asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the Icelandic trawlers fishing the Shetland herring are keeping outside the 12-mile limit.

I have no evidence of infringement of properly constituted fishery limits by Icelandic vessels.

Has my hon. Friend had a chance to peruse the White Paper on the cod war? Does he realise that in it the Icelanders are accused of overfishing their own herring stocks? Since they will now be doing some fishing in sight of our shores, is not this a very good argument for extending our own limits to 50 miles and excluding them? Will he undertake, in any future negotiations about fishing limits, to ensure that the interests of the 8,000 inshore fishermen of Scotland are represented as forcibly as the interests of the 2,000 distant water fishermen of England?

I must ask my hon. Friend not to oversimplify the situation. In the herring industry there is urgent need for catch restriction of North Sea herring. I hope Iceland will withdraw her objection to this and not stand in the way of other countries finding a solution at the special meeting to be held of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission at the end of this year. If Iceland paid attention to that kind of thing it would be very helpful to everyone.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the inshore fishermen are wholly behind the Government's stand in the Icelandic fisheries dispute? I have flown over the area. Will my hon. Friend accept from me that there was no case of a British trawler going anywhere near the 12-mile limit?

In all my negotiations and discussions with the inshore fishing industry of Scotland, I find the fishermen strongly in support of the deep sea industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on his discussions regarding the future of Hampden Park.

I had an informal meeting last month with representatives of Queen's Park Football Club which my hon. Friend attended. The future of Hampden Park as a national football stadium is, however, primarily a matter for the football organisations and Queen's Park Football Club. I hope that, following further discussions which may be arranged shortly, they will be able to produce a practicable scheme for the development and management of the stadium.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the upgrading of Hampden Park and the creation of a suitable national football stadium in Scotland is urgent? Will he arrange urgent discussions with the Scottish Football Association and the League and make it clear that, if a practical proposition emerges, the Government have not turned their mind against the possibility of financial support for such a project?

Of course Scotland wants to see a fine stadium at Hampden Park, but this is not the appropriate moment, in the middle of the centennial celebrations, to press meetings with the SFA. But in a week or two I hope to arrange discussions.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the associated clubs have already made contributions to Hampden Park with a view to bringing it up to modern standards? Surely it is the responsibility of the Association and the League, if they want foreign teams to play in Scotland, to undertake this project. If the Government have money to spare, they should give it to the amateurs and to football as a whole rather than to the Queen's Park Football Club.

That goes wider than the original Question, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

In financial terms, what does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying that it is primarily a matter for Queen's Park Football Club?

Exactly what it means in English—that it is primarily a matter for the football organisations.

Have the Scottish Sports Council and Glasgow Corporation been party to these talks?

Not so far, because Hampden Park belongs to Queen's Park Football Club and one would not wish to move too far away from its wishes at present. But I have no doubt that in future both the Sports Council and perhaps Glasgow Corporation will be involved as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the decision on 5th June of the South-East Region Hospital Board to press for an earlier completion date for Huntlyburn, he will now announce what funds are to be made available to enable building to commence at the earliest possible date.

The current major hospital building programme still provides for the building of a new district general hospital at Huntlyburn as a two-phase project. The proposal by the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board to build the hospital as a one-phase project, with the object of earlier completion, will be carefully studied when the more detailed information required is available from the board. It seems unlikely, however, that financial provision for the project could be made significantly earlier in the programme unless the start of another project of similar size were delayed.

First, since the regional board owns the site, is there anything to stop a starting date in about 18 months' time if the financial provision is forthcoming? Secondly, if it is not forthcoming, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the board is bound to be involved in large and unnecessary expenditure on maintaining Peel Hospital and that it is in the interests of public expenditure that the sooner consent is given to the new hospital, the better?

I agree that the sooner it is possible to start, the better, but we cannot simply pop £5 million projects in and out of programmes, particularly when it might mean postponing another project which other hon. Members might represent to me very strongly as being of prior importance. But, whatever the decision after we have looked at the board's suggestion, there may be some necessary upgrading of Peel.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he is sending to Stornoway Town Council's letter dated 16th May on the subject of the operation of rent rebates.

