asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from local interests on pollution in the River Don.

My right hon. Friend has had representations from the Don District Salmon Fishery Board and the Aberdeen and District Angling Association.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very widespread concern at the deteriorating condition of the River Don? Is he satisfied that the river purification boards have sufficient evidence to compel private industries which pollute the river to clean up their discharges? If the industries concerned are unable to meet the financial costs involved, will funds be made available to assist in cleaning up the Don? Can the hon. Gentleman say that this will be unaffected by the statement about cuts in public expenditure?

I am well aware of the difficulties on the River Don. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) has drawn them to my attention on numerous occasions. Representatives of the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee visited Aberdeen on 10th and 11th May and discussed the position with various interests including the fishery board and the angling association. I await their report, and any recommendations for further remedial measures that it may contain will have urgent consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number and nature of sites considered by his Department as suitable bases for oil-related developments.

Sites will be required for many kinds of development. Possible refinery sites in Scotland have been studied. Recently my Department issued a discussion paper about sites for building oil production platforms. Sites for other purposes are kept under review.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Will he consider the wider dissemination of the information that he has produced in the discussion paper, especially the possibility of making it available to hon. Members, who have experienced considerable difficulty in getting it? Secondly, will he undertake to give an assurance that no one in his Department is associated financially with companies which may have an interest in developing these sites or in any other oil-related developments?

On the first matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, this is a continuous process of trying to assist local authorities and, where helpful, with consultative documents because of new techniques and new methods continually being introduced as well as the new exploration and discoveries as exploration proceeds north and west. The hon. Gentleman's second point raises a much wider question which I could not possibly answer now, though I recognise his concern.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify to the people of Scotland the reasons why the heavy construction work, especially that involved in building oil rigs, consequential upon the North Sea oil industry cannot be done more easily in those parts of Scotland where there is a tradition of heavy engineering and where there is still labour available?

This is one of the matters that we wish to see fitted together. I was glad to enable planning permission to be given at Ardyne Point, which is an area near enough to Glasgow and the high unemployment zones. The consultative document on platform production to which the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) referred brings out the particular conditions and requirements which are needed and considers without any kind of commitment the parts of the coast where these operations can be carried out.

Apart from responding to inquiries of individual local authorities, surely it is becoming more and more obvious that we require a much more comprehensive planning approach to this problem. Do important matters of this kind come under the recent remit to Lord Polwarth?

Yes. Naturally, because it is related to the oil industry, this is one of the matters with which he will be concerned and on which he will be co-ordinating. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, as this new industry develops more and more techniques, more and more requirements appear. It is the business of the Government to assist in every way. This is what we are doing.

Did my right hon. Friend notice the statement in The Times last Saturday by Ian Peters, the executive director of Onshore Investments, the parent company of Nordport, that it now controls the staggering total of 40,000 acres in the Shetland Isles and the implied threat that it would not sell this land at an excessive profit unless it was left with no alternative by the Shetland County Council? Will he keep an eye on the situation and ensure that no financial group, however well connected, will be able to undermine the strongly supported plans of the Shetland County Council?

I am aware of reports of this kind in the Press. A Private Bill, promoted by the Shetland County Council, which is at present before Parliament, is concerned with these and other matters.

What does the Secretary of State mean by saying that Lord Polwarth will co-ordinate planning? Does he mean that the noble Lord will be sitting in judgment on planning inquiries and giving his personal decision, or is it still with the Secretary of State? Is this a double banking of planning? What does it amount to? When the Dunnet Bay inquiry comes before him, who will finally judge on it?

I said that my noble Friend would be co-ordinating on the whole question of platform construction. The planning responsibilities, laid down by the Scottish Planning Acts, clearly fall upon the Secretary of State for Scotland. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed that it is necessary to help and assist with advice before planning applications are put in. It is not possible to state categorically that any particular project will go to a certain site until it has been through the planning procedures, and there is a great deal of help, advice and information which can be given before that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the practice of affording discs for free parking for disabled persons to blind persons who are also disabled; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to extend the disabled persons' badge scheme to blind persons. The working of the scheme is, however, being reviewed, and the possibility of extending it to blind persons will be one of the matters to be considered.

