asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the need for the provision of more geriatric beds in Fife, and public anxiety on the matter, he will take immediate steps to alleviate the problem.

A programme of building schemes which will meet the need for more geriatric beds in Fife already exists and planning is in hand. A scheme providing 34 psychogeriatric beds is nearing completion and work on two small projects, providing 49 additional geriatric beds, should start this year; construction of the major schemes will start as soon as planning can be completed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware —and is the South East Regional Board Hospital Board aware —of the increased and increasing anxiety in Fife about the inadequacy of provision of geriatric beds in the Fife area? Will he ask the regional board to speed up its programme in Glenrothes? What is the estimated cost of the unit at Glenrothes, and is that unit on schedule? Will the Minister get going with the regional board and tell it to get on with the job?

I was glad to have a chance to talk with the hon. Gentleman yesterday about the schemes in Fife and I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and other hon. Gentleman next week to discuss the matter further. The programme of geriatric provision in Fife is substantial and when completed should be adequate for all needs in the area. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that I should like to see everything going ahead as fast as possible, and this is part of what we shall discuss next week. The total scheme at Glenrothes, excluding the health clinic, will cost about £500,000.

When calculations are made of the number of beds required, will my hon. Friend take into account the overspill arrangement between Glasgow and Glenrothes?

I would have to check that, but I am under the impression that that is the case.

I would not wish to detract from the problems in Fife, but may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that the humane answer to this serious and growing problem is not to keep on building geriatric units as we are doing all over Scotland but to expand the home help service and the home nursing service and to ensure that the social services work and keep many of these elderly people at home?

I agree. That is why the Government are spending so much money on all the matters about which the hon. Gentleman speaks, including sheltered housing and so on. I agree with the objective behind the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I must emphasise that we are getting on with the job.

In view of the urgency of this problem, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the amount of high-cost subsidy that will be given to Irvine Development Corporation during the present financial year.

I have no evidence of any widening of the differential between Irvine New Town rents and average Scottish rents significant enough to justify the payment of high-cost subsidy to the development corporation.

Is the Minister aware that the tenants of Irvine Development Corporation have been faced with further increases in rents under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act? When will the Secretary of State for Scotland step in and take action —as he promised to do in Committee on that legislation last year —to protect the tenants of the new town corporation against further rent increases, since those rents are already well above the rent levels of normal local authority houses in the area?

The fact that they are above the normal local authority house rents reflects the fact that most of the houses concerned in Irvine are new, in a good environment and of modern quality. The object of the high-cost subsidy is to deal with the situation if there should be a significant widening of the differential between average rents in new towns and average rents in Scottish local authorities generally, and this has not happened.

As the section in the 1972 Act deals also with SSHA houses, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of a widening in the gap between the rents of SSHA houses and local authority houses? Does he envisage the need to pay high-cost subsidy to the SSHA in the future?

For the same reason, there is no evidence to show that there is a widening of the differential between SSHA tenants and Scottish housing tenants as a whole. The hon. Gentleman should not forget the effect of the rent rebate scheme here. For instance a married man with three children living in Irvine would have to have a household income of over £40 a week —£2,000 a year —before being called upon to pay the average rent of £230.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many improvement grants in the private housing sector have been approved in Scotland since March 1971.

From 1st April 1971 to 31st December 1972, the last date for which figures are available, improvement grants and standard grants were approved for 21,796 privately owned houses.

I appreciate that the housing improvement scheme is contributing successfully to maintaining the stock of old houses in Scotland, but is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the money spent for this purpose is properly allocated? Is he aware of cases where grants are given to owners whose houses have all the amenities and meet all tolerable standards and that they are improving their houses beyond their family requirements? If this is true, is it not denying improvement grants to those who need them?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the improvement grant scheme. I do not have evidence of abuses such as he outlines. This is a matter of discretion for the local authorities to exercise. If an authority thinks that an individual request is unreasonable, it has the right to refuse to make a grant. My own attitude is that every house improved to modern standards is a further house for people in Scotland to live in.