I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy of the reply which was sent on 12th June.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. May I draw his attention to the fact that last year's bill for rent rebates amounted to £5,000 and that the figure this year will be £12,000? Is he aware that there is a high proportion of old people in the area and that it has the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom? Does he accept that as a general principle relief of poverty on that scale should be borne by central Government funds and not by the less affluent local authorities?

The inquiries which I have been able to make so far do not suggest that Stornoway has any higher percentage of people receiving rent rebates than has the rest of Scotland in general. I think we should bear in mind that the whole of the new system of housing finance has produced great relief in the ratepayer's contribution towards housing. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the contribution to rent rebates which was previously carried totally by the ratepayer is now carried—the vast majority, at any rate—by the Government subsidy, which this year is running at 85 per cent. and at the least will be 75 per cent. in years to come.

Does not that reply indicate clearly the terrible poverty which exists throughout Scotland? Are not the Government prepared to take automatic action to rectify the terrible wrong which has been done to our country over the years? Are they going to sit back on their backsides and tell us what is wrong and make no effort to improve the situation?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, if it were the case that there was what he describes as terrible poverty throughout Scotland, the rent rebate system is precisely and directly tailored to deal exactly with that problem. It provides rebates for anyone who finds the amount which he is required to pay more than he can afford. Whatever else we have done, we have solved that problem. I hope local authorities will find that to be so.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he took into account the evidence submitted to the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board's committee of investigation into the supply of surgical appliances to East and West Fife Hospitals Board of Management before he released to the Press a copy of his letter of 7th June to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. I should like to thank the committee of investigation for what has clearly been a thorough and painstaking inquiry into the circumstances leading to irregular payments being made to the surgical appliance contractor.

Is the Minister aware that the purpose of my request to him last July for a public inquiry was to ensure that all the evidence would be made public? In fact, that has not happened. The Minister is in a very privileged position compared with other hon. Members. Further, is he aware that, while the report contains damning statements about some of the clinical staff, sections 3·5 and 3·6 of the report virtually condone the malpractices disclosed?

Order. That is enough.

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is important for him to know that the chairman of the committee announced that those involved would be able to see the introductory part of the report before it was discussed by the board and that only the final report, containing the committee's conclusions and recommendations, was to be issued by the board. I think that the evidence and all the facts were most carefully considered. My Department was represented by an assessor who sat on the committee. I feel in no doubt that the recommendations of the board were the best in all the circumstances.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I endorse almost everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) has said? Further, is he aware that the contractor in this case is being sued in the civil court by the regional board for over £4,000? Is he also aware that I consider that the consultants and clinicians involved in receiving gifts and making so-called purchases should be asked to return the gifts or the cash value, or the savings from the purchases, to the regional board?

The employees of the board whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned were criticised strongly in the report, and that has been published. There is no advantage in pursuing condemnation any further.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is absolutely disgraceful? Does he accept that disciplinary action must be taken against the people who have offended in the way which has been suggested? Further, is he aware that there is a good deal of disquiet in Scotland, and particularly in Fife, about the manner in which this case has been dealt with? It seems that some people have been found out and punished and that others have been found out and not punished. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what applies to one should apply to all?

I am not at all surprised by the hon. Gentleman's approach to the matter. The inquiry went into the whole matter in great detail and the evidence was taken most carefully. In the light of the report from the regional hospital board, I do not think that further action is required.

Am I correct in saying that one party to these transactions was convicted in court of an offence relating to supplies? If that is so, does the Minister accept that there were violations of the code by people in the employ of the Fife Regional Hospital Board? In the circumstances, does he not feel that a thorough inquiry should have led at least to a reprimand of the other parties to the offence, who apparently got off scot free?

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that one party was convicted in court and a suitable decision was made by the court. In relation to the consultants and the others mentioned in the inquiry, that information has been published and that is a reprimand.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many counties, large burghs and small burghs, respectively, operate the arrangement with the Supplementary Benefits Commission whereby a maximum of £15 rates relief is refunded to pensioners and other necessitous cases.

Up-to-date information on this point is not available centrally.

