asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many live cattle and sheep have been exported from Scottish ports in each month of this year; and what number was exported for slaughter in this total.

Up to the end of November a total of 7, 971 cattle had been exported by sea, all for immediate slaughter. With permission, I will circulate the monthly figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In addition a total of 203 cattle and 12 sheep were exported by air for breeding purposes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the interests of our economy, of efficiency and of animal welfare it would be much better to aim at the exporting of cattle as carcases and not as live animals?

I agree that there is certainly scope for the export of carcases. At the same time my hon. Friend must realise that we are careful about the welfare aspects and we export animals only to those countries which have given the Balfour Assurances.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now proceed to establish formal consultation machinery between the Government, the fishing industry and any oil company with proposals to lay pipelines on the sea bed.

My hon Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, has explained the situation fully in correspondence with my hon. Friend and has offered to help in promoting direct contact between the fishermen's associations and the oil companies should the need arise.

Is my hon. Friend aware that so far all we have had from the Government on this matter has been words? While we are grateful for their sympathy and good wishes, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that we are all interventionists now and that this is a matter in which the Government can play a direct part in helping to allay the fears of the fishing industry by establishing this machinery?

There has been a great deal more than words. My hon. Friend must remember that of the developers BP, which is the only company with a definitely projected pipeline, has already had meetings with the inshore fishermen and the Scottish Trawlers Federation. Later this week I shall be meeting the Scottish Trawlers Federation. I certainly accept what my hon. Friend says about the need for proper consultation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received regarding the contribution which Scottish firms can make to the exploitation of North Sea oil; and if he will make a satement.

I have not received representations but the Scottish Office responds speedily to inquiries from Scottish firms about developments in the oil industry. The recent trade mission to Houston, Texas, sponsored by the North-East Scotland Development Authority and with 45 firms represented is a good example of a Scottish initiative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scottish industry is awaiting with interest the publication of the IMEG report before Christmas? Will he assure us that when the report is published alongside it there will be a detailed statement of the Government's reaction to the report indicating how they will ensure that Scottish industry gets a fair share of the market for goods and services associated with North Sea oil? Will he also assure us that he has not ruled out the possibility of setting up a North Sea Oil Board?

I have not ruled out any possibilities, and when the report is published we hope to have the Government's first reaction stated at the same time.

In view of the complexity of all these issues, including the contribution of Scottish industry, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that what is necessary is a White Paper and that we cannot continue to be fobbed off with annual reports and other glossy documents?

Governments continue to pour White Papers on Parliament. In this case, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because it was announced by a Minister, a report is to be published in the very near future, which will be the most convenient way of dealing with this kind of information.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the announcement of an annual report was widely welcomed in Scotland? Also, will he not allow the Opposition to under-value what is hap- pening in particular in the North-East of Scotland where there are 125 new companies and 175 companies which have diversified, with 1,500 new jobs and another 5,500 in prospect?

Things have moved very fast in the North and North-East of Scotland in the last year and a half, which is since commercial quantities of oil were discovered, and it would be a pity if we appeared to devalue what had been done.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the official contacts between his Department and the Institute of Geological Sciences.

The Scottish Office keeps in regular touch with the work of the institute including its Continental Shelf Unit in Edinburgh. My noble Friend the Minister of State hopes to pay an official visit to the institute in the New Year.

While thanking the Secretary of State for that reply, may I ask him to go to the institute and see the work that is being done with a view to co-ordinating it with work being done by the Institute of Offshore Engineering, established by the Heriot-Watt University in Midlothian, so that we do not miss the opportunities for developing the under-water technology that will be needed when we go to very deep waters for North Sea oil?

I am well aware of the Continental Shelf Unit in Edinburgh. It makes its assessments available to the Government. Those assessments include information which the exploring companies have to provide under their licences. I have announced to the House the new institute at the Heriot-Watt University.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we are discussing the resiting of the new technological university in my constituency which will be among the most modern in the country? Does he also agree that it is not sufficient for the Government to depend on money coming from private individuals, welcome though that is? Do not the Government have a responsibility to be more specific about this instead of simply talking about the matter being dealt with by the University Grants Committee?

I am very much aware of what is happening in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As he will remember I laid a foundation stone for the Heriot-Watt University last year. I also announced that Aberdeen University will be undertaking an important survey connected with the oil industry in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a White Paper giving his analysis of the particular advantages likely to accrue to Scotland in consequence of the United Kingdom's entry into the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a White Paper giving his analysis of the particular advantages and disadvantages likely to accrue to Scotland in consequence of the United Kingdom's entry into the European Economic Community.

