asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now take steps to take into public ownership fishing rights on all Scottish lochs and rivers.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this would probably be the most popular measure which the Government could introduce? It would have the almost universal acceptance and agreement of anglers in Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to stop the Hydro-Electric Board, a public corporation, from selling off to the highest bidder fishing rights on the River Awe? This is a scandal which ought not to be tolerated by the Scottish Office or by anybody in this House.

Quite a large part of the salmon fishing in rivers and also in lochs is already publicly-owned by the Crown Estate Commissioners, the High- lands and Islands Development Board, the Forestry Commission and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and this has brought no particular advantages to the public or to anglers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the sale of these fishing rights by the Board has not followed any pressure from the Government? The right hon. Gentleman indicated that this was a commercial decision by the board. It is not a commercial decision but a social one, and for that reason the Government should intervene and prevent the sale.

This is a decision taken entirely by the board itself, and questions about the reasons for it had best be addressed to the board.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the proposal to site a firing range near Tain; and what reply he has sent.

Five, including one petition. Until the consultations being carried out by the Ministry of Defence have been completed, it is not possible to reply to the substance of these representations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to adduce any evidence at all that there would be advantage to my constituents in Sutherland from the location of this firing range which might offset to any degree the patent damage to the amenity of the area from a tourist point of view, the threat to fishing from the port of Helmsdale and possible interference with flying from the new feeder airstrip at Dornoch?

I cannot comment on the substance of the matter until the consultations are ended. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) has been actively engaged in helping those in Ross and Cromarty to ascertain the facts. There was a test firing on Monday, and yesterday the Press reported some of the reactions. I am determined to get as many good and lasting jobs as possible in Scotland, and I shall continue to do that until there are seen to be overriding objections.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that these are not the types of jobs we want in the Highlands? We have an excess of defence establishments which are too dangerous, too unpleasant and too anti-social for Scotland. These are the things that have been dumped on Scotland and they are not wanted. We want reasonable and fair development that will give a chance to the people to live in a pleasant environment instead of having to put up with schemes and projects which have been rejected elsewhere.

I do not accept that general proposition. These jobs are good and lasting. The problem is whether the firing and anything else that goes with the testing of these weapons would be damaging to amenity or cause injury in some way in the neighbourhood.

Is this the firing range that was hawked around West Wales and Galloway?

This is part of what is at present at Shoeburyness which the Ministry of Defence found could not be fitted in at Galloway where there is already an RAF establishment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has recently had with the North-East of Scotland Water Board; and if he will make a statement.

Following representations which the board recently made to my right hon. Friend, he is arranging for discussions to be held with the board shortly about future responsibility for water supply in South Kincardineshire.

When the Minister meets the board, will he recollect from the correspondence that both the board and Kincardine County Council regard his proposals to treat South Kincardine as an added area to the East of Scotland Water Board as a departure from the principles of the Wheatley Commission Report and the Government's White Paper? How can he justify this bearing in mind that he does not regard these proposals as being necessarily permanent? Will he meet the board with an open mind?

We are aware of the points made by the hon. Gentleman and others and by the board, and these will be carefully borne in mind in the discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for the Scottish Development Department to carry out a study into the number of jobs which are likely to be lost in Scotland during the next 12 months.

The Scottish Office and the other Departments concerned are already in close touch with employment trends in Scotland.

Does the Minister accept that as long as unemployment in Scotland remains at its present level any decision to pay off people in the nationalised industries is a political decision? Following yesterday's monstrous and appalling announcement connected with the steel industry, is there no limit to the misery and demoralisation which the present pathetically ineffective Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to accept for the working people of Scotland?

I would not accept any of the epithets which the hon. Gentleman has thought up during the morning. I remind him that in the midst of our concern at the announcement which was made by the steel industry—which is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—we should bear in mind three things. First, in the terms of the hon. Gentleman's question, there are no redundancies within the next 12 months. Secondly, the objective, stated in yesterday's announcement, is to modernise the Scottish steel industry, which is something I should have thought all of us would have supported. Thirdly, there will be considerably more than £60 million new investment in the Scottish steel industry, which also ought to be welcomed.