Is the Minister aware that the £15 disregard was fixed many years ago and that since June 1970, the date of the last General Election, the cost of living is acknowledged to have gone up by more than one-third? Is the hon. Gentleman willing to indicate to the Secretary of State for Social Services that he should give financial approval to requests by any authorities to increase the disregard by at least one-third, from £15 to £20, with a view to protecting pensioners paying rents and rates against a fall in the pound due to galloping inflation?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter. He will also know that the unemployed, pensioners and others on supplementary benefit have received substantial increases during the last three years. Further, the hon. Gentleman will know that the system is an arrangement between the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the local authorities concerned. It would be for them to decide whether any change should be made.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Scottish Office has given any instructions to the Scottish local authorities about the payment of the £15?

No, Sir; we have given no instructions on that matter. Any discussions about it would have to take place between the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the local authorities concerned. It is not a matter in which the Scottish Office is involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of ophthalmologists in Glasgow and Lanarkshire, respectively; and what is the average waiting period for people waiting for tests in both places.

There are 18 consultant ophthalmologists in Glasgow, 12 of whom are whole-time, five part-time, and one holds an honorary appointment. In Lanarkshire there are four, one whole-time and three part-time. The average waiting period in Glasgow is nine to 10 weeks and in Lanarkshire 36 weeks; but urgent cases are seen with the minimum of delay, and immediately if necessary.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the health service is intended to cover the whole country and that on that basis there should not be any frontiers? Would he not agree that, on the basis of information that I have, in some cases people have to wait as long as 15 months before receiving the necessary treatment? Would it not help for some people to be directed to Glasgow where the matter could be dealt with more expeditiously?

I agree that the situation in Lanarkshire needs improvement. The regional hospital board is trying to direct patients who have been waiting a long time to other hospitals in the area where the position is rather better. I am able to say that a further appointment of a consultant for Lanarkshire has been approved.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the dissatisfaction in the West of Fife concerning the inadequacy of the area's representation on the proposed new area health board, he will review the composition of the board.

I am not aware of the dissatisfaction to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The membership of the Fife Health Board is settled except for the additional members my right hon. Friend will be appointing towards the end of the year. When he does so, he will be taking account of any specific suggestions which may be made to him. I would stress, however, that members are being appointed for their individual contribution and not as representatives of any particular area or group.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if membership of this health board were on the basis of the parliamentary constituencies, Kirkcaldy would have five members, Fife three and Dunfermline three? If it were on the basis of the new district authority, Kirkcaldy would have seven and Dunfermline four. Is he further aware that there is no member of the present West Fife Hospital Board on this area health board? Does he realise that some people who are bitterly opposed to the creation of such a board have found themselves appointed to it?

The hon. Member can prove anything by statistics. I believe that the majority of hon. Members would agree that the West Fife area from Kirkcaldy to Dunfermline is doing well with 11 out of the 15 members of the board, including the chairman, who lives in Dunfermline.

Has the hon. Gentleman taken account of the political affiliations of the appointments? Is he aware that I understand that neither the trade union nor the co-operative nominees have been accepted? Whether they were considered I do not know. Since the Minister talks about appointment on merit, will he have a good look at those who have been appointed from Dunfermline?

I could not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about anyone appointed to the board. Every board has a nomination from the Scottish TUC. Otherwise I have not taken political affiliation into account at all. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at some of the chairmen of the board. If he has any suggestions to make, he can let us have them.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the remainder of the appointments to area health boards in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend expects to appoint the balance of the membership of health boards towards the end of this year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware there is great disquiet in Scotland about the serious imbalance being shown up by the earlier appointments to the area health boards? Is he further aware that his earlier announcement that appointments are made on the basis of what people have to offer the boards seems to mean in my constituency that the local authorities in Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth have absolutely nothing whatever to offer the Forth area health board? Is he prepared to substantiate this? Will his further appointments reflect the interest of the local authorities?

I explained that appointments are on merit and are not meant to be representative of any particular organisation. The hon. Member knows there are five appointments to the board from the Falkirk and Grangemouth area. My right hon. Friend is willing to receive suggestions from hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman said that he was not concerned about the political balance. Is it not the case that it has been the tradition of Governments in the past to appoint members of the STUC, the CBI and the Cooperative Union? Before he finishes making these appointments, will he take into account the fact that not one appointment has been made from the 42 names submitted by the Scottish section of the Co-operative Union?

