asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the scope of work undertaken by the Scottish Economic Planning Department.

The Scottish Economic Planning Department advises me on matters relating to industrial and economic development in Scotland, including the Scottish aspects of regional policies and the development of North Sea oil resources.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Is he aware that in a letter dated 5th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), the Chairman of the Scottish National Party said that it was the policy of that party that the land of Scotland should be held only by Scottish citizens or by companies registered in Scotland with majority control by people of Scottish citizenship? Will he ask the SEPD to investigate what effect this would have on the Scottish economy if it ever happened, and what would happen to companies like IBM, Timex, NCR and Burroughs and Honeywell, which contribute tremendously to the Scottish economy?

I have not seen that letter, of course, but it must have considerable implications for the Scottish economy, especially in relation to oil developments. Many of the companies creating growth are not Scottish-based or made up of majority holdings by Scottish citizens. This shows the introverted nonsense of the Nationalists, which leads them into this kind of irresponsibility. I do not know how Sir Hugh Fraser can live with this when he was prepared to sell all his Scottish interests to Boots of England.

Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to this question even further? What proportion of Scottish employment is provided by companies which do not meet the narrow racialist requirements land down in this latest statement by the Scottish National Party? How would this proposal affect the House of Fraser and what would happen to the many American companies which provide so much employment in Scotland? Will he consult his colleagues in order to present to Scotland the effect of this monstrous and narrow notice to quit which has been given to so much of Scottish industry by the Scottish National Party?

Now that this policy has been proclaimed, there is certainly fertile ground for research for us all. When the question is widened to the growth, and the change in the pattern, of the Scottish economy because it has attracted firms from outside Scotland and outside the United Kingdom—into Lanarkshire and Fife, for example, and other areas of heavy unemployment, where we appreciate what they have done—one sees how out of touch with reality the SNP has become.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total estimated expense of the planning inquiries held at Bo'ness in relation to the proposed Carriden power station site and in East Lothian in relation to the proposed Towers site; and whether he is satisfied with the current system of determining sites for potential power stations, and in related developments.

Details of the costs incurred by all the parties concerned in the inquiries into the proposed power stations at Carriden and Torness are not available to me.

When we meet the requirements of statutes, are we sure that this kind of decision is best made by opposing batteries of lawyers?

Unless we have an acceptable substitute for the present planning procedures, the public inquiry is an essential part of that process. However, as I have made clear before, the actual decision about the power station itself—and authority for that—is taken as a separate decision by the Secretary of State, so that the wider matters of energy policy and the rest can be considered then.

On the second part of that question, will the Secretary of State confirm that in coming to a decision on the present application for the Torness site his right hon. Friend will have regard not just to the physical suitability of the site but also to the damage and dangers which the power station could cause to the environment, to housing and to employment in the area?

All these matters are absolutely intrinsic to planning decisions of this kind. In this case, as in others, my right hon. Friend will keep these matters in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children of United States Navy personnel stationed at the Polaris base on the Holy Loch are receiving their primary education in Scotland.

This information is not available centrally.

In view of the widespread misgivings of parents in the area—[Interruption.] I am in a position to know about this—does the hon. Gentleman not agree that as children of United States personnel are there for such a short time; as they, therefore, disrupt the work of the school, and as the United States Navy provides petrol stations and shops, there is no reason why the United States should not also provide such facilities as schools, especially as at one school in the area 200 American children will be attending on a short-term basis?

We have absolutely no evidence that the number of children of American Service personnel is causing the kind of difficulty suggested by the hon. Gentleman. People who live in this country are subject to the laws of this country, and they are entitled to send their children to local schools. I hope that we shall not have children of foreign residents in Britain singled out in this way as being the cause of any difficulties in schools.

As a Member representing a constituency which also has within it an American air base, may I completely dissociate myself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) and say how much we welcome the presence of the Americans in Scotland? Will the hon. Gentleman please deny the talk of segregation of a friendly Power, put forward by the Scottish National Party?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I reject segregation on any basis of nationality, religion or race. It does the people of Scotland no good to suggest that in some way these children are unwelcome. The views of the people of Scotland about the Polaris base are a different matter; but the children should not be castigated in this way.

Can the hon. Gentleman give any information about the number of Scots living and working in the United States, temporarily or permanently, whose children are educated there, and whether this kind of reciprocal arrangement is healthy both in the understanding of the internationalism of Scotsmen and the way in which this can also work out in terms of international economic arguments?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have no such figures about the number of Scots in the United States or anywhere else. One would hope that children of different cultures and backgrounds mixing together could do much to foster international understanding. The kind of thoughts behind the original Question add nothing to that, or to the traditional Scottish cultural and friendly relations with people throughout the world.