Is it not a somewhat dangerous precedent for an announcement of this character, affecting the long-term strategy of the corporation in deciding to close the open hearth furnace in question, to be made in such a situation and not to be made in the House, particularly bearing in mind that on 8th May we had a statement on the future long-term strategy for the industry, when we were given a clear assurance that this was being discussed between the BSC and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and that no announcement would be made until later this year? Was my hon. Friend consulted about this matter? Does not he regard this as a dangerous precedent?

Most of the points made by my hon. Friend—I readily recognise his concern and that of other hon. Members—should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. On my hon. Friend's other point, the steel industry has to make its announcements like any other industry. If hon. Members on the Opposition benches object to that, they might have thought of that before they nationalised it.

Will the hon. Gentleman try to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement on this matter, which is extremely important for all of us in Scotland? Will the hon. Gentleman do his utmost to ensure that whatever steel-making capacity in Scotland is put out, it is replaced with at least the equivalent amount, so that we are not put in a position of having to import crude steel from England for rolling in Scotland? Will he further ensure that effective action is taken over the period to ensure that any redundancies which occur are made good by new jobs being brought into the area?

In reply to the hon. Gentleman's last point, I consider it important that at all times we should have a vigorous policy of attracting new industry to replace the jobs lost, whether they are in the steel industry or in anything else. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken exceptional steps to achieve this, introducing the best system of regional incentives we have ever had. This policy is in the interests of all of us, particularly those with constituents involved. It should be borne in mind that the background to what was said yesterday was a modernisation of the industry in Scotland. It is perfectly clear that the steel industry has in mind that Scotland will be one of its major parts in the future and that will be reassuring to some of us.

Is it not hypocrisy by right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition, who sacrificed the independence of the Scottish steel industry on the altar of nationalisation, now to moan about the consequences?

I remember my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), warning us about this when the Bill to nationalise the industry was going through Parliament. However, I do not remember any sympathy for their point of view from the present Opposition.

If the British Steel Corporation decision announced yesterday was a plan for the modernisation of the Scottish steel industry, why is not the Under-Secretary making a statement today about the future of the integrated green fields site at Hunterston? In my constituency we do not need any study to see how many jobs will be lost. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Garnock valley 54 per cent. of the male population at present employed at Glengarnock will lose their jobs? It is no surprise that we in Scotland will have to pay for the Government's policy of entering Europe.

The hon. Gentleman spoils his case by wrongly stating what was said perfectly clearly in the newspapers. Dr. Finniston took particular trouble to explain the position about Glengarnock. The hon. Gentleman ought to be fair and make that clear. It does none of us any good to exaggerate the situation with which we are faced.

Is not the most serious part of the Under-Secretary's answer the suggestion that the Secretary of State is now side-stepping his responsibilities for the Scottish economy? Will he bear in mind that, whilst we welcome the modernisation, we have been pressing continuously for Scotland's share in a new modernised steel industry, and the Secretary of State has committed his whole reputation to steel developments at Hunterston? Are we to take it that he has resigned from that position? If he has, would not it be better to resign from the position he holds in the Government?

The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that my right hon. Friend is side-stepping nothing and that his responsibilities in this matter are precisely the same as were the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. It does the right hon. Gentleman's case and reputation no good to twist and distort these facts, because as he has presented them they are quite out of tune with the real facts.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase per annum is estimated on energy demand in Scotland over the next 10 years; and what influence it will have in his future responsibilities for the siting of new power stations.

The Scottish electricity boards' estimate of future demand and their proposals for meeting it are set out in their booklet "Plans for the Future 1971–78", copies of which were placed in the Vote Office in January. I shall continue to reach decisions on the siting of new power stations in the light of likely load demands and under the appropriate statutory procedures.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will be regarded as very evasive? It is well known that because of the policy of the present Government in running down the state of the economy, we have not had the growth in energy that we should have had if we had had a Government which had been able to pursue policies of economic growth. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that, despite the follies of a Tory Chancellor in trying to manage the economy, Scotland will not be robbed of any new economic energy potential envisaged by the Government?

On the first point, unlike the previous Government, the present Government's policy is aimed at promoting growth. On the second point, I can give the assurance requested.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his Administration is not to publish the Vinter Report? Will he accept that from the point of view of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board it is absolutely essential that a decision should be made as soon as possible concerning a power station at Stake Ness?

