asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request his Economic and Industrial Division to evaluate the total possible job gains to Scotland from the exploration, production and servicing of North Sea oil, in the light of the latest discoveries.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission a report from an independent team of experts on the potential number of jobs which could be created in Scotland during the next five years through the exploitation of North Sea oil.

Such an evaluation could only be very approximate and would soon be out of date, since new discoveries are likely to continue and new schemes are likely to be formulated by those whose exploration proves successful. The important task is to enable the maximum of new jobs to be created in Scotland without delays, for example, by legislation to allow oil rig servicing at Peterhead.

Does not the Secretary of State consider it remarkable that the latest issue of the Scottish Economic Bulletin does not mention North Sea oil? Does this not substantiate to a large degree the criticism made by Sir William McEwan Younger that the Government are not following up this exploitation in the manner in which they should?

As hon. Members will know from my reply to a Question on 4th July, I have caused to be placed in the Library the first two editions of the periodic information sheet on North Sea oil.

Is the Secretary of State aware that only yesterday at a meeting in the House the Manager of the BP Forties field was lamenting the fact that even now so few British firms are coming forward to tender for important contracts in this field? These contracts go to not only the Americans but to French, Dutch and Italian firms. Their offshore industries have a better record of Government help. Will the Government look at the way in which they can get involved with Scottish industry and British industry as a whole to develop expertise for this offshore industry?

I have been broadcasting information and drawing attention to all the opportunities for Scottish industry for many months. I was also interested in the announcement by BP that it thought that as many as 40,000 jobs might be created by its plans. I understand that included in this figure was a multiplier of five—that is to say, about one-sixth of the jobs were directly related to BP's plans and the others were indirectly related.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is much more important now to get on with practical measures, such as the provisions for Peterhead harbour and the loan and grant for Aberdeen harbour, improvement of infrastructure and the speeding-up of planning procedures, so that Scotland can take the maximum advantage from North Sea oil?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I know that those concerned with North Sea oil exploration expect to meet stormy weather in the North Sea, but I doubt whether they expected to meet the heavy weather that the Bill concerning Peterhead harbour has been meeting in the Scottish Committee.

Has the Secretary of State or any Government Department given consideration to the utilisation of resources such as the natural oil of the North Sea for not only the present generation but future generations, or are we only greedy people looking for our own immediate advantage without planning for the future needs of the people of Scotland?

It is reckoned that oil which is likely to be found below the North Sea, besides that which has already been found, will be available for many years to come. I believe that it is in the Scottish interest that we should encourage the production of oil from these fields as soon as we can.

In Scotland.

Bearing in mind that the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred was completed in less than two sittings and that the Lord Advocate and the Minister in charge thanked us for valuable contributions to it, it is rather surprising that the right hon. Gentleman takes this attitude. Will he say what he or his officers are doing to meet some of the complaints made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) about contact directly with Scottish industries? Surely the Minister of State is the man who should certainly have some influence in this respect.

The Ministers of both the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry are in touch with those concerned, not only industry, but commerce, and authorities such as NESDA and local authorities which are very much concerned with the protection of amenity as well as with the development of this new industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has arranged to attend over the next six months to discuss the oppor- tunities presented by the North Sea oil discoveries off Scottish shores.

I am continually discussing these matters with groups and individuals from the bodies and industries concerned, while keeping in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he intends to have an urgent meeting with Sir William McEwan Younger in view of the fact that he, as Chairman of the Tory Party in Scotland, has advocated nationalisation of this organisation? If he will not do that, will the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that he will make inquiries to see that no civil servant in his Department has any very close personal relationship with any of the oil companies concerned?

I do not wish to comment on the hon. Member's last remark except to say that it is the dutyof my Regional Development Division to be in the closest touch with the companies involved in this business. The staff of the division have received a tribute from many of the companies for the way they are the contact men with the Government on every kind of problem that arises. I would hope that the hon. Member will appreciate the things that have been done already. Platform building is taking place in at least three places, and the biggest platform in the world is about to be started this month at Nigg Bay. Servicing facilities are available, particularly at Peterhead, and the pipeline to Grange-mouth is now being planned with expansion at Grangemouth.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that while nationalisation is always unintelligent, it would be particularly unintelligent at this stage of oil development in the North Sea?

It would be bound to hold up everything rather than accelerate development. The previous Government, like us, operated on the basis of allocating blocks, going as fast as investment and technology can proceed.

While Scotland may become the Texas of Europe for the extraction of oil, there seems very little prospect that it will become the Texas of Europe when it comes to profits. An increasing number of people in Scotland are determined that on this issue the cake shall not be cut in the customary manner of British Governments—that is, with the profits going to England and the pollution to Scotland.