Will the Under-Secretary take into consideration the fact that blind persons—I am talking of people who are completely blind—who are self-employed require to carry the tools of their work from house to house, place to place and town to town, that they are in need of constant supervision and attention and have to be escorted into and out of cars and buildings? Surely in any caring society the least we can do for people who suffer such a tragic loss of faculty is to make available to them the same parking facilities as are available to other disabled persons.

I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's great concern to do all we can to help blind people, but when they travel in cars they are obviously, by the very nature of things, accompanied by other persons. If a blind person has a disability which would enable him to have such a badge if he were not blind, he can be considered for exemption in the normal way. A blind person in a car will always be accompanied. That is the reason for the distinction.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on the Edinburgh Opera House.

Edinburgh Corporation is still considering the proposals for Government assistance for the Castle Terrace theatre development which were put to it in my Department's letter of 26th January.

Is the project affected by the Chancellor's statement on Monday?

No, Sir.

If the Government are to consider spending millions of pounds on a new opera house in Edinburgh, may I ask them to bear in mind the equal importance of spending a lesser but appropriate sum to upgrade Hampden Park to make it a suitable site for the holding of international football matches? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that far more people watch football than go to the opera?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern with Hampden Park, but this is a quite separate question.

If the Edinburgh Opera House is not affected by the cuts in local authority expenditure announced on Monday, may I ask what other cultural, recreational or public buildings will be affected in Scotland?

This project has not yet been approved. The Government have put forward proposals stating how much they would be prepared to give by way of a grant, but the project itself has not yet been approved by Edinburgh Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a further statement following negotiations with Danish and Faroese officials in Edinburgh on Thursday 26th April.

The United Kingdom has agreed, along with the other main nations fishing in the Faroes area, to take part in discussions on an international catch limitation agreement. These will probably take place in the second half of June, and my right hon. Friend has invited representatives of the British trawling industry to attend as advisers.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he reassure the House that it is the Government's intention to retain the full catching powers of the British fleet off the Faroes? In addition, will such implements as the creep cutter anti-warp cutting device be available to Scottish trawlers operating off the Faroes should it become necessary?

I hope that that situation will not arise. I must make it clear that both the Danes and the Faroese have attempted to approach this matter in a sensible and constructive manner. From our point of view it is only the principle of an international catch limitation scheme that is desirable. That is all we have agreed at present. In our view, the object is to prevent any substantial increase in total fishing effort off the Faroes.

May I ask whether the Government's relationship with the Danes and Faroese has been brought to the attention of the Icelandic Government, because it would seem to afford a happy omen in the dispute?

I think that lessons can be drawn. We must approach these matters on a multilateral basis and get agreement on that basis. I am glad to tell the House that this matter is being approached sensibly, and I hope that lessons will be drawn elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many abortions and live births, respectively, were recorded in Scotland in 1972; and what were the comparable figures in 1970.

The number of abortions notified was 5,254 in 1970 and 7,600 in 1972. The number of live births was 87,335 in 1970 and 78,550 in 1972.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the operation of the Abortion Act in Scotland, and has he any plans to review it?

The Lane Committee is reviewing it. There is no abuse of the Abortion Act in Scotland at present.

Will the Minister examine the special edition of last week's Daily Record on the working of the Abortion Act in the city of Glasgow and take that into account in any decision he may take?

I have studied that report very carefully indeed.

Will the hon. Gentleman distinguish how many abortions took place in the private sector in private clinics compared with the National Health Service?

The figure is rather less than 1·5 per cent. in private clinics. It is a very small total indeed in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a statement about the general improvement of facilities at Peel Hospital and the state of construction at Huntlyburn.

The board of management for the Scottish Borders Hospitals is formulating revised proposals for improvements at Peel Hospital and these will be considered by the regional hospital board. A start to the first phase of the new hospital at Huntlyburn is expected in about three years' time.