I do not consider it practicable to attempt to assess in detail the consequences of entry for Scotland, with the decision taken and our entry to the Communities less than three weeks away. I have no doubt however that the accession of Britain to the European Economic Community is very much in the best interests of Scotland.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is about time to unfurl the banner for Scotland and get rid of so much of the pessimism and back-biting which takes place in this House and to a large extent even on this side? Will he undertake a wee bit of education of hon. Members of this House in the excellent advantages which, because of Scotland's geographical position, can accrue to Scotland through our entry into Europe? Will he do something urgently about it at this stage?

The Jeremiahs in this House are in complete contrast with Scottish industry. Scottish industry and Scottish firms have already demonstrated that they are export oriented and ready to grasp the opportunities of our entry into Europe to the benefit of Scottish industry and the people of Scotland.

Will the Minister confirm or deny that Scotland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, will be bound by the Council of Ministers' decisions, which may or may not be in the interests of this country or of Scotland, and that those decisions will have to be implemented and carried out without this House having a chance to alter them unless we can use the veto, which can be done only if we can show that a decision is directly against the best interests of this country? How can that be democratic or good or in the interests of this country?

What the hon. Member ignores is the fact that after 1st January we shall be taking part with our partners in Europe in the decision-making process instead of being simply at the receiving end on the outside.

If my hon. Friend will not publish a White Paper will he at least accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and do as much as he can to publicise the new markets that will be open for Scotland, the new sources of private investment for Scotland and the fact that for the first time we shall have access to the Community's regional fund, the European Investment Bank, and the social fund of the Community—access which we would not otherwise have?

I agree thoroughly with what my hon. Friend says. The Scottish Council and individual firms have already done a great deal to get into Europe, and one example is the agricultural industry, which has been preparing itself for entry and is already oriented towards Europe.

The Minister mentioned the decision-making processes of the Community. What specific Scottish representation will there be in those processes by which Scotland will be better enabled to further her interests?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I myself have taken part in the negotiations. I see no reason why Scottish Ministers should not continue to take part in the process as demonstrated in the negotiations.

Will not the hon. Gentleman have another look at his answer? Can we be given these analyses of particular advantages? One of the difficulties is that if he does not publish such a While Paper many of us will begin to think that even the Government have no idea of what the particular advantages are.

I thought it too much to expect that we should get through this Question Time without gloom being spread through the proceedings, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman of an answer he gave on 16th July 1969 when he said that it was not practicable to give a detailed analysis for different parts of the United Kingdom but that he was confident that United Kingdom membership of the Community would be of economic advantage to all parts of the United Kingdom. It is the right hon. Gentleman who has changed.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now announce his promised proposals for the abolition of feuduties; and when he proposes to introduce legislation.

My right hon. Friend published on 25th July a Green Paper containing proposals for a major reform of land tenure in Scotland, including the abolition of feuduties. Detailed consultations on these proposals are now proceeding, but I cannot yet say when legislation will be introduced.

These proposals for legislation have been promised for a long time. While we all appreciate the Green Paper, will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question which was asked some months ago—what bodies were consulted about the potential advantages to potential purchasers of homes? Will he remember that feuduties are of importance not only for those investors but also for social needs in house building?

I entirely accept what the hon. Member says about the importance of the subject and about those involved, but equally he must appreciate that the Government have gone in depth into what is an extremely complicated subject. We published a Green Paper only in July this year. We are still in the process of consultation and we wish to see this through before we come to any conclusions.

Will the hon. Gentleman indicate that when legislation is introduced he will safeguard the rights of udallers as regards the foreshore?

Yes.

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

And, I hope, also scat. Does the hon. Gentleman remember that it is now three years since the Labour Government published a White Paper setting out the form of abolition of feuduties? After three years, and after a General Election and a series of broken promises, the present Government have taken three vigorous steps backwards by producing a Green Paper. Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that his right hon. Friend, snorting in the nostrils like a warhorse, to use his own metaphor, wondered why we did not abolish them in 1969, and that all we have had are assurances and disgraceful delay, and nothing has happened since?

I am afraid I cannot be encouraging about scat. This is in the White Paper. The hon. Member should read it. His ignorance on this subject equals his ignorance generally, because what his Government and he did was only to tinker with the question of feudal reform. What we are proposing is very much more radical than anything his Government put forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in Scotland are now paying more in rent than they are legally required to do because of the failure by certain local authorities to implement the Housing Finance Act.