Except for the refineries this is not a polluting industry. It is a clean industry and most of the operations so far started are non-polluting. I disagree entirely with what the hon. Member has said. The royalties from oil cannot begin for another two years because that is when the first oil will start to flow from Scottish waters. As for Government help, there has been 100 per cent. loan of over £1 million to part of Aberdeen Harbour, a 60 per cent. grant towards the fishing harbour at Peterhead and another £1 million of work Accelerated improvements have been announced for roads in the North-East and there is a great deal more being done which I shall not catalogue now.

Sir William McEwan Younger made substantial criticisms. Has Sir William asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State or has the Secretary of State asked for a meeting with Sir William to discuss these matters?

I have seen Sir William twice since he made his speech. Our meetings are routine. I see him from time to time anyway.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement upon arrangements for long-term economic planning in regard to the impact of North Sea oil upon the Scottish economy.

The Scottish Economic Council and Planning Board provide appropriate machinery together with the Scottish Standing Conference on North Sea Oil. In addition the Government study into opportunities for industry over the period to 1985 is being carried out.

Will the Secretary of State consult his ministerial colleagues and the oil industry on the possibility of setting up a North Sea oil development authority to co-ordinate all aspects of the development of North Sea oil? If such an idea finds favour, will he insist that the authority be sited in Scotland and consider the powerful claim of Leith, sited as it is at the centre of the development, to house such an authority?

I am certainly ready to consider additions and improvements to the existing machinery. There is a planning conference and there are planning authorities already in the field. If they are to go into the planning they will need to be given statutory powers by Parliament. There is great concern among the planning authorities about protecting amenity and also about the fishing industry. None the less, there is no doubt that the oil in the North Sea can create a new and flourishing industry, with ancillary services and many new jobs for Scotland.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that oil from the next development off the Scottish coast is likely to come ashore by sea rather than by pipeline? Is he aware of the anxiety in Scotland about whether the oil is to be landed in Scotland or elsewhere?

I amwell aware of the interest, but only two companies have announced their plans. Other companies still have to make up their minds.

The Secretary of State will of course appreciate that such headquarters should be sited either in Orkney or Shetland. While I do not under-estimate the excellent work done by the Scottish Office, the discovery of oil raises entirely new problems. Will the Secretary of State therefore keep in touch with Norway and other countries which are facing these new problems and have some experience on how they are best handled?

We are watching what is done in other countries. The policy we have been following is to try to speed the exploration and then the production of oil as fast as investment and technology will allow. Other countries have not necessarily been following the same policy. I believe that our policy is right for Scotland. If we had gone more slowly we probably should not know today of the discoveries opposite the Scottish shores.

One trouble surely is that ministerial responsibility rests not with the Secretary of State for Scotland but with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the Continental Shelf Act and the Petroleum Acts going back to about 1924. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficiently close co-ordination between himself and his right hon. Friend? If he is, bearing in mind that the full potential has not yet been realised and its immense importance to Scotland, will not he and the Government consider producing a White Paper giving as much information as possible on the planning aspects and the future?

I think I made it plain in my earlier replies at the cost of some repetition that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is primarily responsible for the oil industry and also that we work very closely together. Of course I will consider producing more information, but the situation is continually changing. What can be said today is very different from what could have been said six months ago because of developments even since then. As I said earlier, I have arranged to have placed in the Library from time to time for the benefit of hon. Members bulletins containing information about North Sea developments. That may be the best way of dealing with this because the situation is continually changing as more information becomes available.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress about Government policy in Scotland; and what replies he has sent.

I received for comment a number of resolutions passed at the recent annual congress and I have taken careful note of all these. On matters entirely within my responsibility I have sent replies explaining the Government's policies. After consultation with me, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development has given a comprehensive reply on behalf of the Government to the composite resolution on the Scottish economy which was sent to a number of Ministers including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

The Secretary of State is aware that developments are moving very swiftly in Scottish TUC opinion. Is he aware of the meeting which took place in. Lanarkshire yesterday and of the view taken there that it is absolutely essential to obtain a very high output target for the BSC as a prerequisite for the Hunterston development project? If the right hon. Gentleman knows that we shall not get either of these two objectives, will he now resign from office and, using his intimate knowledge of this particular situation, come out of Government and lead the Scottish campaign for these desirable objectives?