Will the Under-Secretary undertake that, in the event of any continuing disagreement between the board of management for the Borders Hospitals and the regional hospital board, he will use the good offices of his Department to get a firm statement as soon as possible on how public money will be spent both at Peel Hospital and at the Huntlyburn site?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The need for improvement at Peel Hospital is not in dispute. The issue is the extent, cost and timing of the improvements consistent with the life of the hospital. The next stage is a meeting of the regional hospital board early next month at which I hope these differences of opinion can be resolved.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue guidance to local authorities on the implementation of Section 111 of the Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act.

This was done last summer.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been brought to my notice that different local authorities are putting different interpretations on this scheme? Is it the case that the Minister has concurred that people filling in rent rebate scheme forms do not need to say where their investment or deposit accounts are, but have only to report the interest they receive, and that it is on the basis of that interest that a decision is made whether to grant a rent rebate? Will the Minister make sure that local authorities are conforming to the regulations which he is reported to have given to them? If he has not done so, will he say why not?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is interest that is received from any investment that is taken into account in assessments for rent rebate, and not any capital sum. I have had no complaints that local authorities are not correctly interpreting the advice and instructions given to them about dealing with rent rebate forms, but I shall be glad to look into any matters which the hon. Member may care to raise with me.

As regards the operation of this and other sections of the Act, may I ask whether, as no statutory return is made of the number of people in receipt of allowances, particularly in the private sector, the Minister will consider an inquiry to monitor how the scheme is progressing so that we can assess the real effects of the Act?

It is desirable that we should have as much information as possible about the number of people receiving rebates and allowances of various kinds. It is early days yet to think of making a full inquiry into the matter, but if there is difficulty in getting information about this from local authorities I shall be prepared to look into the question of how we can get better information for the benefit of Opposition Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many planning appeals in the last two years he has granted which reversed the decision of a local authority not to agree to the zoning of land for private speculative building; and how many acres were involved.

Nine, involving 166 acres.

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, in the teeth of opposition from my local authority, his right hon. Friend granted planning permission in respect of an area which that authority had zoned as green belt. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when his right hon. Friend decides to override the wishes of a local authority in this day and age, when housing costs are so high, he is not only giving planning permission to private developers to build but, at today's costs, also giving them a licence to print money?

All such applications which come before my right hon. Friend are considered on the same basis one with another. They are considered in the light of the circular sent to local authorities in 1967 giving guidance on the way in which they should approach this kind of problem. I do not think this is an excessive total. A total of 166 acres has been allowed as a result of appeals, but no fewer than 1,500 acres are required to be zoned each year for private house developments. The most important thing is to get as much private development going as possible to meet the vast demand by people who wish to buy their own homes.

How does this compare with the number of decisions reversed in the preceding two years?

I could not answer that question without notice, but I do not think that 166 acres out of the usual annual zoning of 1,500 acres is a very large amount.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for planning permission he has received for the sinking of new collieries in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

None.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is too much indifference about the future size of the coal mining industry in Scotland? Does he not also think that the Secretary of State should take a greater interest in this matter, particularly when it is known that new sinkings have been considered in other parts of the United Kingdom? Did the hon. Gentleman see a report that the Minister of State had warned Scottish people to avoid an oil neurosis? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be better for Scotland if more people were affected by a pro-coal neurosis, instead of an anti-coal hysteria as displayed by one of my colleagues a few days ago?

I should not like to comment on that last point, except to say that I do not think anyone would ever accuse me of suffering from anti-coal hysteria. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that, to enable a comprehensive, sensible energy policy to be followed, these questions have to be looked at in the context of our energy policy as a whole. That is why the principal responsibility for matters of this kind lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I keep a close watch on the effects on the Scottish economy of all sorts of developments, but the question of a fuel policy as such is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry.

Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the declining labour force in the mining industry in Scotland, and will he undertake to hold an inquiry into the effects of miners having to move from job to job and pit to pit? It is a disgrace that men who want to maintain as comprehensive a labour force as possible are asked to behave like gipsies.

When a considerable number of people are likely to lose their jobs because of pit closures, we try to offer alternative employment in other industries, but many of the men wish to continue in the trade which they have learned from their youth onwards. That is why some of them feel that they want to move to other coalfields, and all we can do is to make it as comfortable and as easy as possible for them to do so.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if there were a comprehensive energy policy, it would be advantageous to coal? Will he say when there will be such a comprehensive energy policy?