Comprehensive information is not available, because in many areas individual entitlements will not have been assessed. The number of council tenants who are being deprived of more generous rebates under the Act must amount to many thousands, and there are about 100,000 private tenants in the areas of those Scottish authorities which have said they are not implementing the Act.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it really is shocking that so many people in Scotland should be done out of the cash benefits to which they are legally entitled by the illegal actions of certain Labour controlled local authorities? Could he give an example of a typical case of people being so deprived?

I agree with my hon. Friend that some local authorities are unfortunately depriving their electors, both ratepayers and tenants, of the benefits of the Act. I cannot pick out any particular authority. I would say that the large majority of authorities in Scotland are carrying out the Act.

Will the Secretary of State be fair and remind the House that the so-called benefits are reductions of increases in rent which were introduced by the Act? Will he tell the House how many people in Scotland are paying much more in rent now since the Act has come into force?

The Act is taking hardship out of rent-paying in Scotland. For the first time there is a comprehensive rebate scheme extending into the unfurnished private sector. That means that in future no family in Scotland will be asked to pay ordinary rent if it cannot afford to. As I indicated in my original reply, the exact numbers of persons involved cannot yet be assessed, because the rebate schemes themselves depend on individual assessments, but it is clear that gradual increases in ordinary rent are accompanied by the fact that no one will be expected in the unfurnished sector to pay ordinary rent in future if he cannot afford to.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituency, where the Act is being and has from the beginning been implemented, is being deprived because of the Act of something like £l¼ million per annum on which the Government have welshed? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a good example of pleading with people to implement the Act when the Govern- ment themselves have gone back on long-established undertakings given to the local authorities?

As the hon. Member knows, the amount of money from the Exchequer towards housing in Scotland is increasing and in most cases local authorities are getting more. Glasgow, for example, is due to get no less than £4 million more this year than in the previous year.

Is the Secretary of State denying that the specific purpose of the Act is to increase local authority rents by amounts laid down by the Government without the agreement of the local authorities?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that up to 1st October Scottish ratepayers were contributing 35 per cent. of the cost of council housing and the tenants were contributing 40 per cent., and that in England and Wales the equivalent ratepayers' percentage was only 8 per cent. Therefore it has been the object to increase the Exchequer contribution and end the distortions by enabling the tenants to contribute more and reducing the burden on the Scottish ratepayers while protecting those tenants who cannot afford to pay an ordinary rent. The rent increases are carefully staged to be gradual.

Will the Secretary of State now answer the question?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a further statement about the implementation by local authorities of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972.

Following public local inquiries held on 20th and 23rd November I found that Glasgow Corporation, Lanark County Council and Falkirk and Kirkcaldy Town Councils have failed effectively to discharge their duties in relation to rents and rent rebates under the Act. On 1st December I made default orders directing these four authorities within 14 days to instruct their officials to prepare rent rebate schemes in accordance with the Act and proposals for increases in standard rents in accordance with the requirements of the orders. Lanark County and Kirkcaldy have now resolved to implement the Act.

Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that there will be no delay in pursuing this matter? Will he agree that this defiance of Parliament cannot be tolerated any longer? Will he confirm that this continued defiance of the law by Glasgow and 17 other local authorities is costing the ratepayers in those areas a great deal of money and is denying to the many thousands of tenants in need the more generous rent rebates which are provided under the Act?

I can give my hon. Friend an undertaking that the 1947 Act procedures have been and will be carried out as quickly as possible. There is a timetable involving the amount of notice that has to be given for local inquiries, which is 28 days, but the procedures have been followed as quickly as possible. I also confirm that an extra burden is being added to the ratepayers of the authorities concerned who are being punished by this action.

May I bring a very out-of-date Secretary of State up to date by informing him that Falkirk Town Council has also agreed to implement the Act? What action does the Secretary of State propose to take in respect of the housing subsidies which he withheld to blackmail local authorities in Scotland?

No, no.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to pay those subsidies? Will he also comment on the farcical nature of the inquiries which he orders?

The inquiries are laid down by the 1947 Act. There is no question of their being farcical; they are required by this House. It had been arranged that advance payment of subsidy to authorities would be made by the Government in November under the Act. If certain authorities are refusing to carry out the Act, they cannot expect to get an advance subsidy arising from the Act.