Since the Government have repeatedly stressed as a principle that housing subsidies were not to be paid in respect of bricks and mortar but should be paid to persons in need, how can the hon. Gentleman justify this vast expenditure on improvements without any test of means?

A house which is below the proper standard and which therefore needs improvement is a house which has a great need of improvement, and that is what the scheme is all about.

How many of these grants have gone to property companies which have speculated in housing, obtained improvement grants and subsequently sold properties without any need to repay hard-earned cash from the Exchequer?

I have no figures to show what might be the numbers for property companies. But I hope that as many as possible of these grants can be used for privately tenanted houses many of whose tenants are living in deplorable conditions for the lack of improvement. The general purpose of the scheme is to get houses improved. So long as it is achieving that, I shall be satisfied.

Of the 21,796, how many were for owner-occupiers and how many for properties with tenants in them?

Of the figure quoted, 17,400 applications were by owner-occu- piers and about 4,400 by other applicants including the owners of let houses.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the report of the working party set up by the Crown Estates Commissioners on the balance which should be maintained on the Glenlivet Estate; and if he will make a statement.

The working party was set up by the commissioners to advise them on matters of estate management which are within their responsibility and the question of publication does not arise. However, I am sure they would be glad to assist my hon. Friend with information on any aspect in which he is interested.

Before the plan is implemented will my hon. Friend assure the House that full and proper consultation will take place with all interested parties on the Glenlivet Estate?

I understand that certain consultations have taken place already and that the commissioners will continue to consult individual tenants about any changes which may affect them.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total additional rent paid by local authority tenants in Scotland in 1972; and what he estimates the further total increase to be in 1973.

This information is not available, and there is no basis for making estimates. It would be necessary to make assumptions about such matters as the state of housing revenue accounts, the composition of families of tenants and levels of earnings. The Housing Act 1972 restricts the amounts per year by which local authorities can increase rents.

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he does not know the effect that the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 has had on local authority tenants in Scotland and that he is not worried about the effect that the Act will have in Scotland in future years? Is he aware that many large burghs are now estimating that the total increase in rent revenue paid by local authority tenants will verge on £1 million per annum and that this can only come out of the pockets of local authority tenants at a time when they are being asked to hold back on wage demands?

As I have said, there are restrictions on the increases which can be made in rents each year. There are also the rebate and rent allowance schemes. The figures are not available for 1972 and estimates cannot be made because all the facts are not yet available. I can, however, give figures for previous years. In 1969 the average percentage increase in local authority standard rents was 18·2, in 1970 it was 14·8 per cent. and in 1971 it was 6·8 per cent. In the case of Glasgow the average increase in the six years from November 1964 to November 1970 was 193 per cent. and in the two years from November 1970 to November 1972 it was 0·1 per cent.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much less in rent will be paid by the many tenants who will benefit from the Government's generous rent rebate scheme? Will my right hon. Friend either circulate or publish figures in HANSARD showing what effect the Act will have on reducing rate poundages throughout Scotland?

We have given some estimates already. There are large numbers of tenants who will benefit from the rebate and allowance schemes. But we cannot make further accurate estimates without knowing about the circumstances of individual families. This information will become available in due course. When it is available we shall inform the House.

May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the percentage figures of increases which he read out and ask him whether I am right in thinking that he disapproved of them and would not tolerate them under his own Government?

I was giving the House the facts which are available and also undertaking that when similar information becomes available, as it will later in the year, it will be made known to the House.

My right hon. Friend will recall that at the last count the average council house family in Scotland paid about four-sevenths of the proportion of its income on housing which the average council house family in England paid. What is the ratio today? Has my right hon. Friend any information?

Not without notice. But the facts have been made plain as they were by the Allen Committee which reported on rates some time ago. Rates have been very high in Scotland while rents in the public sector have been low, and this was not so in England.

When will the right hon. Gentleman stop dodging the issue and admit frankly that the vast majority of local authority tenants in Scotland will pay greatly increased rents despite the rebate scheme?

The annual rent increase which is permissible is laid down in the Act, so increases can take place only by gradual steps. I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the 5½ years in which his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was Secretary of State the average local authority rent in Scotland was doubled precisely.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate he has made of the expected out-turn of Scottish forests in the years 1974 to 1980; and if he will make a statement.