That is what one might call a leading question. The point I was making was that it was not my responsibility to comment on the balance between different fuels or on the question of a comprehensive fuel policy. Those are matters for my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry.

Can the hon. Gentleman now answer the question which I asked him some time ago and tell me the amount of money that is being allocated under Section 9 of the Coal Industry Act to prevent further pit closures in the Scottish coalfields? Would it not be more prudent to prevent further pit closures, and also to consider the possibility of new sinkings?

A lot has been done by successive Governments to try to ease these problems when they arise, but matters of this sort should be referred to the Department of Trade and Industry, which is the Department responsible for energy generally.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the criteria of eligibility for grant assistance under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act 1897 of roads leading to crafting townships, taking into account the trend towards individual crofters working more than one crofting unit.

My right hon. Friend is viewing the criteria in the light of current circumstances, but I cannot yet say whether any change will be justified.

That is a welcome reply from the Minister. Can he say whether the review will be affected by Monday's announcement of public expenditure cuts? Can he also say whether, in the review, he will look at the question of the building of a bridge over the River Oykel, which has been frustrated by the vested interests of landlords because of their alleged fishing interests? This proposal has been put forward by the local authority in the area as suitable for a grant under the Act in the light of the fact that the Army OPMAC bridging scheme cannot go ahead as agreed because of the opposition of the landlord.

I should not, without notice and without a chance to look into the details, like to agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the position relating to the Oykel bridge. We are reviewing the working of the Act in the light of current priorities. When we have done that we shall be able to tell whether any change is needed and whether any change would be affected by the expenditure announcement made earlier this week.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it would be disastrous socially if there were cuts in the programme for Highland roads because of the Government's announcement? Will the hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the report issued by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and to the recent transport paper, particularly that part of it dealing with roads? May I ask the hon. Gentleman to give us, at some time, an indication of the Government's reaction to that paper and say whether the Government accept the general principles set out in the portion of it dealing with roads?

I have read the paper with great interest but my Department and I have not had time to study it completely. I agree that it is very important. More road works are going on in the Highlands now than probably ever before. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed—if he did, I am sure that he was as glad as I was—that my right hon. Friend was able to say that all road developments associated with North Sea oil would be exempted from the cuts announced on Monday. That is important from the point of view of Scotland and the Highlands.

Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates the concern that is felt in these areas. It would be disastrous to make cuts of this kind in a programme affecting people already there and working in the traditional way while at the same time things are to flow freely for oil. The Government should be very careful about what they do and say.

I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. To get the record straight, may I make it clear that I have announced no cuts at all in this programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the beef and veal, mutton and lamb, pork, and bacon and ham marketed in Great Britain is produced in Scotland.

The available figures relate to total supplies on the United Kingdom market, excluding canned imports. Scottish production amounts to about one-seventh of beef and veal, one-tenth of mutton and lamb and one-twentieth of total pigmeat.

Do not these figures show what an important part Scotland has to play in feeding the United Kingdom and saving imports? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it is right to save capital grants which could help to increase production in Scotland?

I agree that the figures show the tremendous part that Scottish agriculture can play in serving the needs of the British housewife. We have given considerable encouragement through our announcements at the price reviews over the last three years, and the evidence is that Scottish farmers are prepared to respond to the incentives given to them. I appreciate the point about capital grants, but one of the main sources of capital for farming is from income, as it has always been, and the effect of greatly improved income over the last few years has, I hope, helped investment in the industry.

Has the Minister read the statement yesterday by the President of the Scottish NFU? Surely he must accept that production grants are an important source of income, particularly for hill farmers. How can he justify the decision to cut them in view of the Government's alleged policy of expansion of agriculture in Scotland?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the whole picture, at the greatly improved price incentives which farmers have received as a result of our policies. Therefore, one must balance what they obtain in prices against production grants. But I confirm that there is no doubt in principle that production grants play an important part, as they played a big part in our negotiations over Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider taking into public ownership those areas of land which are likely to be the most suitable for substantial developments associated with North Sea oil.