On a point of order. The Secretary of State has not said when those local authorities—

Order. That is a matter of content, not of order.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, no matter what legalistic right he may feel he has on his side, the people of Scotland will condemn him for his moral wrong and bullying? Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to look into the details published in today's Glasgow Herald showing that at one such meeting CID members were present making notes, and that the police were present yesterday at a perfectly fair deputation of tenants to protest against his vindictive Act?

Until the hon. Member rose two minutes ago I had thought that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench were also advocating that local authorities should carry out this Act of Parliament, but from what the hon. Gentleman has said it sounds as though he is not. I only know what I have seen in the newspapers today and I cannot comment on the Glasgow Herald article.

We asked the right hon. Gentleman to investigate this matter and I hope that he will not, like his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, continually distort our questions. Since we have asked the Secretary of State to report on a serious allegation, surely he will promise us that.

If there is anything in the newspapers which affects the Government, we shall look into it.

rose—

Order. Ten questions in 25 minutes is not very good progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the dates on which Dundee, Edinburgh and Lochgelly local authorities, respectively, decided to comply with the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act and the dates when he authorised the payment of the withheld portion of their housing subsidies.

Their latest decisions relating to compliance with the Act were taken by Dundee Corporation on 29th August, Edinburgh Corporation on 5th October and Lochgelly Town Council on 13th November. On 16th November I authorised payment to Lochgelly Town Council of the withheld portion of its housing subsidies. In the light of developments I have now arranged for payments to be made also to several other authorities, including Dundee.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that rather belated action may I ask whether he is aware that the people of Dundee feel that they have been discriminated against by the Secretary of State, as the dates of these sanctions show, and that the withholding of £1 million in subsidy from the city of Dundee is costing the ratepayers £1,400 per week in interest charges alone?

I am aware of the second point, and I say straight away that no Government can completely insulate ratepayers from the follies of their elected representatives. As regards the payment of subsidies, in reply to a previous supplementary question I explained that I could not make payment of a subsidy in advance under an Act which a local authority was refusing to implement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the total number of houses under construction fell from 42,997 in the first quarter of 1971 to 38,788 in the first quarter of 1972.

Because of the low level of tender approvals for public sector houses in 1970. I am glad to say that the number of approvals has been steadily increasing since then.

The right hon. Gentleman is not telling the truth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as he will see if he looks at his own figures. Does he not recognise that at a time when there is an acute housing shortage in Scotland it is little short of a scandal that the total number of completions in 1972 is likely to be less than 35,000—the lowest figure since 1963, which was the last full year of 13 years of Tory Government? What does he intend to do about increasing the number of completions instead of steadily refusing approvals as he has done over the last two years?

The hon. Gentleman has clearly got his figures muddled.

I have not.

He is talking about completions in 1972, but they are dependent on approvals during 1970, for half of which the Labour Government were responsible. He is incorrect about the change in trend, because more houses were approved in the first nine months of this year than in the whole of 1970.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the difficulties facing many young people seeking housing in the private sector, what action he proposes to take to assist people to overcome these difficulties.

My right hon. Friend is taking continuing action to promote an increase in the supply of private housing, on the lines indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 27th April.—[Vol. 835, c. 361–4.]

Is the Minister aware that the greatest difficulty encountered by young couples is in accumulating enough money for the deposit on a house? In the fruitless pursuit of houses which are constantly priced out of reach they may have to spend £25 on surveyors' fees on three or four houses, with the result that their deposit money is reduced until it sometimes disappears altogether. We cannot wait much longer for Government action on this matter which causes such acute difficulty for young people.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about the difficulty which faces young people. The basic answer is to try to increase the number of houses built for private ownership. It is significant that 1971 was a record year for private house-building in Scotland.

It is not just a question of the number of houses. The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the alarming rise in the cost of houses, particularly in the last 18 months. In the area in which I live, which is represented by one of the Ministers, prices are rocketing; young people do not stand a chance.

As I said, I appreciate the difficulties. It is more than the simple question of increasing the number of houses although the increase in the number of houses is of enormous help. The fact that an increasing number of houses is being built demonstrates the increasing demand for them.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses were submitted by Scottish local authorities for approval in each of the first three quarters of 1972; and what were the figures for the corresponding three quarters in 1971 and 1970.

With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

That is a very unsatisfactory answer, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. Will he say whether the number of submissions in the third quarter of 1972 is drastically lower than they were in the third quarter of 1970 and what are the future prospects for council house building in Scotland?