The Forestry Commission's out-turn of timber in Scotland will amount to 670,000 tons in 1974, and is expected to rise annually by about 30,000 tons to 850,000 tons in 1980. According to the latest estimates the corresponding figures for private forestry are about 430,000 tons in 1974 rising to about 490,000 tons in 1980.

Does my hon. Friend agree that despite this increase there is now a shortage of timber in Scotland? In view of the importance of integrating agriculture and forestry in Scotland, is there not a need to look again at the proper allocation of land between these two essential services?

My hon. Friend will know that we import about 90 per cent. of our timber requirements. I assure him that in our review of forestry policy we will look closely at the question of proper land use and proper integration between, for example, forestry and hill farming.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Scottish Council of the Confederation of British Industry on 16th March 1973.

The main items raised on this occasion were the IMEG report on the possibilities for participation by British industry in oil developments; the way in which industry can most usefully participate in local government after reform; and the CBI's recently revised attitude to the regional employment premium.

Regarding the CBI's revised attitude to REP, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware thai since the meeting the Confederation of British Industry calculates that if REP is withdrawn there will be extra unemployment of between 20,000 and 50,000 people in the development areas? Is he further aware that if REP is withdrawn Scotland will lose £40 million? Will he tell the House what he and his right hon. Friend are doing for Scotland to try to save this £40 million?

First, the delegation which I saw from the Scottish CBI made it clear that it had always considered that REP had great shortcomings as a regional development aid. It said that it had in recent weeks come to the conclusion, however, that it should be carried on until 1978 because it was becoming concerned about its removal. The delegation also spoke to me about its ideas as to what should be done about replacing or phasing-out REP. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have undertaken to con- sult the CBI and the TUC about the methods of doing this in due course. I assure him that we will take into account the views expressed by all these bodies in considering phasing-out and replacing REP when the time comes.

Was my hon. Friend able to tell the Scottish Council whether, if the Government decide as a result of representations which have been made to continue REP until 1980, the Common Market Commission would allow us to do so?

This matter was briefly touched upon, but it was not considered to be a bar to taking sensible action to consider how REP can best be phased out and what steps can be taken to help the Scottish economy.

How did the Minister justify the ending of the regional employment premium in 1974? What devices did he put to the CBI for some form of labour subsidy? On the IMEG report, may I ask how he justified the non-implementation of the proposal for the setting up of a petroleum industry supply board?

The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the representatives of the CBI told me that they are examining the practicability of a regional VAT subsidy scheme as one suggestion for what might replace REP in due course. My justification is that, as long ago as six or seven years, the Labour Government decided that this scheme would run until 1974 and we said that it would be phased out thereafter. We are merely carrying out what we said we would do.

While recognising the drawbacks to REP, may I ask my hon. Friend nevertheless to pay careful attention to the latest report of the OECD on British regional policies which confirms or tends to emphasise what many of us have believed for some time: namely, that our regional development policies are far too capital-intensive oriented?

We shall certainly pay close attention to that and to all the other views that have been expressed.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept the figure quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) that the withdrawal of REP will mean a loss of £40 million a year to Scottish industry? Does he also accept the figure given by the CBI that the withdrawal of REP will result in an increase in unemployment of between 20,000 and 50,000 in the development areas? That being so, and as the hon. Gentleman agreed about the need for some labour-intensive subsidy, may I ask what the Government propose to put in place of REP if they are now to phase it out? I remind him that on 27th October the Chancellor said that it would end, not be phased out. We are glad to know that there is some amelioration of the position.

I am sure that we are all glad to have a few words from Mr. SET himself in this particular week. I cannot confirm or agree with the figures that have been quoted. Some are very speculative. I cannot confirm them as being necessarily correct. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we would not wish to phase out REP without consulting the CBI and the TUC. We must do so and we have said that we will do this.

I do not want REP to be phased out at all in view of the precarious position of employment in Scotland. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department publishes the amount that Scotland receives per year in REP, and that £40 million is the figure? In fact, the last figure was £40 1 million. Why does he not accept this? Why does he underrate the importance of this matter to Scottish industry?