We asked a great many organisations for nominations and around 2,000 were received. Every health board has a nomination from the STUC. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put forward suggestions, I am willing to receive them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the comments of Labour Members do not reflect the general welcome there has been for these appointments? Can he explain why Labour Members are so concerned yet apparently have not written to him to express their concern? Is this not another example of the mischief which hon. Gentlemen opposite try to stir up in public life?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Those Labour Members who have written expressing their point of view have met with a modest degree of success.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is serious disquiet about inadequate representation? Why is it that general practitioners, dentists and pharmacologists make up one-third of the appointments on the new boards while hospital porters and nurses are refused appointments? Will he rectify this? If the medical profession is to be so heavily represented, should not the general public and the trade unions be equally represented?

The hon. Gentleman will recall from the debates we had during the passage of the Bill that the whole object was to have comparatively small area health boards, of a manageable size. If everyone was represented, the committees would be quite unmanageable.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the work of his Department towards securing industrial benefits for Scotland from North Sea oil.

The Scottish Office contributes directly through its responsibilities for planning, infrastructure and certain harbours. In addition, where other Departments and agencies have the primary responsibilities, my noble Friend the Minister of State has the rôle of co-ordinating Minister.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that actions always speak louder than words? May I refer him to the supply boat position? Will he confirm that it is within his knowledge that between now and 1980 we shall need between 150 and 170 supply boats for North Sea oil but that, to date, not one of these is on order in a Scottish yard? Is this not totally unacceptable? Will not Lord Polwarth have to do something about this before we accept the kind of words he has used about his rôle in the Scottish Office?

While we have been very quick in geting ready the harbours and bases from which supply boats can operate, including Peterhead, which was a very fast operation, it has been disappointing that Scottish firms have not so far been able to get the business of the supply boats. I think that there is one exception and I congratulate the firm which has got the orders. There have been firms in England which have been building supply boats for the gas operations going on in the past eight to 10 years off the English coast.

Is there any governmental committee to which Lord Polwarth has access in his co-ordinating rôle to which the Secretary of State did not previously have access?

No. The committee system is such and the position of the Minister of State as the alternate to the Secretary of State is such that the Minister of State can attend a number of committees in place of the Secretary of State.

The whole thing is a charade.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in the light of the latest projection of world oil shortage he will instruct the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board urgently to reconsider its decision to go ahead with an oil-burning power station at Boddam, Aberdeenshire, and to revert to the plan for a nuclear-powered station at Stakeness.

No. I do not accept that current projections of oil supply require reconsideration of the decision to build a power station at Peterhead, which will be designed to burn gas as well as oil, and which is urgently needed to meet electricity demands in the north-east of Scotland from 1978.

Following a series of long, detailed and well argued letters from me to the Minister on this subject, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the month that Michigan and Detroit start rationing petrol it is not very wise to commit ourselves to burning liquid hydrocarbons for 30 years? Furthermore, how can the nuclear industry iron out its complex diffi- culties if it is not given the orders to enable it to do so?

I would not dispute that the hon. Gentleman's letters to me are long, detailed and well argued.

What about the answers?

They are shorter, less detailed, but also very well argued.

The Minister said that the power station was being designed to burn gas. Will he make clear whether the gas will be derived from North Sea oil and, therefore, supplied by the oil companies or whether it will be supplied on offer from the Gas Council?

No decision about what gas might be used would be taken until the time came to consider whether there was a need to use gas. The station is designed to be fired by oil, but it is also designed in a way which would enable it to be supplied by gas from any source if that should prove appropriate.

Was not the original proposal of the hydro board for a nuclear station, and is it not the case that as long as the discussions and arguments in the Government Departments went on it was inevitable that there had to be a return to an oil-fired station?

I think that it was inevitable if we were to have the power station in production by 1978. The right hon. Gentleman will admit, if he thinks about it, that he is very much oversimplifying the matter. There is much difficult technical evaluation to be done. There has been no delay in doing it. It would have been ridiculous to put in hand a station which could not be ready in time and, still worse, to put it in hand with a form of reactor which had not been properly proved. I could imagine what the right hon. Gentleman would have said if we had done that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend the law governing the right to cut peat.

My right hon. Friend has no proposals to change the present position.