There are about a dozen figures as well as the different quarters to be recited, and I believe that the OFFICIAL REPORT is the place for those details. The first quarter of 1972 was affected by the building strike, so there is a difference there. Finally, the figure for the last quarter of 1971 was very large because of the possibility of Government subsidy to local authorities.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in Committee on the Housing Finance Bill he promised that the so-called "1st December houses" would continue in submission for the next few years? Therefore, it is vital to know whether in these three quarters there has been a substantial increase.

Yes, I confirm the situation in reply to an earlier supplementary question. The number of approvals in the first nine months of this year has been greater than for the whole of 1970 and the whole of 1971. The Question asked for the dates, and submissions for approval is a different matter. Approvals have varied and have been spread in subsequent quarters, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many municipal houses were completed in each of the financial years 1968–69, 1969–70, 1970–71 and 1971–72 in Buckhaven and Methil and Kirkcaldy, respectively.

With permission I will circulate the available figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only 88 houses were built in Kirkcaldy in the last financial year ending May 1972 and that in only two years since 1945 have fewer houses been built in that burgh? Does not this indicate a complete failure of the Government's latest housing Act? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore withdraw that Act and substitute something which will provide more generous subsidies that will enable local authorities to built more houses?

The hon. Gentleman should realise that house completions in 1971–72 reflect tender approvals in 1969–70. That is the lesson he should draw from that situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider acting on the recommendations contained in the recently published Shelter report, entitled "No Place to Call Home", a copy of which is in his possession.

Most of the recommendations deal with matters which are the responsibility of the local authorities. My right hon. Friend is considering whether any action is necessary on his part.

Will the Secretary of State consider two points: first, the conflict between housing authorities and social work authorities in different parts of Scotland on the same issue; and secondly, the fact that in Scotland in 1970 there was only one place of temporary accommodation for every 11,000 people whereas in England in the same year there was one place for every 2,000? Does he not think that this matter requires Government action?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in this valuable report which we are studying carefully. We shall look specially carefully at the two issues he has raised.

Will the Minister pay particular attention to the point raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) about co-ordination between social work departments and housing managers? Will he call a conference of those officers and his own social work advisers with a view to ensuring the coordination of policies, which differ widely throughout Scotland, and removing some of the cases which ocupy the homeless list administratively, leaving the difficult cases to be dealt with more thoroughly and in greater depth?

It is too early to say whether we should call a conference. My Department wants to look carefully at the suggestion of co-operation between housing departments and social work departments. The report has been out for only 10 days. When we have looked at it in detail we will consider whether a conference is necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a general direction to the South of Scotland Electricity Board to revise its policy on the recovery of debts for electricity supply.

This is a matter of commercial management which is entirely for the board, but any consumer who feels he is being treated unfairly may approach the Electricity Consultative Council for the board's district.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the practice adopted by the South of Scotland Electricity Board when disconnecting the supply of electricity because of non-payment of accounts—namely, to insist on a deposit of £40, £50 or even £60 before the supply is reconnected? Since many of those concerned are poor families living in all-electric houses—families with young children of a tender age—does he not agree that it is extremely serious when there is no electricity supply to such households? Does he believe that boards should make these demands when the people concerned cannot pay them out of supplementary benefit or any other income, and does he not agree that this problem bears heavily on deserted wives? Therefore, will the Government ask for electricity board to stop demanding deposits and to tie its accounts to a shorter period than three months?

I can appreciate that hardship is sometimes caused, but one cannot generalise and one has to relate these matters to individual cases. I have been assured by the board that it is well aware of the hardship and distress which can be caused. The board also assures us that through our good offices it has contact with social work services, and we believe that this is the right approach.

Will the Minister reconsider this matter and not simply leave it to the commercial judgment of the board? Would it not assist if more burglar-proof prepayment meters were installed in houses?

I accept that this relates to my responsibilities in crime prevention, and we believe that this would be helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on future developments at Edinburgh airport linked with the report of the public inquiry he now has before him.

I have at present nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Gentleman on 21st November.—[Vol. 846, c. 389.]

Is the Secretary of State aware that the continuing delay in reaching a decision on Edinburgh airport smacks of complacency probably unequalled by any Secretary of State? Secondly, is he further aware that yesterday one of his hon. Friends notified me that nothing can be done about the structural faults in taxiways until the right hon. Gentleman reaches his decision on the future of the airport? Does he realise that we are discussing jobs, airport revenues—

Order. We are not discussing anything at the moment. We are in the middle of a supplementary question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question embraces revenues from the airport, jobs and interruption of flight schedules and that this whole matter typifies the image of the capital city of Scotland—namely, Edinburgh?