Local authorities and other public bodies have power to buy land in advance of development in appropriate cases. I will consider any such proposals on their merits.

If the Secretary of State accepts that certain key areas of land should be developed in association with North Sea oil, surely he can best ensure and control those developments by owning the land himself. Does he not realise that, if he allows those areas to be held by private individuals or companies, they will hold to ransom Scottish firms and other firms in the way that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) indicated in connection with Shetland? Can he give us the elementary assurance, which should not be necessary, that no Scottish Minister will have any financial interest in any of the enterprises developing on these sites?

On the first point, I regard this as a combination, a partnership, of the local authorities and private industry. Where the Government have been able to play a part—as, for example, at Peterhead, where the Government are the harbour authority—we have acted quickly to help with oil development. But it needs private industry as well as local authorities and the Government to do the best for this emerging oil industry. As for financial interests, this matter has been taken up by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and he will get a reply in due course.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is often as much criticism of the Secretary of State or the Government as a whole owning land and either developing or not developing as there is of private companies or local authorities?

I recognise what my hon. Friend has to say.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this country is in a seller's market in this matter and that we need not fall over ourselves to try to ensure that every bit of country in Scotland is developed for this purpose? Would he recognise that we cannot always trust local authorities to see that the proper thing is done? Would he remember that, when we are talking of environmental questions, we have much more in mind than mere scenic beauty, important though that may be? Would he ensure, for example, that, before dredging of some of the sea flats is permitted, proper hydrological studies are undertaken to ensure that irreparable damage is not done to our coasts?

The hon. Gentleman has raised one of the important aspects of the development of this new industry —the effect on the environment. This is one reason why a new council is being set up on which there will be persons who have knowledge and experience of environmental matters. In certain circumstances, it can be as important to Scottish interests to protect the coastline or to protect the sea bed from dredging of the kind that he has mentioned as to have a development in that place.

Will the right hon. Gentleman attach considerable urgency to the question raised in the last part of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang)—namely, the vested interest in oil and its development of Lord Polwarth and his family? It is important that this matter should be cleared up with the greatest urgency. It is not enough to say that we should wait for the Prime Minister's statement. We should have a statement on this matter before the recess.

The hon. Gentleman will realise that this is not a matter with which I can deal in a supplementary question at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement about the progress of the sale of local authority houses to sitting tenants.

I have been informed of the completion of the sale of 917 houses to sitting tenants by 63 local authorities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures are welcome but that they represent very slow progress? Will he take more urgent action to encourage local authorities to offer houses for sale to their sitting tenants and so help the spread of property ownership, which all of us on this side believe in? Does he agree that this is the only way in which many young couples in Scotland will be able to own their own houses?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is scope for considerable expansion of council house sales. I should add to my original answer that, in the new towns, 2,025 houses have been sold since 1970. The Scottish Special Housing Association has now started sales and I understand that it has sold about 250. I agree that the vast demand particularly on the part of young couples in Scotland to own their own homes could be greatly assisted if local authorities helped in this way by allowing them to buy the homes in which they at present live.

Is the Minister aware that, because of the number of people who are homeless and on the housing lists, many local authorities cannot afford to sell council houses? Is he further aware that many young couples who want to buy their own homes cannot manage the down payment and certainly cannot get a mortgage? If he will come clean on this and tell the House where they can get a mortgage and down payment, he will be answering the question.

If one wants a mortgage, one can go to the building societies. They are giving out mortgages right now to people who want them, and I hope that they have the hon. Gentleman's encouragement in doing so. As for the waiting lists, it makes no difference to a waiting list if a family which is at present living in a house and is likely to carry on living in it on a rented basis decides to buy it and is given permission to do so and continues to live in it. It makes no difference to the waiting list because the council receives money from that house which it can use to build a house for a homeless family.

What is my hon. Friend's attitude towards local authorities seeking to dispose by sale of vacant council houses in respect of which I believe the matter is in his discretion?

Any applications of that sort would be considered on their merits, taking into account the availability of houses in the area and the size of waiting lists. There are circumstances in which this can be a very helpful thing for all concerned.