I do not underrate its importance at all. It has been clear for many years what we were going to do about REP. Indeed the Labour Government made clear what they were going to do about it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that the balance of measures which he introduced involved the inclusion of REP and SET. SET was greatly resented in Scotland because it hit hardest on the service industries. The right hon. Gentleman should be thanking us for having removed it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the opportunities for further education for physically handicapped school leavers provided in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Many physically handicapped school leavers can attend further education colleges in the ordinary way and are encouraged to do so. For those who require special facilities and residential care there is one college with 34 places at Crossbasket in Lanarkshire. Handicapped young people from Scotland also attend residential colleges in England.

I find that answer completely unsatisfactory. It shows a lack of feeling for these young people. Is the Minister aware that these children have already had fragmented basic education due in most cases to medical treatment and hospitalisation? What are his plans for extending the facilities which should be available for further education for these children? Is he prepared now to act on the basis of the Melville Report which is in his possession? Will he tell the House what action he proposes to take on that report?

The hon. Gentleman must be clear in his mind about what he is asking me to do. I have explained that the majority of handicapped children are able to go on to further education colleges in the normal way. I am sure we would all wish them to be treated as normal children. We have set up the McCann Committee. It would be foolish to make major changes before that committee reports this year. The Melville Report is in the hands of my right hon. Friend and we are considering it. We have not yet reached any final decision. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the Government take this position very seriously. There is no question of underrating the importance of helping disabled children.

Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of extending the scope of the committee by making it a continuing committee to keep a general watch over the situation in future as opposed to a committee with a specific remit which will conclude after its report is published?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I think that perhaps we should allow Baillie McCann and his committee to report and discuss it with him afterwards.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last week I visited a constituent of mine who is in the Princess Marina centre run by the Spastics Society and that I was greatly impressed by what I saw? May I ask when he will set up a similar centre in Scotland so that Scottish people do not need to go to England for such treatment?

I shall give this whole matter careful consideration when the committee reports.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his education allocation for the next grant period.

I shall notify education authorities of their school building allocations for 1974–75 as soon as possible.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of urgent expectation among local authorities on this matter? Cannot he tell us what will be the global figure for Scotland, particularly for school building? Is he aware that the much-vaunted primary school building programme is urgently required in Lanarkshire? When will he make it known to the local authority that it can build the primary schools which are still urgently required and the secondary schools which are urgently needed to carry out the comprehensive education programme?

When the Government are disbursing such a large sum as about £38·5 million for school building, including nursery school building, we must look very carefully at how we allocate the money to each authority. This is why it has taken a little longer than last year, but I shall announce the plan as soon as I can.

May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to my remarks in the debate on the rate support grant on Tuesday of last week, when I described the serious difficulties encountered by Stirlingshire Education Committee in that the school population in the Falkirk/ Grangemouth area is increasingly rapidly and said that an extra allocation should be made to the committee for this purpose? Can he comment on this?

Certainly, the Scottish Education Department looks at population trends and the special requirements of special areas when we are making up the allocations. I am sure that this will be taken into consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the meetings he has had with the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

Since becoming Secretary of State, I have had one formal meeting with the board and I have also met members of the board on a number of occasions. In particular I am in close touch with the board's chairman and from time to time discuss with him the work of the board. In addition, since June 1970 other Scottish Office Ministers have met the board on four separate occasions.

Would the Secretary of State accept that there is considerable disquiet about the board's performance, which is not unrelated to the fact that former servants of the board find it remunerative and profitable to take jobs outside not unrelated to their former activities with the board? How much land has the board in terms of options or ownership which might be used for offshore oil supply purposes?

I cannot answer that question without notice, but I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that a former member of the board who was deputy-chairman —a retired civil servant, he was appointed deputy-chairman at the age of 60 by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—over five years later, when he has left, has taken up an appointment with a development company. There is nothing in the rules governing the question of going to such a company from a public board such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

Does the Secretary of State recall that, when the selective employment tax was introduced, the former Highlands and Islands Development Board made representations to the then Secretary of State that it should not apply to Highland hotels and that the Labour Government responded favourably to that request? Has he had similar representations from the present board about the impact of VAT on the Highlands, particularly on the Highland tourist industry? If not, why not? Will he have discussions with the board at once about this?