The hon. Gentleman should know that under the provisions of the various planning Acts I have to consider the report made by the reporter, as a result of an inquiry which took 38 days and at which detailed and complex evidence was led. I am dealing with this matter as quickly as I can. Indeed, I am probably more concerned about Edinburgh airport than anybody else since I use it so frequently.

I appreciate that this is not a time at which to comment on the merits of the proposals for Turnhouse airport, because the Secretary of State must reach a judicial decision on it, but will he agree that we have a duty and a right to ask whether he is aware that the whole future of the airport is at risk as long as the taxiway is not fit. Does he agree that employment which depends on the existence of the airport is also at risk?

I have been trying to make progress on Edinburgh airport for several years. An inquiry had to take place because a number of leading bodies and individuals raised objections, as they had a right to do. Those objections were detailed, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that these are matters which cannot be decided overnight.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he hopes to complete his consideration of the revised proposals for the opera house, sent to him by Edinburgh Corporation, involving a substantial increase in the estimated cost; and if he will make a statement.

I hope to let the corporation have my considered views on the revised proposals early in the New Year.

Is there to be a limited competition for the new opera house?

This is one of the points I have discussed informally with the Lord Provost, but it is a matter for the Edinburgh Corporation to decide. The Government put forward a generous grant in respect of the original proposal last year. A different proposal has now been put forward and the Government have had to consider this matter again.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total coal consumption per year of coal-fired electricity power stations in Scotland; and what percentage this is of the total amount of fuels at present required to generate electricity in Scotland.

A total of 5,793,000 tons of coal was used in Scottish power stations in 1971–72, representing 55 per cent. of all fuels used.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his reply indicates that coal is still important to the Scottish economy, particularly in the generation of electricity? Will he also agree that it is high time that the Secretary of State made a close study of the rôle that coal should play in Scotland in the years to come? Furthermore, will he agree that energy policy should be considered in a Scottish context?

I agree that coal is important to the Scottish economy, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the statement which was made on this subject earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is a positive demonstration that this is the Government's view.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek a further meeting with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

On 8th December I had a very useful meeting with representatives of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) when we discussed the current industrial and economic situation in Scotland.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take cognisance of what was said to him by this non-political body and bear in mind that the chairman of the Scottish Council is very conversant with the steel industry? Will he particularly note that the chairman's view was that in the interests of the economy of Scotland it is of paramount importance that the complex should be sited at Hunterston? Is he prepared to say that on Scotland's behalf he will be the leader in the Cabinet to ensure that the complex comes to the Scottish economy?

I took close note of what the chairman of the Scottish Council said, and I have been in touch with him. I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I am certainly leading the Scottish interests in making sure that we have a viable, balanced steel industry which can provide length of production for steel-using industries in Scotland in the future.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Scottish Council has shown a great deal of sympathy for the idea of a development body in Scotland financed from oil revenues? Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter further consideration?

I think we have all taken an interest in a whole lot of different ideas that have been put forward, but that is not one which the council has specifically put to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the toll income from the Forth road bridge to begin to pay off the accumulated debt.

Provided that recent trends in growth of traffic, toll revenue and expenditure continue, it should be possible to start paying off the accumulated debt within the next 18 months.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a considerable time will elapse between the final construction of the bridge and the beginning of paying off the debt? Would it not be much more sensible, and save time and money, to scrap the tolls and allow traffic to flow freely without the disruption that is caused by their collection?

The hon. Gentleman must remember the agreement that was made between the Government, local authorities and others involved about the basis on which the bridge should be built. That policy has been carried out by successive Governments.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the long delay in making the bridge financially viable is due partly to the Cramond bridge which is used by traffic not going over the Forth Bridge but is charged against the cost of the bridge and has to be recovered from tolls? The Government could help by relieving the road authorities of this burden.

As my hon. Friend knows, this question has been fully considered on a number of occasions. I do not see any reason why the cost of providing bridges should be excluded from being recoverable from the tolls.

As the Local Government (Scotland) Bill will take part of the south of Fife into part of the Edinburgh region, would it not be sensible for constituents in that part of the county to have free access to the regional headquarters in Edinburgh?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to deploy that point in Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Ayr County Council about future industrial developments at Hunterston.