As I have stated before, further supplies of electricity will be required in the area of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in 1978. There is no doubt that the necessary power station will be built and will be in operation by that date.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be paying an official visit to the Bothwell constituency.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

Is the Secretary of State aware that that is the sort of answer we expected from him bearing in mind yesterday's announcement? Is he further aware that, even before the announcement was made, we had 1,682 young people under the age of 18 unemployed in Lanarkshire and that 182 of them left school at the Christmas period and have not yet found employment? Will he now come and tell the people of Lanarkshire and Scotland as a whole what he intends to do for them? Will he for a change tell us something which we can believe? If not, will he resign?

All this seems to be based on the fact that I did not have a plan before the hon. Gentleman tabled his Question to visit his constituency in the near future. I should be delighted to do so. I have done a great deal of travelling in Scotland in recent weeks and months.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to provide persons who are entitled to invalid cars but who forgo them with cash grants to cover the full cost of adapting their own cars.

No, Sir. People who forgo invalid cars are given an allowance of £100 per annum towards the cost of maintaining their own vehicle.

If the local authorities decide that the extent of a person's disablement justifies the award of an invalid car, should not that person be entitled to forfeit the car for the equivalent of a cash grant to enable him or her to provide his own transport with an extra seat so that he may have his wife or spouse or other company in case of breakdown on lonely roads? Is not this a sensible proposition?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that there are a number of alternative options open to pensioners under the latest scheme. Every individual case must be looked at on its merits. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would let me have details of any case he has in mind.

Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again? There are many cases of individual hardship where it would cost the Exchequer less to provide cash for people to adapt their own cars and at the same time, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has rightly pointed out, they could take their spouse or their boy friend or girl friend with them, because many of them are young people. I urge my hon. Friend to look at the matter again.

I note what my hon. Friend says. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has requested Baroness Sharp to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into this whole subject. We hope to have the results of the inquiry later this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the value of orders placed with the United Kingdom machine tool industry by educational institutions under his control coming within the scope of the current temporary scheme for 100 per cent. Exchequer grants; and what has been the average cost per machine ordered.

At 16th June, 1972, 42 applications, involving some 150 items of equipment for further education colleges and central institutions, were being processed by my Department. The average cost per item applied for is about £2,900.

Should not educational institutions be encouraged to use this scheme, which after all is financed entirely by the taxpayer, to equip themselves with machine tools of genuine industrial application? Surely it is not possible to obtain much more than a tiny machine for the sums my hon. Friend referred to in his answer. Should not educational institutions be encouraged now to buy sophisticated machine tools, preferably of Scottish manufacture?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has given publicity to this very worthwhile scheme. The more expensive machine tools are not ruled out. Applications are considered on their merits. So far the most expensive machine for which an application has been received is one costing £28,000.

The Under-Secretary will be aware of last week's decision to run down by one-half one of our last machine tool factories—in Johnstone, Renfrewshire. If the Government are sidestepping on steel work, cannot the Under-secretary encourage his right hon. Friend at least to intervene in this situation to advance the buying of machine tools for all matters that are under his control?

The applications must come from the education authorities. I hope they will all bear in mind what hon. Members on both sides have said.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the precautions taken in Scottish hospitals against the possible contamination of glucose solutions, saline solutions, and other substances used in transfusions; and if he will make a statement.

I have asked Scottish hospital authorities to re-examine urgently their existing methods of production of these solutions in the light of the recommendations set out in the "Guide to Good Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Practice" published by the Department of Health and Social Security.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a considerable degree of gratification at the fact that he is embarking upon a course which might well save the lives of a number of people? Will he take into consideration the fact that it is possible to devise a test which could be applied just before a solution is used on a patient? If that is not possible in every case, it certainly is possible for solutions to be tested one day or two days in advance to be used a couple of days afterwards. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, although we fully complement him on what he has done so far, there are other moves he can make to prevent tragedies occuring in Scottish hospitals similar to the tragedies which have occurred in other parts of the United Kingdom?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, my right hon. Friend said on 4th May that only sample testing is possible because bottles tested cannot subsequently be used. The procedures are being looked into by the Medicines Commission. If the hon. Gentleman has a system that he believes we should know about, perhaps he will let us know.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons were in prisons in Scotland at the most recent date for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures five, 10 and 15 years previously.

On 6th June, 1972, there was a total of 4,337 persons in custody in Scottish prisons and young offenders institutions. Figures for particular dates in the earlier years are not available, but the corresponding average daily figures in the years 1967, 1962 and 1957 were 3,424, 2,702 and 1,922.