But is not the Minister aware that there is great uncertainty about the present position and that there is some anxiety that the cupidity of landlords in the Highlands may lead to their seeking to take advantage of this uncertainty to abridge unilaterally or alter the peat-cutting rights of crofters customarily enjoyed over generations?

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has drawn a specific case to my notice on which I cannot advise because of the legal implications. I am not aware of any general demand for a change. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of a general demand for a change, I shall be glad to hear from him.

In his review of crofting law, and before he brings forward next Session proposals for amendment of the law, will the hon. Gentleman consider bringing this matter under review by the Government?

I am prepared to look at that point, but I would require evidence to see whether there was any need for a change. I have had no evidence so far, even from the hon. Gentleman.

Can my hon. Friend tell me roughly what the law is on this subject? Could I go and cut peat if I wanted to?

It would perhaps take a long time to explain the law, but basically the crofter has a right to cut peat on his own croft and sometimes, by custom, on other areas of the estate in which his croft is situated. In other instances the landlord can grant privileges to crofters and others to cut peat in particular places.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement following the negotiations which took place in Copenhagen during the earlier part of June 1973 on the fisheries around the Faroe Isles.

Discussions took place in Copenhagen on 16th and 17th June, on the basis of Danish proposals for a catch limitation scheme and for the restriction of trawling up to 24 miles from the Faroese coasts on a seasonal basis. Further discussions will be held after study of the revised proposals which the Danish Government undertook to circulate.

Can my hon. Friend indicate when a final agreement is likely to be reached on the subject? Will he continue to keep in consultation with those most interested in the outcome of the talks?

It may take a little time for the Danes to circulate their new proposals to us. We would then require some weeks to consider them. We shall take the interests of the industry fully into account. As my hon. Friend may know, advisers from the industry were present in Copenhagen during the talks and were ready on the spot to give advice. I should hope to continue that arrangement.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of publicly demonstrating the drift of the talks so that the fishing industry may know what is going on? As the discussions with the Faroese authorities and Denmark appear to be going on reasonably amicably and Iceland is undertaking discussions with West Germany, will the Government consider the possibility of reopening negotiations with Iceland?

On the first point, I shall keep the industry informed. I have had meetings with the Scottish trawler owners and British trawler owners. On the second point, I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to questions yesterday, namely, that we are entitrely ready to reopen negotiations with Iceland provided it will agree to stop the harassment of British trawlers in those waters. The offer from our side is entirely open.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the amount of money available for school building in 1974–75; how this compares with 1973–74; and if he will make a statement.

£54·5 million which is £10·1 million more than in 1973–74. The increase includes £5·5 million as the first instalment of the programme for nursery education building. With permission, I shall give details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I should like to discuss the school building allocation for Perthshire with him on some other occasion? Having said that, I congratulate him on the progress which the figures show. Can he give some more information about the progress of his plans for the development of nursery school education in Scotland?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am always glad to talk to him about any difficulties he may have in Perthshire. The nursery education programme is going ahead as fast as possible. Some of the money available was announced in the last White Paper and upgraded with relation to the cost of building. As regards the criticism of some local authorities, the bids from local authorities for the main programme in 1973–74 amounted to £62 million, of which £26 million was available. This year the bids were no less than £108 million, of which an increased sum of £29 million was available. In many cases they are asking for the moon and are complaining about cuts when in fact they are receiving more.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the local authorities were led by the December 1972 White Paper to expect an augmented programme? Is he aware that the Roxburgh education authority feels particularly disappointed that the money for the Tweedbank School has been included as part of the normal allocation instead of as a separate project, as was earlier expected?

I appreciate that the Roxburgh County Council has written to my Department. We shall look very carefully at the complaints which it has made. It would be wrong for me to go further than that.

Is the Minister confident that the 1974–75 programme is secure and that, when the Government come to resolve the contradictions of their consumer-led growth and balance of payments deficit, there will be no substantial cut-back in the Scottish education programme?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been no cut-back in the education programme even with the recent cuts in Government expenditure. Those cuts did not touch education, and there is no reason why the programme I have announced should not go ahead.

Does the Minister agree that Lanarkshire has had much less than half the money it wanted? The amount Lanarkshire has allocated for secondary school building in 1974–75 will preclude any expansion. For that reason the education authority has asked to meet the Minister. Could not something be done to eliminate the chaos due to the shortage of secondary school places as soon as is humanly possible?