How can the Minister be so naive as to say that the sale of a house to a sitting tenant makes no difference to the waiting list? Is he not aware that if, instead of this obsession with selling council houses, he were to act to control and keep down the prices of private property, sitting tenants could buy outside the council house market, thereby releasing houses for people on the waiting list?

But the great difficulty for young people starting to buy their first home is to get a home they can afford to buy at the low price they can afford to pay. One of the ways of achieving this is to allow them to buy the council house in which they live. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind: either he is in favour of encouraging young couples to own their own homes or he is not. I should like him to come clean on this and make his view clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to introduce measures to give council tenants a statutory right to buy their homes after living in them for a certain time, subject to a right of appeal by local authorities on the grounds of specified local housing problems.

I share my hon. Friend's wish to see more council tenants being given the opportunity of buying their houses, and I hope that local authorities will come increasingly to realise that this is in their own interest as well as that of their tenants, but I am not persuaded at present that any new statutory rights should be created.

Will my hon. Friend keep this matter very much under review? Does he not agree that it is a disgraceful fact that Aberdeen, Glasgow and Dundee have not sold one council house to their tenants, and that the Scottish sales figure that he has just given—917—compares shamefully with the English figure of over 16,000 houses? Does he not agree that the dogmatic Labour-controlled authorities are frustrating the natural and right feeling of many families in Scotland which want to own their own houses?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very regrettable that some of these local authorities are refusing to do this. All I can say is that they will have to answer to their electors, including those young couples who live in the areas concerned and who want to buy their their own house but are refused the right to do so by the action of their councils.

Has not the answer to this matter been given, certainly in Aberdeen and Glasgow, by the massive defeat of the Government's supporters in the municipal elections? People of Scotland do not want council houses to be sold. Will the Minister say how young couples starting off life can find their way on to the waiting list to qualify for buying their first home?

The hon. Gentleman knows the rules for getting on to the waiting lists of various local authorities as well as I do. The hon. Gentleman's views about the people of Scotland are strangely at variance—[Interruption.] I am not sure about the strange noise coming across to my right ear. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is no use saying that people in Scotland do not wish to buy their council houses when literally thousands are applying to do so.

Have the Government closed their minds to statutory powers in this matter?

No, I have not closed my mind to any of the alternatives, but at present it would not be right to introduce new statutory powers.

While this might have been the subject of speeches at the recent Tory Party conference at Perth—I suppose that it was one of the few subjects raised—will the Minister at least consult some of us who know something about council schemes and the social problems which might arise from any indiscriminate instructions to local authoties that they must sell council houses?

The question of social problems has to be looked at very carefully at all times, but I am not aware of any social problems having arisen in any of the places where these houses have been sold so far.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the maximum income of a man with a wife and two children who was paying a nil rent under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972, up to 28th April 1973.

This depends on the level of standard rent.

While expecting that type of answer, may I apologise, first, for a rather long supplementary question—[Laughter.]

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that that statement is a hostage to fortune.

I have made my apologies first, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who made such a song and dance about my absence from the last Scottish Question Time, which was unavoidable—

Disgraceful.

—stated in the Press that a large number of Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament rushed down to the House to hear the answer to one of my Questions? Will the Minister assure the House that Scottish Conservative Members are here at other Question Times?

I think that that is enough.

May I, Mr. Speaker—

No.

I have heard it said that there is no time for a peroration in a supplementary question.

May I apologise for an excessively short answer? The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) was so anxious to bring out, which I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be anxious to bring out, was that the nil rent provisions are producing a very valuable help to many families with low incomes and a large number of children. I understand that there are, for instance, in Glasgow, following the raising of the needs allowance, something in excess of 3,300 families which are likely to pay a nil rent in the future, and that is in addition to all those on supplementary benefit, who still get their rent covered for them.

Does not the Minister agree—

Too long.

—that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) has made more than the usual idiot of himself and owes my hon. Friend a personal and public apology for the fact that he said a few days before an important municipal election in Glasgow that hardly any families in Scotland—

It is still true.