As the figures demonstrate that the prison population in Scotland has more than doubled in 15 years, will my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied with the existing provision of prison accommodation and what plans he has to increase it in the future?

There is overcrowding. A new male young offenders institution of 500 places is now under construction at Glenochil and one for 220 places for women and girls at Cornton Vale. These are scheduled for completion in 1974. The numbers in custody I gave for June this year are 250 less than in June last year.

When planning future provision for the prison service, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the need not only to build more places where people can be detained but to embark, on a much more ambitious scale than has yet been thought of, on devices for rehabilitating people and trying to give them constructive work, particularly young offenders, so that they can be returned to work at the earliest possible time, thus reducing the number in custody?

All these matters are also under consideration. I am glad to say that the Scottish Council on Crime, which was recently brought into existence, will also be considering these matters.

What information does the Secretary of State have or is he seeking to get on the connection between high unemployment among frustrated young people and the incidence of crime? Although there is no substitute for job opportunity, will the right hon. Gentleman look sympathetically at any social schemes which will take up the interests of young people?

This also can be looked into, but I do not know of any direct relationship having been brought to my notice in this regard.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now grant powers under Section 41 of the Health Services Act, 1968, to executive councils to erect practice premises in remote areas out with the Highlands.

Executive councils may provide residential or practice accommodation for a family doctor only if they are authorised by my right hon. Friend in view of the special circumstances of a particular case. Such cases are not limited solely to the Highlands and Islands but arise only exceptionally outside that area.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that Kirkmaiden, or Maidenkirk, as it is sometimes called, is at the extreme end of Scotland from John o' Groats and, therefore, is remote? Is he prepared to be flexible in this matter and to consider again the representation from Galloway Executive Council?

Authority might be given if the circumstances can be shown to be sufficiently special. Areas like the Mull of Galloway and Whithorn will need careful consideration and I shall certainly give them that consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the approved complement of social workers in Scotland were employed at 31st May, 1972.

This figure is not available. The latest returns relate to December, 1970, and show that 98 per cent. of the local authorities' complement for basic grade social workers was filled at that time.

Will the Under-Secretary accept that various social work departments, particularly those connected with children's panels, are complaining about an inadequacy of social workers to carry out the work involved? I honestly and sincerely request the Under-Secretary to investigate the problem. If the complement is found to be too low he should look at the possibility of increasing it and making sure that all the staff that are required are in training and eventually come into service.

The establishment of social work departments is certainly growing rapidly and I want it to do so. That is why I am encouraging very rapid expansion in training facilities for social workers. The number of qualified social workers completing training in 1972 will be about 240 compared with 112 in 1970 and I expect the figure will double again by 1975.

The figure the Minister gave was for the basic grade and he knows that we are concerned about the fully-trained grade. Is he aware that the real problem is finding supervised field placements for students? Would he consider giving local authorities more money to allow additional financing of student field teachers to allow more training and to allow more people to move from the basic training grades to the fully-trained grades?

I will have to look at the point the hon. Member has raised. The Government are making substantially more money available for social work than ever before and I know that the whole House will agree with that policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland with which bodies he has had discussions on the future of school camps.

My right hon. Friend has consulted the constituent bodies of the Scottish National Camps Association, which represent the great majority of organisations presently making use of the school camps.

In anticipation of a favourable reply on 30th June, can the discussion be widened into the provision of specialist facilities, perhaps for music, for secondary pupils?

There are no special facilities in existing camps, although education authorities run courses for sport, music and the arts at them. But this is a point we will have to look at in our discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will act on the recommendations contained in the Scottish Council's Road Committee report published last week.

My right hon. Friend is at present considering the report.

Will the Under-Secretary accept that this is a very interesting document which is constructively critical of the inadequacy of the present road programme? Can he hold out hope, as a result of the study, for increased expenditure on the road network?

It is too early to draw conclusions because the report was published only on 31st May, but we are considering it very carefully and there are many points of interest in it. We will take them all fully into account before sending a reply to the council.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the cereal crop grown in Scotland can be stored on farms by the growers.

My information is that at least three-quarters of the Scottish cereal crop can be stored on farms by the growers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the change in cereal marketing which will come next year on joining the Common Market, adequate provision of storage facilities is essential if the price of grain in the early part of this year is not to fall disastrously?