Ayr County Council has recently written to me about the case for setting steel production targets which would justify the construction of a major steelworks on a green field site, and for siting such a steelworks at Hunterston. These arguments were of course well known to me.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that Ayr County Council is afraid that he will use the outstanding application by ORSI for oil and steel development at Hunterston, attracting only 2,000 jobs, as a substitute for the British Steel Corporation's proposal for a green field site integrated steel mill at Hunterston, guaranteeing the future of 26,000 jobs in the steel industry in Scotland which are being threatened by the Government's decision to enter Europe?

I am the planning Minister for Scotland, and I have two applications in this area to consider. As I operate in a quasi-judicial capacity I cannot comment on them here, but in my decision two years ago I kept open all the options at Hunterston and in doing so I rejected an application by an oil refinery. That was much criticised by some hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Can my right hon. Friend say when the Hunterston Development Company which he helped to set up will publish its conclusions on this important subject?

I understand that the company is considering the report of the consultants and that in due course it will decide what statement to make.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was leading the fight for a balanced steel industry in Scotland. Does this include an integrated steel plant at Hunterston?

My answer mentions a green field site, which is what was put to me by Ayr County Council, but the House will know that the British Steel Corporation's plan which is before the Government does not include a green field site.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will call for reports from chief constables as to the steps they have now taken to deal with future strike picketing.

My right hon. Friend's Department has had discussions with chief constables on this matter, and I am very much aware of the problems of enforcement which the police have had to face.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, in so far as it was an answer. Is he aware that there is a great deal of public concern about this matter? Can he say who is the ultimate authority for the maintenance of law and order, so that in the event of failure again to prevent intimidation by unlawful picketing we may know whom to hold responsible for that failure? That is what the country wants to know.

In specific situations it is obviously the responsibility of the senior police officer present. What I must emphasise is that the problem is not so much what the law is, but its enforcement. It is on the latter point that we have had discussions with chief constables, and we hope that the position has been clarified about how the matter should be handled. I think that we should praise the police for the efficiency and great restraint with which they have handled the problem in recent disputes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 the Government, while limiting the right to picket, recognised the right to picket? Will he include within the terms of reference of his activities the need to give protection to those who lawfully engage in picketing?

Yes, I agree that there are certain rights relating to picketing. What concerns the great mass of the general public more than anything else, whilst appreciating that the majority of responsible trade unionists do not condone acts of violence, is not only the right to strike but the right to work.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when Her Majesty's Government intend to set up a Scottish Assembly.

In accordance with the recommendation in paragraph 322 of the report by the constitutional committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Government have not at any stage contemplated that proposals would be put forward before action had been taken on local government reform and therefore before Parliament has passed the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that action is being taken on local government? There is a Bill before the House which he may have noticed. Will he give a firm undertaking that a Bill to set up a Scottish Assembly—whatever anyone may think, it was part of the Tory election pledge—will be introduced within a year?

We have just had Second Reading of that Bill, on which the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that there was a considerable difference of opinion. I certainly should not wish to prejudge Parliament's decision on the Bill before it has even gone into Committee. We have made this quite clear. As there has been some speculation on the second point, perhaps I may say that when the time comes for such proposals to be put forward a Green Paper would seem a suitable way of doing it.

Since the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the threat by Miss Wendy Wood to fast unto death until a date is announced for the setting up of the assembly—first, it is a minor degree of self-government compared with what Miss Wood has been contending for all her life, and secondly, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), it is in accord with a promise made by the Conservative Party that a Scottish Assembly would be introduced, as announced by the Prime Minister in the Declaration of Perth amid a grandiose fanfare over three years ago—surely it is not an unreasonable demand, to prevent this happening to Miss Wood, that the Secretary of State should announce the date for the setting up of the assembly.

I described in my original answer what our position has always been on this matter and the order of events. I am extremely concerned about Miss Wood's health. I have managed to get messages through to her which I think have corrected her original misunderstanding. I hope that what I have said about a Green Paper coming forward at the appropriate time will meet her wishes.

Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) and others who have misunderstood the position completely, and probably deliberately, that everything he has said today is precisely in line with the clear statement by the Prime Minister in the Declaration of Perth and that we have done precisely what we said we would do and will go on doing precisely what we said we would do?

My hon. Friend has expressed the position very concisely.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider and give a definitive answer? It is about time that the country knew about the situation. I do not go back to the Declaration of Perth: I go back to the first Queen's Speech of the present Government in 1970 when this subject was singled out for mention. There was nothing about Green Papers then. It was a specific statement that this was to be done. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us when?