—would pay a nil rent, when the Minister gave an answer the day after the election that thousands would pay a nil rent and has again confirmed today that many families in Glasgow pay a nil rent? Does not my hon. Friend feel that he and the people of Glasgow are owed a public apology from the hon. Member for Gorbals?

Thousands of families in Scotland will be paying a nil rent as a result of this rent rebate scheme. I know that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) has a very strong interest in these matters, but he has never managed to understand the rent rebate scheme or its benefits to the people of Scotland. I hope that he will now get down to it and understand it.

May I suggest to the Minister that he is utterly wrong when he replies to the question of rebates? I can give him figures—I shall do so after Question Time—which prove that he is wrong.

Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman wished to raise a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry for the confusion, but it is terribly important to the people whom I represent and to the constituents of other hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman should admit that he was wrong.

In view of the very poor answers from the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

I thank the hon. Member. That ends that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum of money spent on special courses for those detained in Scottish prisons over the last year.

Expenditure on correspondence courses in the year ended 31st March 1973 amounted to £2,605. Expenditure on other kinds of educational courses could not be ascertained without disproportionate cost to public funds.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In view of certain controversy in the prison service about the value of some of these courses, and in order to clarify the matter, will my hon. Friend say who is responsible for recommending prisoners for special courses and who is responsible for ensuring that these courses are of direct and real benefit and value to the prisoners?

The House should realise that it is provided in prison rules—I am sure that this is generally supported in the House—that prisoners who wish in their leisure time to improve their education should be given reasonable facilities for so doing. That is right.

Does not the Minister accept that that is a pitifully small amount of money to be spending on such courses? Does it not reflect the very small number of people benefiting from them?

We must put this matter into the proper perspective. I am talking about correspondence courses. The initiative in a correspondence course is for the prisoner himself to volunteer to undertake it. What is much more important in education is vocational training, practical courses and evening classes, and these, and the many other ways, I should like to see extended even further.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an early statement on legal aid in the lower courts following publication of the recent White Paper on the JP courts in Scotland.

Legal aid will be extended to criminal proceedings in all courts of summary jurisdiction, as financial resources permit.

I hope that there will be an early opportunity to debate this important White Paper, but in the meantime will the Under-Secretary bear in mind the urgency of the matter? The need for legal aid in these courts has been put many times by hon. Members on both sides and there is little point in reorganising these essentially local courts unless we can ensure that justice is available to all regardless of means.

As I have indicated, we accept in principle the introduction of this but there is another factor as well as the one of financial resources limitations. We are about to embark on reorganisation of lay summary justice in Scotland following local government reorganisation and that will obviously be the occasion on which to consider these wider matters. We shall consult the Law Society and others involved in the subject.

If the policies of the White Paper are put into effect, there will be no requirement for the clerks of the new JP courts to have any legal qualifications, thus depriving the lay magistrates of necessary legal advice in court. Will the Under-Secretary seek to alter this unsatisfactory arrangement before the Bill is brought before the House?

All we have produced so far is the White Paper, and I promise to make sure that the point mentioned by the hon. Member is taken into account.

When will we be discussing the White Paper? Such a discussion is desirable before the subject of a Bill is even approached.

I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. If he wishes, there can be an opportunity later this summer for a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will be taking in response to the proposals from the United States of America for an Atlantic Community.

I know of no new proposal in precisely these terms but we have welcomed the recognition by the United States of the need for continued trust and co-operation between Europe and the United States. We are discussing with our Community partners how to organise the constructive dialogue between the United States and Europe on which the summit agreed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals put forward in Dr. Kissinger's recent speech represent an historic opportunity to strengthen transatlantic links and particularly to acquire nil tariffs on industrial trade? Will he take steps to correct the unfortunate impression, which has been strengthened by reports of the Paris meeting of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the British Government are lukewarm about these American proposals?

I shall be delighted to do so. I welcome the recent confirmation of United States support for the European Community and its further growth, and I welcome too the confirmation that the United States Government will maintain their security commitments to the allies.

In this kind of sensitive negotiation the reputation of the British Government as a reliable ally is not improved when one of our Service Ministers finds himself in personal difficulties which have all kinds of unfortunate repercussions.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the object of Her Majesty's Government's policy to work for the liberalisation of both the common external industrial tariff and the common agricultural policy in the context of the forthcoming GATT negotiations?