I have led successful Scottish campaigns in the past, when I have not had other duties to perform. [HON. MEMBERS: "Such as?"] I have led successful campaigns, including one for the severely disabled. I am aware of the anxiety in Lanarkshire and Mother-well about this matter, but people there are also anxious about the effects of a major steelworks upon their area because it would greatly reduce the number of people employed in relation to unit output and it might well have other effects upon their area. Therefore, this is a much more complicated subject than the hon. Gentleman makes out.

In the representations which my right hon. Friend has received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress, has there been any indication on the part of that body of a desire to purge the unfortunately rather too well justified reputation of the trade union movement in West Central Scotland for mindless militancy, a reputation both at home and abroad which is a major obstacle to the attraction of incoming industry?

Like my hon. Friend, I deplore mindless militancy where it is to be found, but I should say that the Scottish Trades Union Congress and its officials have themselves always been against it and I would not accuse them of it.

Has the Secretary of State yet found time to study the latest remarks of Sir William McEwan Younger on the subject of steel? Will he look at the suggestion for having a separate Scottish Steel Corporation, as economies of scale have now reached their maximum and it is undesirable that everything should be run from London? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Scottish Unionist Party to have Sir William's speeches published in a book?

That isa matter for Sir William. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have with me the text of one of his speeches, as I had the one on oil three weeks ago. It is much better that people should read what Sir William actually said as opposed to some of the over-simplified reports which appear in the Press. It is really a matter for Sir William himself.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many houses administered by cost rent housing associations in Scotland were unoccupied at 30th June, 1972.

I do not have this information which should be available from the housing associations concerned.

These housing associations have some responsibility to the Scottish Office. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they have never been a success and that in my constituency a number of such cost rent houses, high amenity houses, are standing empty? Would it not be better either to put the houses up for sale or, the better alternative, transfer them to the control of the local authorities and have them allocated to families in need?

I know of the cases in the hon. Gentleman's constituency; he has mentioned them before. These houses were built under the scheme introduced in the early 1960s, with an Exchequer loan but no other form of Government subsidy. It is for the housing associations to manage their own affairs as they see fit according to the existing circumstances. Under the new legislation the introduction of rent allowances may help some of the tenants.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on amendments to planning procedures which entail the expediting of land to be made available for building projects.

My right hon. Friend asked local planning authorities in March this year to give priority to applications for planning permission for new industrial building projects of 15,000 sq. ft. or more. He reminded them also of the need to deal promptly with planning applications generally. He is now consulting the local authority associations about other ways of expediting planning procedures.

Before showing concern about expediting planning procedures, ought not the Minister to examine existing planning procedures to prevent pollution in our villages and their surrounding area? Is he aware, for example, that in a village in my constituency people are being smothered by pollution because the present planning laws have proved inadequate to protect them?

If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about particular cases, I shall be glad to look into them and do what I can to help. Decisions of this sort are first and foremost the responsibility of the local planning authorities, but I shall always be most ready to help them and to help the hon. Gentleman in any particular cases.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many rabbit clearance societies have ceased to operate since the grant was withdrawn.

Forty-four.

Has my hon. Friend had reports of greatly increased numbers of rabbits in various parts of Scotland this year? Does he think that, from the standpoint of agricultural production, the withdrawal of the grant has been a worthwhile economy?

I am aware that there have been reports of rabbits being on the increase in certain parts of Scotland, but there has not been any significant increase in the number of complaints of agricultural damage reported.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that these niggardly savings are shifting the balance of Nature in the countryside? Not only are rabbits on the increase but, as the hon. Gentleman knows from my correspondence, bee-keeping is likely to be on the decrease thanks to the savings the Government are trying to make on the bee-keeping advisory service.

If the hon. Gentleman calls a saving of £70,000 a year niggling, his idea of what is niggling is different from mine. In any case, the prevention of the spread of rabbits is primarily in the interest of fanners themselves and it is to their benefit to see that it is done. As regards bee-keeping, I have written to the hon. Gentleman and I do not believe that bee-keepers have much to complain about.

Will the Minister issue a directive to the Highlands and Islands Development Board to encourage it to make grants for the re-establishment of these societies, at least in the area which the board covers, since this might help to offset the bad publicity which has been given to its attempts to control pests through giving aid to fox-hunting societies?

What the board does in regard to fox-hunting is its concern. I must return to the point which I made in reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that rabbit clearance is in farmers' own interests and to their benefit, and I do not believe that it is our function to support them in doing something which is to their benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the disclosures during the recent trial in the High Court, Edinburgh, of apparent irregularities, he will consider instituting a public inquiry into the administrative procedures of the East Fife hospital board of management, and also the use of hospital facilities for the private patients of consultants.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotaland if, in view of the public concern arising from recent events, he will consider instituting a public inquiry into the administrative procedures of the Dunfermline and West Fife hospital board of management, and into the use of hospital facilities for the private patients of consultants.