If the right hon. Gentleman will look up that Queen's Speech he will see that it stated that proposals would be put forward in the life of this Parliament, not in the first Session. It was done because people were interested and needed to be reminded of what we had said and the timetable.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of land in Scotland has gone out of agricultural use for development in each of the last five years.

The amounts of agricultural land taken for urban and industrial development for the individual years from June 1967 to June 1972 were respectively 5,250, 6,108, 4,280, 3,827 and 3,447 acres.

Does not this considerable loss of agricultural land show that there is a need to stimulate land reclamation in Scotland?

Indeed it does. I think that the Government, in their policies on reclaiming derelict land in particular, have demonstrated their realisation of this need.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will specify, and state the number of, the Statutes containing provisions in respect of fire prevention requirements.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to Appendices E and F of the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Fire Service—The Holroyd Report, Cmnd. 4371. In addition there is the Fire Precautions Act 1971.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer is certainly not appreciated? In view of the over-riding dangerous situation of many buildings in Glasgow and the frequency of fires, is there not a real need for clarity of the situation by defining the responsibility and powers of the proper authorities for fire prevention? Will the hon. Gentleman take some action in the matter?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. This whole matter of fire prevention is very important, particularly in the light of recent events. The number of Statutes involved is considerable, though a measure of consolidation has been carried out in the Fire Precautions Act 1971. However, the responsibility for this matter rests firmly with the fire authorities. I have no evidence that fire authorities are unaware of or are unwilling to carry out their responsibilities in this direction.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether it is still expected that the new parliamentary building will he completed in 1978; and if he will make a statement.

This is a matter which must await the outcome of the debate, which I have already promised.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members are becoming cynical about this matter and feel that the building will not be completed this side of 1980? Is he further aware that some of us believe that the kind of exhibition which is being shown upstairs is merely an exercise to keep our morale high? Finally, may I ask him not to forget the dreadful conditions in which many hon. Members and secretaries have to work, flouting laws on this matter that were passed by this House? Will he try to expedite the completion of this building?

The hon. Gentleman has made a strong case for an early debate on this issue, which I should very much like to provide, because until the House has taken a decision we cannot proceed. Provided that the House takes an early decision on the matter, there is no reason why the new parliamentary building should not be completed in 1978 for occupation in the autumn of that year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision and a debate must take place in this House before the end of January? As the existing buildings on the site have to be demolished and excavations undertaken before any new building can go up, could not work on this side start as soon as possible, bearing in mind that, if there are archaeological finds, the sooner they are found the better and the less likely they will be to delay the subsequent building work?

I certainly cannot promise a debate before the end of January. We shall be back here for only one week in January after the recess. The end of January might be sooner than we can manage. If we obtain the approval of the House—that must be a matter for the House—demolition could start after the summer session is completed. Obviously the sooner it starts the better.

May we have another debate at the same time about this wretched new car park in New Palace Yard which is becoming—

Order. The Question concerns the new parliamentary building.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are not as impatient as has been suggested and that we would prefer extra delay rather than the destruction of Parliament Square by this hideous new building?

That must come within the debate.

Will the Minister give two further promises: first, that he will not try to slip the debate through on a Friday at five minutes to four, as he did with the car park debate; and secondly, that he will ensure that the views of this House are considered, because we would not like to see the mess, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) was about to refer just now, repeated when this new building is constructed?

All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I think a half day's debate on that topic would be suitable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, that is not enough."] This is the problem. I will discuss this matter with hon. Members.

Will my right hon. Friend examine the relationship between the proposed new building and the traffic problem in the vicinity of Parliament Square? Will he give very careful consideration to the request of the Greater London Council and take the opportunity to put in one more traffic lane for eastbound traffic in Bridge Street? This would make it possible to alter the phasing of the traffic lights and speed the traffic down Whitehall. Further, is my right hon. Friend aware that this could be done without setting back the main building and that it would mean only cutting into the surrounds?

I recognise the importance of speeding traffic down Whitehall. The other point which my hon. Friend has mentioned would be more appropriate for the debate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members would not be satisfied with a half day's debate? Despite our sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) about lack of accommodation, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that many Members think that the new building is completely out of character with Parliament?

I was asked whether I would refrain from slipping the debate through at five minutes to four on a Friday afternoon, and I said in reply that I thought half a day would be very suitable for a debate. However, I have noted what hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House have said. All I can say is that if we are to give this subject the time that hon. Members think it deserves, something else will have to fall out of the programme.