I agree that the question of storage is important. We do not have information about storage facilities in individual farms but we are aware of the general capacity.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is able to announce the name of the person who will be nominated to fill the vacancy on Irvine Development Corporation.

Ayr County Council nominated four persons, in the usual way, from whom my right hon. Friend could appoint one to fill the vacancy. The person he invited has refused the appointment. My right hon. Friend is considering the situation.

That is a disgraceful answer and one that we would expect from a Tammany Hall-type of politician. Is not the Under-Secretary prepared to accept the original nominatiton of Councillor Bob Beattie made to him by Ayr County Council? Is the Under-Secretary afraid that Councillor Beattie would be no "yes man" but would stand up and speak up for the unfortunate citizens of Irvine new town, who have to suffer the Tory political attitudes of the Tory-dominated new town board?

I am not very sure what is an exact descriptiton of a "no yes man", but I will think about that later. My right hon. Friend has many responsibilities but I do not think one of them can be for people who are invited to join a board refusing to accept nomination. That is the simple situation. My answer was factual and particularly straightforward.

Is there any departure from past practice in the peculiar situation at Irvine, where the new town is astride two authorities and where the county council is also involved, so that three local authority representatives are required?

There has been no departure from the practice which is for the county council to nominate several persons of whom one is selected by the Secretary of State.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Development Department to make a special study of the forms of employment subsidy which would be suitable for Scottish industry.

No, Sir. Following a comprehensive review of regional policies we have decided on the measures which we consider necessary to stimulate industrial and regional regeneration and we are now seeking the powers to implement them.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that he has not referred to the future of the regional employment premium? This involves a case of confusion doubly confounded, because in 1970 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it was to be abolished in 1974. After the Government's change of front on regional policy, the Chancellor said it would be phased out after 1974. There is now total uncertainty in the minds of incoming industrialists whether REP will be paid after 1974 and in what amounts. Does that not greatly diminish the incentive effect of the system and is it not high time that the Government made an announcement about its future, because it is worth £50 million a year to Scotland?

Details of the regional employment premium would be for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to deal with. I appreciate the hon. Member's point about industrialists needing to know the position, but we have given them an assurance that REP will continue until September, 1974, and thereafter it will be phased out. We shall consult all those concerned to find how best this can be done.

There may be more to be said for a congestion tax on the areas of over-development in the South and the Midlands rather than an extension of REP. Would my hon. Friend consider the possibility that even the extension of REP would be of greater value to the economy of Scotland than the heavily capital-intensive biassed incentives provided in the Industry Bill.

Both those questions are for my right hon. Friends and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) will put them to them.

Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that his plan takes sufficient account of transport and freight rates which have been stressed again and again in nearly all inquiries into employment in Scotland? In many parts of Scotland, owing to the constant draining off of top jobs, there is a shortage of people coming forward for skilled jobs of all kinds— entrepreneurial, accountancy, costing and so on. What steps are being taken to put this right?

Transport costs do not fall uniformly on all types of industry, but there are some types in which they are a particularly important factor. On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, there are some local shortages of persons for particular jobs in Scotland, but the general position is that we have people available for jobs and I continually stress this in trying to attract new industry

But surely the Scottish Development Department and the advisory committee which advises the Secretary of State should look at the best way of replacing REP. It is essential that we should get going with this, bringing pressure to bear on the other Ministers concerned, particularly on the Treasury, because it is a vital matter to Scottish industry.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State certainly has those sources of advice and he makes very good use of them frequently. But the new package of regional incentives is, by common consent, the best we have ever had and we should make the best of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of proposals to reduce the number of geriatric beds available in Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy; and what action he proposes to change this decision.

Yes. There is an urgent need for additional beds for orthopaedic surgery in the area which can be provided only at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy and the regional hospital board proposes to use 16 geriatric assessment beds for this purpose. The change of use will not take place until 35 additional geriatric beds have been made available at Cameron Hospital by adaptation of existing accommodation.

While we appreciate the additional beds envisaged, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the matter has been under discussion for more than a year, which in no way indicates the urgency of the problem in Fife, where old people are dying in tragic and distressing circumstances before they can be admitted to geriatric beds? Will he therefore press the regional hospital board to deal with the matter as one of extreme urgency and get the beds as soon as possible?