My right hon. Friend will await the report of the inquiry being undertaken by the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board which has already been announced before deciding whether any further inquiry is necessary.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this initial operation is a purely whitewashing exercise and is not acceptable? In view of the disclosure of apparent irregularities, implicating a member of the board of management and other consultants, during the trial in Edinburgh, only a public inquiry to ascertain the facts will allay the great public concern on this matter. Further, will the investigation go into the free use of hospital facilities for the private patients of consultants? Will the hon. Gentleman be more explicit on that point?

The form of the inquiry was given careful consideration and in all the circumstances it was decided that in the first instance it should be by the regional hospital board. The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes", it will look into the relationship of private practice and the hospital.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that recent Press reports of the trial in Edinburgh have caused great disquiet among people interested in the health service in my area? Will he obtain a copy of the transcript of the court proceedings and, after careful study, judge for himself whether a probe is necessary—preferably a public inquiry?

I appreciate the hon. Member's concern. That is why we have set up an inquiry. We decided right away to do so during the trial, though not before a decision was reached. The person concerned has appealed against the conviction and this will cause some delay in the inquiry, but no more than we can possibly prevent.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the cost per item of purchases of machine tools by educational institutions in Scotland under the Department of Trade and Industry-financed scheme so far approved by and submitted for approval to his Department.

At 11th July, 1972, the average cost per item of the 197 items of equipment so far applied for was about £2,850. The average cost of the 150 items so far approved was about £2,540.

Do not those figures suggest that educational institutions are still using the scheme for the purchase of little more than glorified "do-it-yourself" gadgets? Now that an extra £6 million of the taxpayer's money has been allocated, could not my hon. Friend use his influence to impress upon institutions under his ægis the need to use this scheme for the purchase of sophisticated modern machine tools of genuine industrial application, preferably manufactured in Scotland?

I think I can accept all my hon. Friend says, and I think that the publicity raised by his Question may encourage more local authorities to apply. The date was initially 30th June, but we are prepared to take further applications. I accept also that larger and more sophisticated machine tools could well be considered if they are in the educational interest of the colleges.

Is the Minister aware that the real question is not just the unit cost but whether the Scottish machine tool industry will survive at all? Will he encourage his colleagues in the Government to give a quick reply on the attempt to intervene to save the Wickman Lang factory in Johnstone, which represents about 20 per cent. of the entire Scottish machine tool industry? Will he consider action along the lines suggested by his hon. Friend for the use of more sophisticated material in education establishments under his control and in training establishments?

I appreciate the hon. Member's concern on his constituency point and I hope that education authorities will apply for more machine tools. Money is still available from the grant that was set aside, and perhaps following our exchange of questions today more applications will come in. They will be considered by Her Majesty's inspectors as soon as they arrive.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now commission an up-to-date review of the economic potential of the North-East of Scotland.

The Gaskin Report has provided a basic review. What is now still to be added is the extent of the resources below the sea bed many miles from the coast. This will become more fully known as exploration proceeds and is extended to new blocks.

Does the Secretary of State recollect that the Gaskin Committee Report, published only three years ago, made no mention of oil as an industry likely to help the growth potential of the North-East? Is he aware that there is widespread concern in North-East Scotland that the benefits to the area will be transient unless positive objectives are made by him and his Government? Is he prepared to bring up to date as urgently as possible the Gaskin Committee Report on the economic potential of the North-East?

The fact that there was no mention of oil in the report illustrates how recent the developments have been. The situation concerning oil discoveries, however, is continually changing, as I have indicated. I agree with the hon. Member that we in Scotland, and particularly Scottish industry, need to concentrate on the opportunities and I repeat that Scotland can become the Texas of Europe.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is a considerable relief to us that the Gaskin Report has been stood on its head in this respect, and as action is better than words will he be careful about instituting another such operation?

I am satisfied that with the machinery we have—NESDA, the North East Joint Planning Advisory Committee, the North Sea Oil Standing Conference, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development chairs, and the Gaskin Report—together with the information which is continually coming in about oil resources, we can operate as my hon. Friend would wish.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to achieve an increase in police force establishments for the purpose of providing additional constables to be used exclusively for beat patrol duties, with a view to combating violence, vandalism and other similar acts against people and property; and if he will make a statement.

In the review of police establishments, which the Government put in hand in 1970, and in which 11 out of 20 forces have so far been covered, the average increase authorised in manpower is 12·5 per cent.

