may well be helpful, and, indeed, perhaps that it might have been made some time between 1943 and 1968. On the whole, the limit of 70 words seems to have worked effectively and economically over the past few years, and right hon. and hon. Members have accepted the guidance of the Table. The average length of Questions is 30 to 40 words. If, however, the House felt the limit to be unnecessarily cramping, we would revert to the earlier limit of 100 words.

On the other issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I would say that the Table is human and, no doubt, sometimes errs in applying what is, after all, a rule-of-thumb method. I would point out, however, that right hon. and hon. Members can always appeal to Mr. Speaker if they are troubled about a decision of the Table. It is a tribute both to right hon. and hon. Members and to the Table that such an appeal vary rarely happens, and I think that the House would wish me to take this opportunity of expressing its sincere appreciation of all the diligent and helpful work of the Table Office, to which we give an enormous amount of detailed work every week.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, may I respectfully thank you for that very clear Ruling, and also, if I may, associate myself with what you have said about the Clerks at the Table and the servants of the House. May I ask for clarification of one further point? My submission related to Oral Questions. Would you indicate whether the same or other limit applies to Questions for Written Answers?

I would say, by and large, roughly to both. We have to consider the economics of the Order Paper.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I revert to your comment concerning Scottish Questions today? We only dealt with 28 Questions today. May I ask whether it is possible to draw this matter to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure and suggest that the services of the Scottish Grand Committee might be more profitably used?

We are sent here to probe and examine the actions of the Executive, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland has responsibilities equivalent to those of nine different English Ministers. Yet Questions to the Secretary of State for Oral Answer appear once in five weeks on the Order Paper. Scottish Members therefore are unable to carry out their proper duties.

As one who attended Burns' Night last Saturday, I am not unaware of the problem. Indeed, it has been raised on the Floor of the House several times, but it is not a matter for me. It is for the House itself to decide.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If Questions had been put down to the Secretary of State for last Monday, they would have been reached.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you were answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), you indicated that Questions for Written Answer would also have the same limitation. Could I draw your attention to the fact that, since there is no limit to the number of Questions for Written Answer, if there was a limit to the length of Written Questions, this would really mean that more such Questions would be put down.

There is no doubt that if any Ruling is made by Mr. Speaker and approved by the House ingenious hon. Members will seek to circumvent it.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we be allowed to associate ourselves with your tribute to the Table? If the House were as sensible as the Table, it would be far more efficient. Will you also accept the suggestion that an hon. Member who cannot put a Question in less than 70 words deserves to be sent back to elementary school?

I am sure that the Table will note the tribute and the modest reference the hon. Gentleman made to himself in company with other right hon. and hon. Members.