I am aware of the urgency as a result of the deputation the hon. Gentleman led to meet me at St. Andrew's House. It is in 1973 that the adaptation of beds will take place. In the long-term programme there are 275 beds to be provided for geriatric patients in Fife. They will go a long way to alleviating the problem. We are not forgetting the urgency.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to make compulsory the introduction of controls at all gatherings in Scotland in order to ensure the safe handling of crowds of people; and if he will assist financially those organisations which, owing to lack of money, may find it difficult to adopt his measures.

I have no proposals for general legislation of the kind suggested. So far as sports grounds are concerned I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture on 24th May.—[Vol. 837, c. 367.]

The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has no proposals to meet my proposition is no excuse for his doing nothing about it. Does he realise that this is an important problem? Will he have another thought about it and realise that it is necessary to do something about it?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well my concern about the subject and that the Government have indicated their acceptance in principle of the recommendations of Lord Wheatley's report on crowd safety at sports grounds. We have started the very important consultations with all the interested parties.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the capital cost involved in the construction of oil terminals for power stations on the Forth.

Facilities are being provided by the South of Scotland Electricity Board for the bulk delivery of flashing oil by sea to Cockenzie and Longannet power stations. The estimated capital cost is £260,000.

That is a surprisingly large sum just to take on board flashing oil. Can the hon. Gentleman give us the assurance that the jetties or terminals will not be used for fuel oil in any possible conversion of the power stations?

That decision is a matter for the commercial judgment of the board concerned and it is done within its budget previously approved by my right hon. Friend. No station can be converted without permission being granted, and that is a matter which would be considered in due course if such a proposal were made.

In particular reference to Longannet, is the Minister aware that there is a feeling, particularly among the BP tanker drivers at Grangemouth, that the Government and the SSEB are engaged in reprisals for what happened during the recent miners' strike, and that there is grave concern in the area about the seepage of oil from the shallow-draught tankers delivering the oil? The Minister should look at the problem before the Government are faced with a very serious situation.

This is a matter for the commercial judgment of the board and it has taken its decision within its normal budgets. The board has a responsibility to its consumers to ensure the provision of electricity at all times, and that is all it is doing.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now received the reporter's findings about the proposed new tyre factory near Perth: and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has now received the reporter's recommendations and will announce his decision as soon as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the continuing uncertainty about the factory has caused great anxiety in Perth and that his announcement today will be warmly welcomed? Can he give an assurance that there will be no further delay before a final announcement is made about the factory?

I am well aware of the anxiety there has been and of my hon. Friend's particular anxieties. I can assure him that the decision will be taken as soon as possible and that there will be no avoidable delay.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the speed of planning permission in connection with the development of North Sea oil.

I am glad to record that when firm applications have been submitted the procedures for planning permission have operated quickly and smoothly. Examples are the production platform projects at Nigg Bay and Ardersier which are likely to produce several hundred new jobs each.

While I welcome that reply and the Government's generous grants and loans for the improvements of harbours in the North-East, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his Department has all the powers it requires for the implementation of oil development decisions, and is he satisfied with the co-ordination between his Department and other Departments?

I do not think I shall ever be satisfied with the degree of success or co-ordination. I never am. But I am pleased that we have been able to react to the many and various problems which have arisen, such as the obstacle which has appeared at Peter-head arising from an 1886 Act.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that speed is not the only factor? Will he give an undertaking that, other things being equal, preference will be given to those projects which hold the promise of permanent new employment in Scotland?

I agree that speed is not everything, but there are so often complaints about delay that it is satisfactory that in the oil developments there has been no reason for such complaint.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the speed of planning procedures by the local authority in Ross and Cromarty bears very favourable comparison with the speed of the Scottish Office and particularly of himself in recognising the advantages which would accrue to the development of that area by bridging the Dornoch Firth?

The hon. Gentleman does not know his facts, because it was through my accelerated planning permission under Section 8 procedures that two of the developments took place so quickly.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what communications he has had recently, on matters of Government policy concerning the development of North Sea oil, with Sir William McEwan Younger.