I well remember a long campaign in which I took part to try to get the previous Government to relieve hotels and the tourist industry from the obnoxious SET, which in the end they reluctantly did, dividing Scotland up into a curious chequerboard so that there was relief in some areas but not in others. I have not received representations of this kind on VAT.

Reverting to the question of further employment of members and former members of the board, in view of the remarkable responsibilities given to the board by the previous Government is there not a serious case for subjecting its members to the same rules regarding employment after quitting public service as apply to civil servants, and ensuring that they are enforced more effectively than they have sometimes been on civil servants?

This is a matter that needs consideration. I was informing the House of the present position.

Is it not remarkable that even merchant bankers are now criticising the Government's oil policy for a lack of planning? If they are not yet convinced of the urgent need for a comprehensive land policy for the north of Scotland, will the Government at least make a statement on their attitude to the taking of options on large areas of strategically-placed land by private companies backed by Scottish financial institutions?

That is quite a different point. The hon. Member will recognise that it was merchant bankers themselves who were being criticised for their activities last Friday. We are making good progress in Scotland in respect of undersea oil, and the onshore activities are all welcome developments. None the less, this seems to be an area in which each sector criticises the other.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to seek an increase in the powers of the Mental Welfare Commission; and if he will make a statement.

The commission's powers in relation to the taking of evidence were recently extended by the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972, and I am not aware of any need for additional powers.

Is the hon. Gentleman really content with present arrangements for Secretary of State patients at the State mental hospital? Can he, for example, tell us what percentage of such patients receive psychiatric treatment? Will he consider whether the excellent work of the Mental Welfare Commission could not be usefully supplemented by mental welfare tribunals to which complaints by such patients and other patients who are detained in hospital could be referred?

I certainly join the hon and learned Member in praise for the Mental Welfare Commission, which does an exceptional job in Scotland. With respect to him, he may be thinking of the Mental Health Review Tribunal in England, which only advises the Home Secretary. In the same way as my right hon. Friend has to make the final decision on discharge of Secretary of State patients at Carstairs, the Home Secretary has to make the final decision in England. It would not help to add to the powers that we already have.

Is the Mental Welfare Commission satisfied with the present position of out-patients, since the local authorities are responsible for them while the commission has a visiting responsibility?

I will make inquiries and write to my hon. Friend. Certainly there were some difficulties as insufficient people were coming forward to offer to look after out-patients, but I shall write to my hon. Friend about the immediate position.

While the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the question of the rights of patients, whether mental patients or other patients, will he explain to the House why he accepted an amendment in Committee on the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972 relating to the powers and duties of the Health Commissioner, which were taken out of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill dealing with England which is at present before the House?

This in no way affects the position of the Mental Welfare Commission, which we feel needs to be retained in a strong position in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the highest annual figure in the parliamentary Estimates for housing during the period 1965 to 1969; and how this compares with the parliamentary Estimates for 1973–74.

The highest annual estimate between 1965 and 1969 was £30·2 million in 1968–69. The estimate for 1973–74 is £101·6 million.

Does my hon. Friend realise that I am almost speechless? Is he aware that these remarkable figures make nonsense of the mischievous and alarmist housing stories spread about Scotland by those sour and prattling hon. Members opposite?

I have no illusions that even figures like these could make my hon. Friend speechless. Of course he is right: Opposition Members who made a great thing a year ago about the Housing Finance Act cutting subsidies have been proved totally and absolutely mistaken. I should have thought that they would have had the grace to admit it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if anyone is speechless, it is the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who are confronted with the escalating prices of houses about which the Government are doing very little?

I should have thought that, whatever one may accuse the Government of doing or not doing, doing very little about inflation is the last accusation that could possibly be levelled against us. The hon. Gentleman knows that until inflation is conquered that sort of thing will go on. This Government have taken bigger steps than any other Government this century to do that.