No Government, past, present or future, can ever fulfil all the wishes of local authorities in educational building. We must be practical about this. Lanarkshire is receiving nearly £6 million—£5,981,000—towards school building. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, individually or with other hon. Members representing Lanarkshire constituencies, to meet me subsequent to the discussions between the Department and local officials, I shall be happy for him to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what communications he has received from education authorities in Scotland in relation to the financial allocations for school buildings; and what replies he has sent.

Nine education authorities have asked for meetings to put forward a case for a larger allocation for the 1974–75 school building programme. These representations have only recently been received and I shall be considering the position with each of the authorities concerned.

Surely the Minister must agree that it does no good to try to create the impression that there is not uproar in the educational system because of the Government's proposed financial school building allocation. Is he aware that in the county of Midlothian three-quarters of the proposals put before him for school building have been cut? Bearing in mind the demands of the new town and the noises which the Government make about nursery school education and building provision in that respect, is it any wonder that education authorities are beginning to question whether the Government are in earnest about providing the proper facilities for educational purposes in Scotland?

The Government are most certainly involved in providing extra facilities for education. In 1973–74 Midlothian asked for £553,000 for its main programmes and following increases in building costs and improvement schemes it will receive £1,006,000. This year it applied for £5·2 million and it will receive at the end of the day £1·32 million. Thus, it is getting £300,000 more than it received last year. Therefore, it is wrong to say that there are building cuts.

Is the Minister aware that Lanarkshire in respect of its school building programme has received only £2·1 million and that representation has already been made to him seeking an urgent meeting? Bearing in mind the great urgency of the school building situation, will he take another look at the matter since all local authorities seem to be dissatisfied with what is happening?

I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter in relation to Lanarkshire. I have asked my Depart- ment to discuss the immediate position with the Lanarkshire Education Authority, and I shall meet the hon. Gentleman and other Lanarkshire Members if they are still dissatisfied.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Scotland we still have a long way to go to overcome the deficiencies in the Labour Government's educational policies? Will he recognise that, welcome as is the increased allocation for Perthshire, it is inadequate to meet the needs in respect of completing the building of Perth Grammar School and other secondary extensions and buildings, which are now matters of pressing urgency in providing secondary education for the county?

My hon. Friend is a per sistent advocate for the schools of Perth. After my Department has discussed the situation with his education authority—and if my lion. Friend is still dissatisfied with the situation—I shall have another talk with him about the matter.

Has the Minister made any allowance for the staggering inflation in school building costs? Does he realise that he has already had to increase the 1971 figure by 13 per cent. and the 1973–74 figure by 30 per cent.? Has he allowed in his calculations for the even greater increase in inflation?

The figures for 1973–74 and 1974–75 include a 22 per cent. increase in school building costs.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what study his Department has made of the effect of the present loss of earning power in Scotland due to the prevailing level of unemployment.

Through the Scottish Economic Planning Board, my Department keeps all aspects of the Scottish economic situation, including unemployment, under regular review.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the loss of spending power in Scotland because of registered unemployment is about £160 million a year and in respect of unregistered employment is possibly £200 million a year, and that this loss has a big effect on the Scottish economy? If there were less unemployment, more money would be spent in the shops and there would be less need for rebates. What is the Secretary of State doing to create more jobs in Scotland to lessen the effect of unemployment?

The figures given by the hon. Gentleman take no account of the payment of unemployment benefits. He will, I am sure, welcome—as we all do on this side of the House—the improvement in the unemployment figures in Scotland, in particular the improvement of more than 50,000 in the past year.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether I am right in recollecting that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), used to regard the level of emigration from Scotland as a key indicator of the state of the Scottish economy? Has my right hon. Friend received any messages of congratulation from his predecessor on the latest improvement in the level of emigration?

I recall that the right hon. Gentleman used to make a considerable point about emigration. I have not yet received the expected message from him.