There is no increase in the number of men for beat patrol. Would the Under-Secretary agree that there is nothing more reassuring to the community than to see that diced cap patrolling the streets and highways? Does he realise that the beat man is a source of information and contact which could lead to the detection of criminals or, on the other hand, to their apprehension and conviction? All this is totally lost to him if he is travelling about in a police car. Has the Under-Secretary considered this?

I appreciate the hon. Member's constructive interest in police work, but how the men are deployed is for the discretion of each individual chief constable. I believe that increasing the authorised strength of police forces combined with other matters, such as the use of civilians to release uniformed policemen for more important work, means that some aspects of police work can be taken more fully into account.

The Chief Constable of Aberdeen said recently that youth violence is the most pernicious problem we face. In Aberdeen there are now two assaults every night and one very serious assault each week. There is a growing body of opinion which believes that the sentences given for assault are criminally lenient.

The latter part of that question is a matter for the courts. I am very much aware of the hon. Member's other remarks and I pay tribute to the work which the Scottish policemen do day by day and night by night throughout Scotland in difficult circumstances. Each individual chief constable must achieve the right balance between using motorised forms of patrol, which give advantages of speed in reaching the scene of the crime, and use of men on the ground.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he had with the Scottish Hydro Board prior to its decision to sell off its fishing rights on Loch Awe.

The chairman informed my right hon. Friend some time ago that the board intended to dispose of these fishings.

If it is not the business of electicity producers to manage fishing interests, it is in the public interest to have some publicly-owned fishery rights. Should not the responsibilities then be given to the Forestry Commission, the Highlands and Islands Development Board or some other appropriate body?

Numbers of fishings are held by a number of public bodies. I do not think there is any evidence that this public ownership necessarily brings advantages to owners or anglers. What the board must do, as a matter for its commercial judgment, is to manage its assets in the best interests of consumers, which at the end of the day are reflected in the price of electricity.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further guidance he has issued to local education authorities in Scotland concerning the exercise of their powers to issue bus travel passes to schoolchildren, in view of the imminent increase in the school leaving age.

Raising the school leaving age does not affect the duty of authorities to provide free travel for pupils who live beyond the statutory walking distance and they already have discretion to provide such other free or assisted travel as they consider necessary. I do not consider further guidance is needed.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that raising the school leaving age to 16 means that parents have an added financial burden in having their children educated and that the whole question of school transfer should be reviewed? Is he aware that many parents whose children have been transferred to the new comprehensive school at Inverkeithing are now making a financial contribution towards their children's education, whereas those who live two miles away from the school are not? Is not this tantamount to a surcharge, an added cost, for receiving education?

I cannot accept all that the hon. Gentleman says. I have written to him about Inverkeithing. I appreciate that anomalies arise when new schools are opened, but I have had very few representations about school transport and I do not feel there is sufficient demand to call for a special inquiry.

On the question of the statutory walking distance, will the Minister accept that most education authorities merely measure the distance and if it is not over two miles they do not give free or concessionary travel? Is it not time they were directed to take into consideration the traffic conditions on the route to school and give a greater emphasis to that than to the statutory walking distance?

I am sure that all education authorities give special consideration to the special circumstances of the areas they represent. It would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to give them a direction in that regard. I am sure that they consider the matter very carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent communications, oral and written, he has received from local authorities regarding the implementation of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; and what replies he has given.

The only recent representations not relating to practical details have been from Glasgow Corporation. I met a deputation from the corporation on 26th June and reaffirmed the Government's confidence that local authorities will implement the Bill because of the considerable benefits it will confer on families with low incomes and authorities with major housing problems.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only recently there was a meeting of local authorities in the West of Scotland when they decided that they would not implement the Bill? Will the hon. Gentleman now tell us what he refused to tell us in Committee; what action the Government will take if local authorities refuse to implement the Bill? As a further compromise, will he agree that even at this late stage there should be an Amendment in another place to reduce what he called the 50p, so that local authorities may have further discussion with him with a view to making this confrontation less severe?

I am well aware that certain opinions have been expressed on the subject, but as the Bill has not yet been passed by Parliament it is premature to take up firm positions on its implementation. I well respect the views of those who may agree or disagree with the Bill but all of us, whoever we are, are subject to the law of the land. I am confident that that is the general view of all concerned.

Is it not essential that the law should be reasonable? The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill has not yet become law. It has become law. Judging by Amendments accepted in another place, it will need to return here and it looks as though it will not become an Act until late this month or early next month. As many of its provisions do not become law until one month after its passing, if the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to tell us what he will do about implementation in respect of his duty, how can a local authority be expected in one month to make all the preparations for this infamous Measure?