That is, of course, one more important aspect of the arrangements which were indicated by the United States of America. It is a mistake to ascribe too much uniformity to the problems set out in that statement or to hope to solve them in a single negotiation. Established institutions are already working on most of the issues but the time scales of those institutions all differ. The IMF and GATT work on different time scales.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he has refused to allow the public works department of the Sunderland Corporation to build more houses for sale; and, insofar as this may result in an increase in the prices of the new houses, if he will reconsider his decision.

My hon. Friend does not consider building for sale to be an appropriate task for a direct labour organisation whose purpose in the housing field is to assist the local authority where appropriate in the discharge of its basic function of providing, maintaining and improving dwellings to rent.

Is the Minister aware that the decision appears particularly stupid to us in Sunderland? The public works department has been building houses very successfully and very cheaply for private sale, and to stop it from doing so will mean delay in the provision of houses because this building work is unattractive to private enterprise. It will mean also that my constituents will have to pay several thousand pounds more for a new house.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a scheme at Washington Street, Sunderland, was approved last year. That preceded our decision to encourage local authorities to build for sale in appropriate circumstances. Local authorities have a great deal to do in providing, maintaining and improving dwellings to rent.

Is it not a fact that the Government have been under pressure from the building industry and that is the reason for the instruction which has been issued to local authorities, which will mean that the Government will not allow the local authorities to build for sale with their own direct labour force? Does not this follow strong representations from the private enterprise element in the industry? Are not the Government giving way to narrow ideological pressures?

The Labour Party should remember that it was the previous Labour administration which restricted building for sale by local authorities. By contrast we are actively encouraging local authorities to build for sale to meet local needs for lower-priced housing which are not being met by private developers and to make use of the permitted discounts. The permitted discounts are helpful to low-income purchasers and they represent a reduction in the unrestricted market value.

Will the Minister accept that the main problem is the provision of houses for people who can afford to buy them at the right price? If the public authorities, through their direct building departments, can produce these houses at prices people can afford, it is intolerable that the Government should refuse them the privilege of doing so.

The direct labour organisations are subject to considerable demands to carry out their basic functions of providing, maintaining and improving dwellings to rent. A considerable proportion of all houses built for sale by local authorities should be built to NHBRC standards, in respect of which private builders are highly experienced.

Surely the Minister agrees that the housing situation, to put it mildly, needs critical study. Does he not welcome any additional possible source of house building facility that is on offer—and this one is on offer in certain parts of the country? In any case, do not the Government believe in any sort of competition?

There can be considerable competition for the contracts for direct sale. I submit that our new policy should be applauded by anyone who has the interests of prospective house purchasers like young married couples and low-income groups at heart.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter as soon as possible on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities had to suspend the introduction of smokeless zone orders during the years 1971 and 1972 because of a national shortage of solid smokeless fuel.

The information is not available, since local authorities are empowered to defer the coming into operation of confirmed smoke control orders for up to 12 months without reference to my right hon. and learned Friend. However, the shortage of solid smokeless fuel inherited from the previous Government was ended during the summer of 1971. Since then all authorities have been urged to press forward with smoke

Is the Minister aware that there is considered to be surplus capacity for producing solid smokeless fuel and that serious consideration is being given by the National Coal Board and others to closing down about £10 million of public investment in this business? Does not the Minister think that it is now the duty of his Department to give instructions to local authorities, or at least to advise them, to press ahead with the declaration of smokeless zones wherever possible? Does he not think that at this moment it would be a retrograde step to cut back stocks of this fuel when there is such a grave need to improve the quality of the air we breathe?

At present, stockpiles of solid smokeless fuels are adequate for foreseeable needs. There is, therefore, no need for anxiety in that respect. But I stress that the Government regard the policy of extending smokeless zones as of great importance and are doing everything possible to encourage local authorities to adopt such schemes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it would greatly help the extension of smokeless zones if the Department and the NCB were to look at the standard and quality of the smokeless fuel being provided?

I will certainly note that point.