As the last published figures show an increase of about 6,000 in the year, and as the latest figures will not be available until November, I am not in favour of sending premature congratulations. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the serious problem which will arise next winter? We have managed to reduce unemployment, and we are all glad of that, but because of the increase in the school leaving age a great many youngsters have remained at school instead of coming on to the labour market. Those school leavers will start to flow after the summer and in the new year. Is the Secretary of State taking special steps to ensure that employment is available for them?

I am very concerned about the continuing unemployment, but all the signs are that there are confidence and expansion in Scotland.

Does my right hon. Friend recall a supplementary question I asked him a little time ago to which I received no satisfactory reply? Will he explain to the House why right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches always look unhappy when they hear good news?

That is not a question to which I should reply.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government in the first instance escalated the unemployment figures to astronomical proportions? Does he agree that it is not right for him to accept credit for reducing unemployment figures which the Government deliberately increased? Is the Minister further aware that there are more than 92,000 unemployed in Scotland, without counting hidden unemployment, and although, in my constituency, the unemployment total has gone down slightly, long-term unemployment has increased by 15 per cent. in two employment exchange areas within the last 12 months? Does he not realise that the Government are responsible for the high unemployment figures?

I know the figures, and I referred to them earlier. I do not accept most of what the hon. Gentleman said. I repeat that I continue to be very concerned about unemployment in Scotland despite the welcome improvement in the figures of more than 50,000 in the past year.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to make an announcement on steel and oil projects at Hunterston following his decision to grant planning permission for an iron ore terminal.

As my statement of 30th May indicated, the immediate intention is to consult the interests involved. Consultations with the county council should begin very soon and the other consultations will follow.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Department of the Environment, in co-operation with the Department of Trade and Industry, has sanctioned two oil refineries in the Thames area and one in Wales? Will he confirm that the Government's intention is to refine Scottish oil from the North Sea in refineries in England and Wales or in Europe? When will he give permission for oil refineries to be built in areas where people want them and where they are needed?

The siting of oil refineries is subject to the procedures of the planning Acts. The statement which I issued on Hunterston—to which the Question refers—was a carefully prepared one to which the Press gave prominence and which I commend to the hon. Gentleman for study. It sets out the factors clearly.

As there have been several reports of private firms being interested in building steelworks in the Hunterston area, will my right hon. Friend say how authentic are these reports? If he cannot do so now, when will he do so? Secondly, if such a positive proposal were put forward and approved by the Government, would it first be necessary to obtain the approval of the European Coal and Steel Community?

There is nothing to prevent private firms making planning applications for Hunterston. They would be considered in the light of the general decision that was taken over two years ago and the factors contained in my statement of 30th May. I do not think that EEC considerations would inhibit those applications.

If all that has been said about the immense value of Hunterston to the nation is accurate, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to fritter away those advantages on small schemes that might be developed elsewhere but keep in mind when he considers applications the longer-term uses to which the area might be put?

Yes, I agree, and that is what is spelt out in my statement. That is an issue on which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) does not agree. He has been pressing for quick development regardless of whether individual projects were of immense value to Scotland. The requirement in my general planning decision of two years ago that individual projects must be put to the Secretary of State for his approval is based on the necessity for the site to be used only for projects which are of immense importance to Scotland.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any proposals since he made his statement? In the light of the inaction that has been characterstic of his Department in relation to the development of Hunterston, is it his intention to freeze the area for 20 years?

I advise the hon. Gentleman to read my statement of 30th May. He clearly has not done so. It explains these matters at much greater length than I am able to do in answer to a supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the number of Civil Service jobs recommended for Scotland in the Hardman Report.

The Hardman Report has been submitted to the Government and published as a basis for discussion. It raises a number of complex issues which the Government are now studying.

Is not the Secretary of State aware that the people of Scotland are extremely disappointed at the small number of jobs recommended in the report for Scotland? Does he not realise that part of the reason for this small number of jobs in an area of high unemployment is due to the fact that the Government have recommended for investigation only one site in the whole of Scotland? Did not this very fact contribute to the small number of jobs we were allocated?

I am well aware of the disappointment in Scotland at the report of Sir Henry Hardman, which contains his own views. I would have been surprised if there had not been disappointment about his recommendations, but I do not think that the fact that the Glasgow area was indicated as a suitable location was a factor in the consideration of this matter. It is clear that there are other areas in Scotland which also are very suitable for office accommodation.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm my impression that the period of greatest relative prosperity in Scottish history—relative to the prosperity of other parts of the United Kingdom—was a period in which the only civil servant in Scotland was the private secretary to the Lord Advocate?