I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is being a bit unfair. With due respect, a simple enough question was put to him, asking whether this has dislocated the school activities in that area. If it has, steps should be taken to see that the local inhabitants' children are given a full and adequate education. That is the purpose behind the Question, and I would not want it to go forth from the House that hon. Members are so hidebound as to be prejudiced, either on one side or the other.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has not asked a question, which he should have done.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I think that the implied question requires an answer. We have absolutely no evidence that the education of children in the area to which the hon. Member for Argyll referred is being disrupted by the children of the United States Navy personnel. But if there were at any time to be identified signs of stress in Scottish education in any area, the answer would be not to segregate them off but to see that a full education was provided for all the children in the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the views he has received on the discussion document on devolution.

No, Sir. It is for the bodies and individuals putting forward views to decide whether they wish to make them public.

Will the Secretary of State repudiate the widely-published views of the Executive of the Scottish Labour Party on this subject and reaffirm that it is the policy of the Government to proceed to honour the pledge given in the Queen's Speech and to produce proposals later this year for devolution to Scotland?

As far as that is concerned everyone is entitled to his views, even the Labour Party. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) seems to give the impression that, strangely enough, the Liberal Party, whose views in respect of devolution were turned down by Kilbrandon, is united—all three members of it. What we are concerned about is to ensure that all views are received and heard, and that, where necessary and desired, there shall be oral discussions in relation to all points concerning Kilbrandon.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to the Liberal Chief Whip that if Scotland insists upon a Stormont-type administraion, Scotland will have no complaints if it is left with a Northern Irish basis of representation in this House?

The whole purpose of what we have done and the discussions into which we are entering—and our hope for debate on this matter—is eventually to have something that is acceptable to the people of Scotland, and in relation to which they know the limitations and the consequences of what is being done. All these matters are important.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now state his plans for devolution in the government of Scotland.

As already announced, the Government intend, after completing consultations with interested organisations, to publish a White Paper setting out their proposals for Scotland and Wales.

Has my right hon. Friend any overwhelming evidence of a desire in Scotland for a separate elected Assembly? Will he take steps to re-read the pamphlet called "Don't Butcher Scotland's Future", or something like that, and bring it up to date, because it is just as relevant today as it was when it was issued?

As my hon. Friend knows, a considerabe amount of evidence was given in the Kilbrandon Report. One of the things that was absolutely clear was that many people have differing views on the meaning of devolution. Not many of them knew what devolution had already taken place, and they had not given adequate thought, if any thought at all, to the consequences of various schemes. Kilbrandon produced schemes and we put them down for debate and discussion. We have had a good response from organisations to the invitation to send in written evidence, and many of the people concerned will be discussing this in the near future. During next week and the week after, I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Commons will be meeting many of these people to go into points raised in the letters. As for the public, the number of letters I have received so far is 132, of which 65 came via one newspaper.

Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the convolutions within the Labour Party in Scotland will not hold back the Government's proposals?

We in the Labour Party do not disguise that this is a very important issue, in respect of which there are differing points of view. This was brought out by Kilbrandon. What troubles me is the monolithic nonsense we hear from the party calling itself the Scottish National Party, which does not believe in devolution and wants only separation.

Is the Secretary of State aware that what we want is not necessarily devolution but less legislation, and that that will solve most of the difficulties?

We can have devolution without legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the shortage of List D school places.

I have recently had discussions with the local authority associations and other interests concerned. All are aware of the present difficulties and there is general agreement on the need for a wider range of facilities, including intermediate treatment facilities, to meet the needs of children coming before the hearings. Some additional facilities are being provided or are being planned, and any further proposals will be given every possible encouragement within the resources available.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I point out to him that the children's hearings system in Scotland is now in very serious danger of breaking down completely, not because the people working the system do not want to make it work but because the facilities are not available to enable them to give the prescribed treatment to the children? My hon. Friend talks about intermediate forms of treatment; will he expand on that matter?

First, I do not go as far as my hon. Friend and say that the system is in danger of breaking down. One understands that there are difficulties. For example, in 1972—the latest year for which figures have been published—children's hearings dealt with 23,144 reports submitted to them. They have, therefore, a tremendous job to do. But all the people to whom I have spoken about this have said that the additional provision of List D places was not the answer. By intermediate treatment I mean something between simple supervision by a social worker and people being taken out of the community into a special residential establishment. This can be done in a number of ways. Experiments are taking place in Edinburgh, Clackmannan and elsewhere. The idea is that the children will get the care and attention they need without necessarily being removed from the home environment.

Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the Labour Party, when in opposition, criticised the lack of List D places? In the four months since the General Election, has the hon. Gentleman formulated any policies to provide more places? How many more are in the pipeline now than were in it in February?

Certainly we criticised the lack of places. During the hon. Gentleman's term of office the number of places went down, and in the three years that he was in office the waiting list grew from virtually nil to 607, which was the count at 31st March. We cannot provide additional places overnight. The hon. Gentleman knows of the 80 additional places which are planned—certainly planned by the administration of which he was a member—and the 150 assessment centres. We cannot start erecting more buildings for List D places overnight. This is a process which must be considered. We are not satisfied that List D placing is necessarily the whole answer.

Will my hon. Friend, nevertheless, not be complacent about this problem, which is very serious and pressing? The information that I have from the Paisley local authority is that more than one-third of the time of the social work department is taken up in trying to deal with this problem. Unless there is some other provision, either of intermediate treatment or List D places, the system is in danger of breaking down, with very severe consequences.

I am far from complacent on this issue. From the discussions I have had I am aware of the problem and the fact that we need to provide proper care for the children who land in trouble. Those children are our primary concern, which is why we shall be coming forward with proposals following the wide-ranging discussions I had on how we can help the situation. For example, among the suggestions put forward is that instead of the children going into residential care they can attend List D schools on a day-to-day basis. There are a number of different ways constantly under discussion, and we are far from complacent.

rose—

Order. We must speed up a little.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects work to start on making the road to Aberdeen and the north dual carriageway.

Substantial lengths of dual carriageway already exist or are under construction between Perth and Dundee and between Stonehaven and Aberdeen. My right hon. Friend has also recently agreed in principle that dual carriageways north of Aberdeen should be extended as far as Balmedie. However, forward estimates of traffic do not at present justify such provision over the entire length.

I thank the Minister for that partial reply, but does he realise that Aberdeen, which is the oil capital of Europe and is fast becoming the production centre of what will be Britain's biggest single industry, in financial terms, is still joined to the rest of the United Kingdom by what is more or less a cart track?

I do not think that I would accept that, but considerable improvements are going on.

Will the Minister look particularly at the case of the road north of Balmedie, to Ellon and Peterhead, where the construction traffic and traffic to the power stations and the gas terminal are putting an enormous strain on local road resources? Will he ask the Secretary of State to have a special look at this road and drive on it when he visits the area on Friday?

I have already travelled on that road recently and I appreciate that it is by no means adequate. We are providing dual carriageways as far as Balmedie and there are other improvements north of that with, perhaps, a bypass of Ellon. There will be other improvements, and I agree that they are needed.

Will the Minister look specifically at the question of the Montrose relief road—a town which has experienced tremendous and very fast oil development and where a great deal of congestion is building up? I hope that it has a high degree of urgency in his programme.

I shall look at these specific matters. If any hon. Member has a particular question I hope that he will put it down so that I can deal with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for assisting sea services to the Western Isles with a view to reducing the cost of living in that area.

During the current financial year, Government support for the sea services to the Western islands of Scotland will amount to about £800,000. Of this about £540,000 will be operating subsidy and about £250,000 grants and loans towards the modernisation of piers and harbours.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that in the Western Isles wages are lower than the national average and that the cost of living, mainly because of freight charges, is considerably higher than almost anywhere else in the United Kingdom? Since the Government have announced a massive subsidy for the railways throughout the mainland system, does the Minister not feel that the previous Government's withdrawal of subsidies on certain sections of the sea links to the Western Isles was a retrograde and callous step, and will he seek to put that right?

I am not responsible for anything done by the previous Government. The subsidies are still substantial. Of course, there is also the opportunity for local authorities now to make their own payments under the 1968 Act, and those payments are in turn heavily subsidised by the Government.

Is the Minister aware that due the effect of freight charges, the cost of living in the islands of Scotland is considerably higher than in London? If London requires special treatment, why is that treatment not also given to these parts of Scotland?

There are special considerations in the case of London. Transport charges for the Scottish islands already receive considerable financial assistance. I shall be meeting the local authorities—if they are willing to meet me—next week to talk about these matters.

Since millions of workers now have threshold agreements under which their wages go up according to the cost of living index, would it not be sensible at this stage to have regional cost-of-living indices, so that people's wages keep pace with the real costs which they have to face?