Will my hon. Friend emphasise on every possible occasion that the excellent figures which he has just quoted include the fact that there arc literally thousands of people in Scotland who, under the new Act, will live rent free from now on?

That is a very important point. We have always maintained that more money could be made available for housing in Scotland provided that it was concentrated on those who need it most, which is precisely what we have done. The people concerned are very grateful about it.

How much of this total is the result of the record house building figures between 1964 and 1970? How much of the figure is due to inflation? What increase in house building does the Minister expect in the next couple of years?

I am not sure about all those questions. But absolutely none of this figure is in any way due to any activities by Opposition Members.

Am I to understand that the quarter of a million houses built by the Labour Government, a record number, are attracting no subsidy at all? That would be the implication of the hon. Gentleman's answer. If those houses were not there, there would not need to be any continuing subsidy at all.

I must give the right hon. Gentleman a slide rule for Christmas because he will find that if his subsidy system had been carried on and the new Act had not been brought in, his subsidy would have produced nothing remotely approaching the figure of £101·6 million.

rose—

Order. On the theme of speechlessness, may I point out that 12 Scottish Questions have taken 37 minutes. I hope that we can make quicker progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the expected expenditure under the parliamentary Estimates for housing in the year 1973–74; and how this compares with the equivalent sums in 1971–72 and 1972–73, respectively.

The figure is £101·6 million for 1973–74, compared with £50·1 million for 1971–72 and £61·4 million for 1972–73.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) I am speechless, but before I lose my voice altogether may I ask what steps the Minister can take to trumpet these facts all over Scotland?

The evidence of these facts is to be seen in the balance sheets of local authorities, which find that the new subsidy system gives most help where it is most needed. It is worth noting from all these figures that of all the years under the present Government, even the lowest year is substantially above the highest year under the previous Government.

Will the Minister estimate how much of this new payment will come out of the rates, either for the present figure which has been given or for the figure covering the immediate future?

None of this figure comes out of the rates. It is Government money which is devoted to housing under the parliamentary Estimates for housing. But the rates will be substantially assisted too by the fact that the burden ratepayers now carry for housing will be more than halved over the next five years.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received about employment prospects in the light of future pit closures in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The last colliery closure in Scotland was in October 1972. No further closures in Scotland have been announced by the National Coal Board, so that questions of alternative employment have not since arisen. I shall continue to keep closely in touch with the situation in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Is the Secretary of State aware that such a statement from him —that no pit closures are contemplated —shows that he is completely out of touch with what is happening in Scotland? Does not he agree that it is time there was a statement on how the new Coal Industry Act, and the money earmarked in it, will prevent pit closures?

Will the hon. Gentleman not misrepresent what I have just said? I shall repeat it for him. I said that no further closures in Scotland have been announced by the National Coal Board but that I was keeping closely in touch with the situation because I recognise that closures could be announced in the future. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry made a statement about this in the debate on 21st December. If the hon. Gentleman did not hear it he can look it up.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is too late to do anything about a particular area when the announcement of a pit closure has been made? We are asking that Section 9 of the Act be applied to see whether some of the collieries which we hear—only hear—axe contemplated for closure need not be closed if there were an application of the money which the Government keep for this purpose.

It has been made clear that the future depends upon the industry's success in selling its product and on changes in productivity. The coal industry as a whole and miners recognise this and have been making special efforts. I must point out also that the National Coal Board has a good record of giving adequate notice before closures. But in the closure of October 1972 I am glad to say that of the 448 men employed, 310 were transferred to other collieries and of the other 138 who were made redundant a very large number were over 60 or in their late 50s.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future development of family planning services in Scotland.

From April 1974 family planning will become a normal part of the health services, with advice and treatment provided without charge. Contraceptives will, like other drugs and appliances, be supplied as appropriate under the National Health Service. The standard prescription charge will be paid for each item supplied and the usual exemptions from charges will also apply. The overall effect of the changes is likely to be a substantial expansion of the services provided in Scotland as a whole.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that some local authorities in Scotland provide a free comprehensive family planning service and that the impact of his announcement today means that these will not be allowed to continue? Will he, however, change his mind on this and allow area health boards to continue an existing service or to adapt new services under Section 8 of the 1972 Act? How much more will it cost in Scotland to give a completely free service as opposed to the arrangements which the hon. Gentleman has announced today?