I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman meant by saying that the Bill had become law, because it has not. [Interruption.] I may have misheard the right hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman had better wash his ears.

It is kind of the right hon. Gentleman to make a helpful suggestion. The Bill is entirely reasonable, and I have spent a good deal of time in the past few months explaining why. But it is fair enough for the right hon. Gentleman to disagree with me. There is nothing new about an Opposition disagreeing with the Government. What is at issue is the implementation of the Bill. I am confident that local authorities will have plenty of time to take reasonable steps to implement the Bill once Parliament has passed it. I shall give every possible assistance to local authorities to do that in a smooth and orderly manner.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the proposed location, and describe the staffing arangements and functions, of the Scottish regional office of the Agricultural Intervention Board.

The location has not yet been decided. The office will accommodate staff co-ordinating the activities of field staff engaged on intervention work, providing information to the trade and carrying out functions of audit and financial control.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that by the centralisation of the board in Reading under the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the Secretary of State has surrendered control over an important aspect of the Scottish agricultural economy? Will he say however, that the Government are not averse even now to seeking special régimes of assistance for Scottish agriculture which can be administered by his office?

I totally disagree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, because the board is answerable jointly to the agricultural Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as well as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There are very good reasons for its location in Reading and they were spelt out in considerable detail by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in the House on 22nd June.

Regardless of whether the board will ever come into existence, the Government's action in announcing accidentally in the course of a debate in the House that the board would be sited at Reading, without spelling out the reasons for sending it there, has shocked many people in the industry. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it runs entirely counter to the whole dispersal policy of the previous Government as well as of the present Government? Will he now consider establishing the main office of the board in Scotland or in another development area?

It comes ill from a member of a previous Government which sited the Forestry Commission at Basingstoke to talk like that. Either the hon. Gentleman did not attend the debate on 22nd June or he did not read the OFFICIAL REPORT afterwards. In that debate my right hon. Friend made a carefully prepared statement on precisely what the functions of the board are and why it is going to Reading.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide funds for the establishment of an independent Scottish Economic Institute to investigate problems of the Scottish economy, with a status comparable to that of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

The Scottish Office already employs 18 economists; and close contact is maintained with research undertaken in the economics departments of Scottish Universities.

While I acknowledge the valuable work done by both the Scottish Office and the Scottish Council, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees that there is a strong case for an independent institute in Scotland which could study in depth important aspects of the Scottish economy? Had such an institute been in existence to study in depth the implications of the oil find, the reaction of the Government and British industry might well have been more successful.

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, the difficulty has been that until very recently nobody knew whether there would be any oil finds. As has already been pointed out, when the Gaskin Report was published three years ago it did not even refer to oil because it had not then appeared on the scene. That is why we must now await even further exploration, which I am sure will provide us with interesting discoveries. As to economic advice, I have the advantage of the panel of economic consultants from the universities which advises the Scottish Office.

Will my right hon. Friend resist the proposal and not touch it with a barge pole? Is he aware that the National Institute has an enviable reputation for the falsity of its forecasts and that with the gratuitous advice the Scottish Office receives from time to time from bodies like the Scottish Council and the STUC there is no need for further sources of dubious counsel?

I do not wish to enter the lists with my hon. Friend on these points, but I think that the suggestion was put forward as a serious suggestion and I accept it as such. However, I differ with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) about the question of oil because I do not think that the sort of body he suggests could give us any more help than those who are very much engaged in dealing with this problem.

Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that such a body might come to the conclusion that we would have to continue some form of regionally differentiated REP subsidy beyond 1974?

That is a separate question. The hon. Gentleman knows the Government's position on this matter. REP is due to be phased out after September, 1974.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take following publication of the Forestry Policy Review recently published by the Forestry Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of forestry in Scotland.

My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales await the views of interested bodies on the consultative document which they published on 28th June.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how soon it will be before the new scheme of private grants is settled and introduced, because in my constituency some applications have been hanging fire since the cessation of the old scheme? Does he agree that, in tying grants to employment, it is extremely important that the employment should be, as far as possible, rural residential employment rather than gang employment within a development area?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise time when we shall announce our conclusions, but consultations are starting. On Friday this week my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and myself will be meeting private growers to discuss the matter. We are aware of the urgency of the matter and the concern that planting plans by private industry should not be held up. I will take into account the view expressed in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Can my hon. Friend tell me how much the saving is likely to be in the private sector as a result of a reduction in the dedication scheme?