I am not sure that every region would welcome that. Threshold agreements are nothing to do with regional differentials in the cost of living and, anyway, they were introduced by the Conservatives and not by us.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the provision of a health centre in Oakley, Fife.

Tenders were invited on 4th May for return by 7th June 1974. The latest date for acceptance is 7th August, and the results of the invitation are at present being examined.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Hunterston saga mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) yesterday is not the only one to crop up this week? The Oakley centre is another one. This centre was fourth on Fife County Council's lists of priorities 12 years ago, and I raised the matter several times with Ministers, in and out of Parliament, for two years. Is my hon. Friend further aware that the people in Oakley and district have to suffer an inadequate chiropody service, by mobile van, and the old people particularly are suffering? Will he inject some urgency into the matter?

I am aware of the saga to which my hon. Friend referred. The previous tenders in 1973 were too high and fresh tenders had to be sought. We simply must keep some control over costs in relation to estimates. The tenders are now in and we are examining them, and if it is possible to accept one of them we shall do so.

Will the Minister bear in mind that his Department has been pursued about this matter in respect of Tain, Dingwall and Alness, in my constituency, for a considerable time? Will he do everything in his power to make sure that these are proceeded with without delay?

The hon. Member had better put down a Question about that, since Oakley is in Fife and is not in the hon. Member's constituency. I take his point, but I would not be surprised to find that they were held back because of the expenditure cuts of 17th December.

No, no, no.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is available on the amount of sewage and sludge being dumped at sea round the coasts of Scotland at the present time; what increased amounts are likely to be dumped in the future; and if he will make a statement.

About 1½, million tons of sewage sludge from 18 local authorities are dumped annually by Glasgow Corporation in the Fifth of Clyde. Dundee may also be dumping sewage sludge in the North Sea by the end of this decade. Edinburgh Corporation proposes to dump annually about half a million tons of sludge off the east coast from 1976. Monitoring has not shown that dumping has any serious effects.

Does the Minister agree that the Firth of Forth fishermen suffer a great deal from dumping? For instance, surplus ammunition has been dumped in the Firth, and now they have to contend with sewage sludge. Will the Minister make certain that assurances are given to the industry that no harm will come to fish as a result of these operations?

I believe that there have been discussions and representations about getting an appropriate site, but I have no evidence that the dumping affects fishing or anything else. Any difficulties arising there would be a good deal fewer than those arising at present as a result of raw sewage being pumped into the Forth.

Is the Minister aware that one of the most important growth industries on the west coast of Scotland is fish farming, which faces particular problems as a result of this activity?

I shall certainly keep that in mind. This is Scottish sludge we are talking about.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to abolish the necessity for Service men, intending to marry girls living in Scotland, having to obtain a special licence at a cost, because they cannot fulfil the residential qualification due to service with Her Majesty's Forces; and if he will make a statement.

I notice that in the Order Paper my hon. Friend is styled "Sir". I am sorry that I have been denied the privilege of congratulating my hon. Friend upon a knighthood.

May I reciprocate by congratulating my hon. Friend on his appointment? I am sorry, however, that he spoiled my elevation.

Many hon. Members would think it a reasonable price to pay for marriage. However, there is a practical problem here, which springs from the fact that the law in Scotland is different, and so different regulations apply. If my hon. Friend has any specific cases I should be glad to look at them—

I have three.

I shall be glad to see whether I can help in those cases. The rules for Scottish Service men are quite explicit and not unduly burdensome, but this matter raises a problem of legislation. We have this matter on board and we shall give it early attention, consistent with fitting it into the parliamentary time table.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of the Scottish Sports Council.

The Council published a report on its work in November 1973 and I understand that it expects to publish a further report later this year.

To what extent is the council involved in the discussions on the improvement and modernisation of Hampden Park, and when do the Government expect to be in a position to make a statement on this matter?

There is a separate working party looking at the future of Hampden Park and it is expected to report towards the end of the autumn. The chairman of the Scottish Sports Council, Mr. Laurie Liddell, also happens to be chairman of the working party. We shall await the report of the working party.

Will my hon. Friend suggest to the working party that some of us on the Government side of the House are a little fed up with public money being poured into private enterprises? If the Government are foolish enough to do this in relation to Hampden Park, will they also consider Lanark football grounds, such as Shawfield Stadium, Fir Park, Broomfield Park and Douglas Park, which need money injected into them?