I could not tell the hon. Gentleman the cost of a completely free service, but he knows that the United Kingdom figure is about £3 million for removing any prescription charge. The hon. Gentleman and I appreciate what has been done in Aberdeen and that if we are to go on to the National Health Service for the whole of Scotland it would be unreasonable to continue local authority services, or something equivalent to them, because they will cease next April.

How can my hon. Friend justify expenditure by the Exchequer on family planning, which surely should be the responsibility of families and not of the State?

I must disagree with my hon. Friend. There are over 100,000 abortions each year and over 70,000 illegitimate children. If that number can be reduced by constructive help of the family planning service, it is to the great good of the country.

On the question of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, the Minister may remember that he gave an undertaking on Report stage that health boards in whose area there were local authorities which operated a free family planning service, for both advice and appliances, would be allowed to continue this service. Will he look back at the Report stage and realise that he is changing the attitude of the Government on this point?

Certainly the policies laid down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services are marginally different from what was before the House a year ago. But the hon. Gentleman can raise this matter at a later stage. I am always willing to listen to argument, but I do not think that it is right for a local authority scheme to be perpetuated in the new national scheme under our policies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Aberdeen deserves the greatest tribute for its pioneering, progressive system in this matter and that its successful example has been in large measure responsible for the change in public attitude and the new policy which has now been put forward? However, will not many of those who are at present receiving the free system in Aberdeen continue to do so because of the new exemption methods which are proposed?

Yes. I gladly pay a warm tribute to Aberdeen Town Council, because it pioneered this policy from 1946. It has obviously been successful. I agree with my hon. Friend in that Aberdeen's thinking and what it has shown in practice is in some way responsible for the policies of today. But I agree with my hon. Friend, too, that a large number of people attending clinics will continue to receive the same free service as they obtain now.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek powers to prohibit the sale of the product shandy from non-licensed retail shops.

My right hon. Friend proposes to await the Clayson Report before considering possible changes in the licensing laws.

In view of the delay in production of the Clayson Report, will the Minister take action in the meantime to prevent the sale of this product containing alcohol, however minimal, by retail shops?

The use of the beverage might help any speechlessness that there might be in the House. It is not fair to say that there are any real delays over the report. It is a big subject which arouses a lot of controversy in Scotland and the committee has not been sitting for an undue time. We expect to receive the report shortly. As for the beverage, we have certainly received no representations about it and I am not aware that it does any particular harm.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the representations he has received seeking an early decision on the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in Edinburgh.

I have received representations from Edinburgh Education Authority and from some Edinburgh parents pressing for an early decision. Some hon. Members have also approached me on this subject. I shall announce my decision on whether the authority's proposals can be approved in their present form when all the implications have been fully considered.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome very much the important assurances he gave us last week on this matter but that notwithstanding those assurances we feel that the decision is long overdue? Can he assure us that he is not deliberately holding back his announcement until after the municipal elections?

I am not sure whether the assurances to which the hon. Member refers are the same as some of the comments that I saw in the Press. However, I have made clear that this is a matter on which I cannot take a hasty decision because the proposals would have a far-reaching effect on the provision of education throughout the city, and all their implications must be carefully considered before decisions are reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the proposed new road bridge at Perth; and if it will be a toll bridge.

The estimated cost is £4 million. The bridge will not be subject to tolls.

Is the Minister aware that this is a form of discrimination between one route and another? Is he not aware that the effect of this will be slightly to shorten the route at Government expense? There will be no tolls for traffic travelling on one route but there will be tolls for traffic going the other way over the Tay Road Bridge, which is at present the shorter route. Has the Minister considered the effect this will have on the revenue of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board?

That will have to be considered when the bridge is constructed. This Government's policy is the same as that of the previous Government: that tolls are levied on major new estuarial crossings which provide exceptional benefits to the users in the saving of time and expense. Tolls are charged throughout the country on such crossings of estuaries. I hardly feel that this bridge could be described as crossing an estuary.