It is impossible to say whether there will be a saving and, if so, what it will be, because no alternative scheme has been brought forward to replace it. The purpose of the consultations is not to take grants from private woodland owners but to replace the existing dedication scheme with a more up-to-date scheme, because the present scheme was based on wartime conditions?.

The Government's proposal to cut back forestry planting from the Labour Government's target of 60,000 acres by 1976 to 50,000 acres is unacceptable throughout Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is widespread concern that the revised target of a 3 per cent. return on capital per annum may lead to the acquisition of areas which are not as socially desirable for planting purposes as some of the less profitable areas near the tops of the hills? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government, in giving consideration to this question, should note the concern which has been widely expressed that the proposals do not make adequate provision for the apportionment of land between agriculture and forestry?

Whether the proposals in the consultative document are acceptable to the commission depends primarily on whether land is available for it to plant. The commission would have had to come to us to seek to be relieved of the task of meeting the target set before because the land has not been available. We propose something very much more realistic in the consultative document and it is understood by the commission to be so. I agree with the last point made by the hon. Gentleman. I should like to see far better integration between agriculture and forestry because they are not in conflict and, properly managed, they can work together to improve the countryside and the economy of the countryside.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the effects on the Scottish fishing industry of Iceland's fishery limits being extended to 50 miles; and if he will make a statement.

The effects of exclusion from the Icelandic grounds would undoubtedly be serious for the United Kingdom fishing industry as a whole, but I am afraid it is not possible at present to make a precise estimate of the possible effects on any particular sector of the industry.

In view of what my hon. Friend says about the undoubted devastating financial effects on the Scottish fishing industry of the extension of the limits, will he urge everyone to co-operate in resisting Iceland's demand for an extension, otherwise the limits will be extended by other countries such as the Faroe Islands?

If the worst happened, our deep sea fishing boats from places like Granton and Aberdeen would be fishing in inshore waters, which would have tremendous adverse effects on Scotland's inshore fleet. The attitude of the Scottish National Party in supporting the 50-mile limit is incomprehensible in view of the realities of the Scottish fishing situation.

I associate the Opposition with the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). In this situation of an almost inevitable decline in the Scottish fishing industry, may I stress to the Under-Secretary of State the importance of devoting more public money to research into fish farming?I am advised that in the long term it has excellent prospects of success but that what is needed is financial support. This might have the additional advantage of serving notice on the Icelandic Government that if fish farming is a success they may in future be looking for markets.

I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about fish farming, into which the White Fish Authority is doing research. The Government are helping and there are a number of private individuals and private firms involved in it. However, despite the possibilities of fish farming, what concerns me is that in the Scottish inshore fishing industry we have an extremely healthy and prosperous industry which gives employment in areas where very few alternative forms of employment are available, and we must view very seriously indeed anything which might hurt it.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it was the extension of the Icelandic limits which brought about the original extension to 12 miles which benefited the inshore fishermen and that Britain was the last North Sea nation to extend the limits round the British Isles? Will he refrain from accepting the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour)? The contrary view should be accepted. It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to speak in the way he has because the Government sold out the fishery interests in the Western Isles even before they knew what the EEC terms were. The hon. Gentleman should not cast aspersions on the Scottish National Party.

I would listen to the hon. Gentleman if he understood the realities of the fishing situation, but the fact that his party makes such statements about the Western Isles, saying that the whole of the Minch would be open to foreign fishing when it would not, shows how little it understands the industry. That is why it is important to put the record straight.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received following his decision to accept the reporter's findings regarding the proposed new tyre factory near Perth; and what action he has taken.

In addition to the representations made by my hon. Friend himself, I have had three letters, from the Lord Provost of Perth, from a former Lord Provost and from the Perthshire Chamber of Commerce expressing their disappointment but their readiness to assist the firm concerned to select another location.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is critically important to Perth that this development should go there? Will he between now and September do everything in his power to encourage the company to develop its factory at the Inveralmond industrial site in Perth and call the attention of the factory and of the local authorities to the grants now available, which are very different and very much larger than those in force when the company first assessed the site?

I am aware of the importance of this development to Perth and we are making sure that the firm knows what is available in the way of new grants. As I think my hon. Friend knows, the firm does not propose to start the work for some time because it is concentrating first on the factories at Dundee and Aberdeen which are in train.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what total sums have been paid to National Health Service psychiatrists for their services in examining and reporting on children referred to them by the children's panels.

Records of payments of this kind to individual psychiatrists are not maintained in my right hon. Friend's Department.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that payments are made? Is he aware that a number of psychiatrists refuse to accept payments, believing that they should be part of the community assessment of the people referred by the panel? In addition—and this is more important in some ways—they do the work during National Health Service time and they use National Health Service facilities. Therefore, they do not see why they should be paid for doing a job like this.