None, Sir. But I attended in February the Scottish Council Oil Forum in Aviemore arranged by Sir William.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir William, perhaps inadvertently, has done a public service by making his four serious criticisms of the Government? Since the Prime Minister chose to understand one and reject it and misunderstand another and distort it yesterday, will the Secretary of State get in touch with Sir William in order to get the text of his accusations? Will the Secretary of State himself now answer the main proposition, as I see it, and tell us why the Government continue to be

"quite illogical by largely leaving the development of North Sea oil, and in particular what is done to that oil and natural gas when extracted, to the complete and unhampered discretion of those responsible for its extraction"?

I have had for some days the text of Sir William's statement. The interesting thing is that some of the Press reports are unrecognisable as reports of his speech when one sees the text. In welcoming certain action taken by the Government, Sir William said that it would have been better if it had been done a few years ago, which can only be a criticism of the last Government. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is only seven months since the first public statement that oil was available in commercial quantities. That statement was by BP, which announced that it intended after exploration to go ahead with commercial action in extracting the oil. This is a very costly, high-risk exploration.

Would my right hon. Friend agree with Sir Wiliam that so far too much Scottish business and industry is taking too little of the great opportunities offered by North Sea oil?

I read with interest the criticisms which Sir William constructively made of British industry and Scottish industry. He also made some comments about the licensing system and whether conditions should be attached. That matter was fully discussed at the end of February at the Aviemore forum by representatives of the interested parties. The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) was there, so he knows. I also remind him that there was a time a few months ago when he said that I never made a speech without publicly drawing the attention of Scottish industry to the oil developments and their potential.

But what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about Sir William's criticism of the Government? Do the Government intend to do nothing?

If the right hon. Gentleman reads the text of Sir William's speech, he will see that these critical comments were with a whole lot of much stronger criticisms of industry in general. As far as I am concerned, I intend to go on doing as much as I can to get Scottish industry involved. If the right hon. Gentleman saw Sir William on television last Friday night, he will no doubt have heard him saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland had done a splendid job.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many bodies or organisations in receipt of public money are involved in the attraction of industry, planning for industry and advisory services for industry in Scotland.

Local authorities, new towns, regional development authorities and Government Departments are all engaged in some or all of these activities; also my right hon Friend is paying £100,000 a year to the Scottish Council towards the cost of a campaign to attract industrial investment to Scotland from Europe.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the money spent and the services rendered are making any real impact on the job situation in Scotland? Will he now give attention to the thousands of jobs lost from existing indutries? Is he aware that many small firms throughout Scotland, including my constituency, have had to reduce manpower because of the lack of orders and other commercial reasons? Will he now concentrate on this aspect of job loss?

There are two sides to the loss of jobs. One is to give existing industries adequate incentives to expand and improve and re-equip themselves. We now have a vastly improved system of incentives for that purpose. However successful that was to be, it would still be necessary to attract new industry from outside. It is because we have not been successful in the past in attracting industry from other parts of Europe that the Government are taking these special steps and I am confident they will make a considerable inroad into the Scottish unemployment problem.

Is not the short answer to the original Question "Far too many"?

That might be a very fair point.

Does the Minister agree that the most effective thing the Government could do to reduce the length of the dole queues in Scotland would be to impose a freeze on al redundancies in the nationalised industries until unemployment comes down to a more acceptable level? Is it not reasonable to take the line of waiting until the new jobs come from the promotional exercises before going through with rationalisations which will create more misery?

The question of a freeze on redundancies in nationalised industries would have to be put to the Minister responsible for those industries. One notable feature of the previous Government's activities was not to put any sort of freeze on redundancies in the coal industry, which had severe effects on many parts of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many assessment units there are at the present time for children's handicaps; and how many are planned in the next two years.

The assessment of handicapped children is undertaken by multi-disciplinary teams in hospital wards and out-patient departments and in local health authority premises in most areas of Scotland. One purpose-designed centre is in operation in adapted hospital premises in Dundee; two other hospital-based centres will be opened in Glasgow and Aberdeen later this year and in 1973, respectively. Assessment centres have also been provided by some local health authorities.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is telling the House that only three units are operating or are planned in Scotland? Is he aware that in a debate on the chronic sick and disabled—I quote from column 930 of the Official Report of 21st February this year—the Secretary of State for Social Services announced 38 new assessment centres for England and Wales and an extra £5 million for the chronic sick? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that Scotland has been shabbily treated?