I would say that that is a matter of judgment and opinion.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in many ways the Hardman Report was insulting as well as disappointing? Will he take a hard look at the practicalities of the situation in respect of the dispersal of Ministry of Defence establishments involving the livelihood of 11,000 people? It is said that the most obvious dispersal areas are along the westerly axis from London. Bearing in mind the Government statement that all previous dispersal operations could have happened elsewhere, is it not surprising that the dispersal seldom gets beyond Carlisle? Will the right hon. Gentleman press for a change of attitude in this respect?

We must remember that this was the report of one person, Sir Henry Hardman, who was expressing his own views. I shall ensure that the factors relating to Scotland are taken fully into account in the Government's consideration of the report.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received against the toll charges on Erskine Bridge since it was opened.

Since July 1971 my right hon. Friend has received 19 representations about the toll charges. Six related to the policy of charging tolls or to the level of charges. The remainder were concerned with concessionary rates or season tickets.

Is the Minister aware that he has received about the same number of complaints as I have received during that period of time? Does he appreciate that many of the daily users of the Erskine Bridge who travel backwards and forwards are showing growing militancy, and does he not agree that something must be done about the situation? Will he consider completely abolishing tolls?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, it was his own Labour Government which decided originally that this bridge was suitable for tolls, and I am sure that as a sportsman he would not expect us to change the rules at halftime. I have no evidence to suggest that the economic benefit of the bridge is reduced by the fact that there is a system of tolls. The tolls are very modest and they represent a good bargain for those who use the bridge compared with the cost of going round by a longer route.

Is my hon. Friend able to give the House any information about the revenue which has actually been received compared with the revenue which was estimated at the time of building?

As my hon. Friend will know, the traffic has been considerably lower than was originally forecast, but I am glad to say that there have recently been substantial increases in traffic which have significantly reduced the difference between the forecasts and the actual figures. Traffic crossing the bridge during the second year of operation will be in the region of 2·1 million vehicles compared with a forecast of 2·6 million vehicles. This represents a considerable improvement in terms of results.

The Minister must realise the nature of the problem. Since many people in the new community have to cross the bridge twice a day, the payment of the toll is almost equivalent to paying rent. Will the Minister stamp on the suggestion by his Department about the possibility of increasing rates to deal with the financial problem? Since he mentioned the concept of sportsmen observing the rules, does he not agree that where the rules are found not to work they should be changed?

I am afraid that I did not hear the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The existence of a new community, by which the hon. Gentleman obviously means the people in the Erskine new town, was well known to the Labour Government. If he felt so strongly about the matter, he could have done something about it when he held office. May I deal with the question of the charging of tolls where they occur? I do not think they are a major disincentive to people using the bridge and I repeat that it is cheaper than going by another route.

How many road bridges in the south-east of England have tolls levied on them?

There are a number. Among them are the Severn Bridge, the Tamar Bridge, the Tyne Tunnel, the Mersey Tunnel and the Dartford to Purfleet Tunnel in England. All are subject to tolls. The principle is the same, and both Governments have followed it. Where there is a major estuarial crossing and there is an economic benefit in the shorter route provided by a bridge, tolls are charged.

Bearing in mind that since the opening of the Forth road bridge more than 8 million toll charges have been collected, in view of the rapid increase in the volume of traffic using the bridge will the hon. Gentleman look at the possibility on that bridge at least of reducing toll charges by 50 per cent.?

On the evidence available to me, I am not convinced that there is any case on financial grounds for reducing the tolls about which the hon. Gentleman asks. These bridges are built outwith the normal programme because it is proposed to impose toll charges. If they are built on that basis we cannot go back on it five years later because it suits us to do so.

rose—

Order. Private Notice Question. Mr. Benn.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has not the Chair ruled more than once that lengthy supplementary questions and answers take away from the value of Question Time? If on each Question there is what amounts to a minor debate, does not that also detract from the value of Question Time? Could we not speed up Questions much more?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman's appeal will not fall upon deaf ears. Nothing could please me more than the implementation of what he suggests.