I note that there are a number of psychiatrists who are unwilling to accept a fee. Under their contracts with the regional hospital board they are entitled to a fee should they wish it, but they do not have to accept the fee and need not apply for it.

Will the Undersecretary of State accept that it would be useful for his Department to issue guidance to children's panels on this matter? Not only psychiatrists but also general practitioners vary very much in the practice of charging fees for advising panels. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be standard practice?

Again, I note what the hon. Gentleman says. If he feels that there is some misunderstanding about this, I will look at it and, if necessary, give guidance to the panels and the psychiatrists.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any truth in recent statements that there is a considerable shortage of psychiatrists in Scotland for these and similar jobs? If there is a shortage, what are the Government doing about it?

It is difficult to be certain whether there is a specific shortage. The numbers have increased substantially in the last few years and we have recently asked local authorities to give to regional hospital boards an indication of the number of psychiatrists required for this work. The Government are aware of this and are looking at the position carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Scottish universities and the Scottish Business School.

The school's formal constitution provides for each of the three universities, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Strathclyde, which contribute a division to the school, appointing five members to its council which has an independent chairman. The school's academic executive committee consists of the academic members of the council together with two further members appointed by each division.

I accept that it is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but is he aware of the extreme disquiet in Scottish academic circles about the constitution of the Scottish Business School and the feeling that it should be widened to include all Scottish universities within its orbit of operations? Will the hon. Gentleman take urgent steps to call a conference of vice-chancellors of Scottish universities to discuss this important new venture?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism. This is after all only the first year in which the Scottish Business School has been in full operation, and it is going particularly well. The tripartite nature of the school has allowed it to develop as fast as one could wish. There is natural co-operation between all the universities in Scotland in relation to the Business School. I think the hon. Gentleman should allow the matter to rest for another year or two before he puts pressure on universities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of the Scottish Economic Council he expects to chair before the end of this year.

Three.

If the right hon. Gentleman takes the chair at the last meeting this year, does he expect to be able to announce an unemployment figure higher or lower than that obtaining now? Will he refrain from verbal flannel and give a one-word answer, "higher" or "lower"?

The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House long enough to know that no Minister and no Government ever make forecasts about unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if a decision has yet been made regarding the provision of additional and more modern maternity facilities at Falkirk Royal Infirmary.

A scheme for the development of maternity facilities in the Cumbernauld/Falkirk area is included in priority Band IV of the current major hospital building programme. Planning of this project will begin fairly soon.

For the hon. Gentleman to refer to the Cumbernauld and Falkirk area is very significant. When the decision on the siting of the maternity facilities is taken will the Minister consider that it is much better to site them at the existing general hospital so that specialist facilities will be available on the spot, rather than to fragment the service by siting the maternity facilities apart from the general hospital?

Yes, we will take all those views carefully into consideration when the site is decided.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland at what stage in consultation he has been associated with announcements of contraction of the coal and steel industries in Scotland.

Arrangements about the future of particular pits or plants are normally made by the industries themselves after consultaion with the trade unions concerned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I keep in close touch on related issues of concern to the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the credibility of his Department is at stake? According to the newspapers, the Government were unhappy about the BSC making the steel redundancy announcement. Are we to take it that the Government wanted delay either to hide the position from the people or because they have no solution to the problem of the contraction of the coal and steel industries?

Under the Act passed by the Labour Government nationalising the steel industry, the British Steel Corporation can take these decisions itself. It is for the corporation to carry out its duties under that Act.

Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the pricing of steel was a Government decision and not one taken by the British Steel Corporation? Will he also concede that the announcement was made without consultation with both his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and himself and that both were deeply annoyed that the announcement was made? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to stand up and be counted on the whole question of the steel industry in Scotland and to say that he will lead us in the fight for a Hunterston steel complex?

The British Steel Corporation does not need to consult the Government under the terms of the steel nationalisation legislation enacted by the Labour Government. As stated in a reply to a Question at the beginning of last month, there have been 6,000 redundancies in the Scottish steel industry in the past five years. Therefore, the announcement did not greatly change the tempo of redundancies. The Government are, of course, very much concerned about the effects of the necessary closing of open-hearth furnaces, which was discussed in the House some weeks ago, and we shall do all we can to make sure that where redundancies occur jobs are made available.

Can my right hon. Friend say what contribution was made by the miners' strike in the spring to the contraction of the coal industry in Scotland?

Not without notice.