Can my hon. Friend say how long it will be before the bridge is connected to the existing motorway system?

I cannot, because this is the subject of planning procedures upon which objections have been lodged. All I can say is that we are trying to resolve them as quickly as possible but at the present time it is not possible to determine how long this will take.

There is a pressing need for the new bridge. Will my hon. Friend give any indication when it is likely to be completed?

That depends how long it takes to resolve the planning and objection problems which have arisen. The bridge is expected to take about three years to build once a start has been made, which we hope will be next year, but that depends on the resolution of legal proceedings.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the degree of consultation with parents and teachers which he regards as appropriate in cases in which local authorities are promoting major reorganisation schemes or school closures.

The need varies with the circumstances and it would be impracticable to lay down a particular pattern, but I would take up with local authorities, as I have done, any case in which I thought their consultations were inadequate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the consultation over the closure of the selective schools in Glasgow consisted of the issuing of one circular letter to the parents of the children a day before the schools broke up for their holidays telling them that the schools were to close and inviting them to speak to the headmaster if they had problems? The headmasters were about to go off on a two-months' holiday. If that kind of consultation which my right hon. Friend has approved for these schools were applied on the shop floor, there would be a general strike within days and many Glasgow folk would feel inclined to join in.

In March last year I insisted that Glasgow Corporation should carry out consultations with the parents and teachers and it did that in June. It wrote to all the parents of pupils substantially affected, and that gave parents the opportunity of expressing their views. I agree that Glasgow Corporation could have done more. But when I pressed the corporation, it did in the end carry out consultations.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next take the chair at the Scottish Economic Council.

On 13th April.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with the members of the council why in the economic review section of the Scottish Economic Bulletin there is only one passing reference of one sentence to North Sea oil and its effect on the Scottish economy? Is it fair for us to regard this departmental omission as an indication of the well-recognised fact that on matters of oil policy the Secretary of State's influence in the Cabinet is negligible?

No, the hon. Member is talking nonsense. The Bulletin has a purpose which is well recognised. It was not on that occasion dealing with North Sea oil. The question of undersea oil has been dealt with in various ways, including a publication from the Department of Trade and Industry, and it will be dealt with in the future. It is a continually changing situation and the Government will be issuing information in the most appropriate forms on the many different aspects of this important subject for Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to create further employment opportunities for unemployed school leavers in Scotland.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 31st January to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). Since then the substantial downward trend in unemployment in Scotland has continued and this affects young people as well as adults.—[Vol. 849, c. 1131–3.]

Notwithstanding that reply, is the Minister aware that 32 per cent. of all unemployed school leavers in Scotland are in Glasgow? May we have an assurance that the Secretary of State is pressing as hard as possible in the Cabinet that Glasgow and West Central Scotland get their share of the Civil Service jobs being dispersed under the proposals of the Hardman Report?

I share the hon. Member's concern about unemployment of young people, which is one of the worst features of unemployment and one we all want to eliminate. The hon. Member will know of the Community Industry Scheme, which has two particular centres in Scotland, of which Glasgow is one. We are anxious to encourage this and we are doing all we can to see that Scotland receives its fair share of projects under the scheme. The hon. Member would not expect me to anticipate publication of the Hardman Report, but the views of all interested bodies in Scotland have been well considered by all those concerned with the discussion.

Is the Minister aware that since 1969 there has been a gradual decrease in the number of apprentices being employed by Scottish industrialists and that if it had not been for the increase in the school leaving age the situation would be more precarious? In those circumstances the Scottish Office must accept some responsibility. In Lanarkshire 7 per cent. of the insurable population is still unemployed. What will the Government do about it?

I will not go into all the measures taken to relieve unemployment. It is sufficient to say that unemployment has been substantially reducing for a full year, and everyone is extremely pleased about that. The main remedy is to get the economy as a whole expanding. As we are all very glad to note, the econ- omy seems to be expanding at an annual rate of about 5 per cent., a rate undreamed of under previous Governments.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, and the fact that the Secretary of State has not given the assurances for which I asked, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.