I cannot accept that, because the situation is different in Scotland and the programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred was specifically for England and Wales. The assessment of the handicapped is part of the normal service in hospital out-patient depart- ments, child welfare clinics and the school health service in Scotland. I believe that a good job is being done.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the chief constable as to his proposals to bring the strength of Glasgow police up to its present establishment.

No, Sir. The chief constable is active in seeking recruits for the force.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, the average pay of Scottish workers in manufacturing industry is £34.2 per week compared with £20.8 for the police? Will he bring pressure to bear in the proper quarters to ensure that the job becomes more attractive than it is?

Police pay was increased in February on an interim basis from September, 1971. A further review is due this year. It will be for the Police Council for the United Kingdom to consider all the relevant evidence before making a recommendation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to him by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland about allowing exemptions from prescription charges for chronic mental illness, and what reply he has given.

None, Sir. The representations referred to in the commission's recently published report "A Duty to Care" were made to the previous Government.

I am aware of that, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why the original list of exemptions was on such a restricted scale was that it was extremely difficult to get the agreement of the medical profession even to the list published? Is it not time that this question was re-opened, since there are many deserving categories—and I agree that this is a criticism of the last Government as well as of the present Government—who are not allowed exemption? Should we not try to do something about it?

I note the point. There was a review of categories last year, when discussion with the medical profession indicated that there were no adjustments which could readily be made to the list.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of secondary pupils who have been debarred from their schools for misbehaviour in 1971–72.

This information is not available centrally.

I cannot thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that this is a growing problem which will possibly worsen with the raising of the school leaving age? Will he keep an open mind on the possibility of creating more regional centres to try to solve this problem, which can only cause great upset among such problem children in their present schools?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says but I do not think we should exaggerate the situation. It is, of course, basically a matter for the education authorities and the head teachers. But we hope to double the number of places at the day centres fairly shortly.

Will my hon. Friend keep an open mind on the question of allowing pupils to leave school after they have reached their sixteenth birthday?

My hon. Friend knows the present provisions in relation to the leaving dates after the sixteenth birthday, and we have no proposals to change them at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman sounds extraordinarily complacent on this subject. Is he aware that there are genuine problems in big comprehensive schools that require attention? While not necessarily agreeing that some kind of regional centres are necessary, may I ask whether he will not at least agree to consult teaching organisations and the local authorities to find out the extent of the problem?

There is no complacency on the subject. I said that the situation should not be exaggerated. Of course, through Her Majesty's inspectors, the Department is in constant touch with teachers and education authorities about this problem

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken in the last two years to give local authorities more freedom from the control of central government; and what plans he has for the future in this respect.

In addition to those given in reply to the hon. Member on 14th July, 1971, further relaxations have been made in building control. Last month I placed regulations before the House easing certain requirements of the Schools (Scotland) Code concerned with staff promotions. A significant degree of freedom from control on capital borrowing has been offered to the four city authorities.

The right hon. Gentleman must surely be aware that one of the most important functions of local authorities—rent policy—is being taken away from them by legislation now before Parliament. He must also be aware that many local education authorities wanted to provide free school milk for their children under 11 years of age but the Government said "No" and that the Government have prevented local education authorities from getting rid of selective education. As a result of all this, the local authorities in Scotland are about as free under the present Government as the local authorities were under Hitler in Germany before 1939. How do the Government square these activities with the promise they made that they would free local authorities from central Government control?

The hon. Gentleman has again used extravagant expressions. The questions of rent and milk have been exhaustively discussed in the House. As for education, I have already approved some of Glasgow Corporation's proposals for comprehensive schools. What has been at issue recently is a separate matter—the duty of local education authorities to continue with their own approved schemes, and this has received a very solid decision by a court.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he is doing is throwing in one or two nuts and then using an enormous sledge-hammer to crush them? Is it not a fact that there has been a complete destruction of the freedom of local authorities in three major spheres in Scotland and that the last and most serious one is in the misuse of the law to try to force Glasgow Corporation to continue with a reactionary and privileged form of education which it wants to get rid of? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that if he wants to get some sense into this situation he should look at the letter from Councillor McFarden in today's Glasgow Herald?

The hon. Gentleman is taking issue with a court decision. He ought to remember that it was his own Government which, in a circular, pressed upon local authorities the need for consultation in their move towards comprehensive education. I too am requiring local authorities to carry out the consultation that is necessary.