I would not like to comment on the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. With regard to Hampden Park, it must be recognised that that is a Scottish national stadium and we want to see the best facilities provided for international events. We must await the report of the working party and see what transpires. If my hon. Friend cares to talk over these matters with me later I shall be glad to go into them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) appears to want Hampden Park nationalised? Will my hon. Friend see that this is arranged and, in doing so, arrange for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to kick off in the first match, which would probably be between the Younger Generation and the Taylor Maids?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many secondary school teachers qualified at the colleges of education this session and how many have accepted employment, respectively, in Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Glasgow and Dumfriesshire.

About 3,000 secondary teachers will qualify this session. Of this number, 265 have so far accepted employment in Lanarkshire, 341 in Glasgow. 207 in Renfrewshire and 20 in Dumfriesshire.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are glad that there has been such a large number of successful candidates from colleges of education? Will he do everything possible to see that education authorities fulfil their promise to recruit only to those areas which are seriously short-staffed, so as to help the pupil-teacher ratio in the next session?

The hon. Gentleman knows that an appeal was sent to those education authorities outside areas of stress asking them to restrain recruitment, but I am afraid that the replies have been generally disappointing. Only eight authorities have given a commitment to restrain their recruitment without further action. I can only express the hope that education authorities will accept that there are serious problems in the west of Scotland and will limit their own recruitment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his policy to restrict the freedom of local authorities and new town development corporations to sell houses to sitting tenants who want to buy their own houses.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's reply on 9th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queens Park (Mr. McElhone).

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this decision to make further restrictions by stealth on the sale of council houses to sitting tenants will strike dismay in the hearts of many people who believe that it is an extremely valuable way to help tenants and those who wish to buy houses, as well as all the ratepayers?

I do not see how a circular to local authorities can be interpreted as acting by stealth. The policy on new towns is rather different, and always has been, and it is under consideration at the moment, as an answer given yesterday shows. Any commitments that have been entered into with sitting tenants will be honoured, and will not be affected by the circular.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a restriction of freedom, and that it is the realisation of local authorities, and, I hope, of his Department, that most people in Scotland want houses at reasonable rents? We are not opposed in principle to the selling of houses, but selling houses of this kind does not add a single house to the pool. Will my hon. Friend resist any attempts with regard to selling houses while people still want houses to rent?

I am already resisting that. The change is one to greater restriction. There is still much unsatis fled demand for houses to rent in Scotland and the primary responsibility of local authorities should be to meet that demand. We are not willing to see houses sold in areas where there are still demands for houses to rent.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the people of Scotland know better what they want than does the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)? Is it not an outrageous and spiteful policy? Is it true that the Government are preventing local authorities from offering these houses at a discount, as they were previously entitled to do? Is he aware that, bearing in mind that our previous policy was frustrated by some foolish local authorities, the Conservative Party is fully committed to ensure that every council tenant in Scotland who wants to buy his home can do so from the moment that we have another Conservative Government?

That sounds rather like the traditional Conservative Party way of dictating to local authorities in regard to their housing policies. I do not accept anything that the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the new local authorities regarding the need for economies in staff recruitment.

My noble Friend the Minister of State discussed this matter with local government representatives earlier this week.

I am glad to hear that. Will the Minister assure the House that his noble Friend impressed upon the new regional and district authorities that the purpose of the reform of local government is not the aggrandisement of the staffs of local government, and that at a time like this what we should be hoping and expecting to see is not an increase but a diminution in bureaucracy for the benefit of all the ratepayers?

I do not think that any local authorities are under the impression that local government reorganisation is for the aggrandisement of the staff. All of them are aware of the need for economy in these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on his policy towards grant-aided schools.

As already announced, the grant payable for 1974–75 will be held at the same level as for 1973–74. Otherwise, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 10th April.—[Vol. 872, c. 414–5.]

I am not surprised that the Minister has nothing to add. Is he aware that the Government's statement to which he has just referred has been seen in Scotland as a spiteful and vindictive act, pursued for purely ideological purposes? Is he aware that the only practical effect of the statement has been to drive parents of very modest means to withdraw their children from grant-aided schools? Was that the Government's objective?

The Government's objective in holding the grant is consistent with their policy and the Labour Party policy stated over many years, namely, to see that eventually we have the integration of grant-aided schools into the normal State system.

How does the Minister justify restricting freedom of choice in education to the very rich?

I do not justify it at all. It is Conservative Members who justify freedom of education for the very rich.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received from the general public since assuming office.

This information could not be obtained without disproportionate effort.

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman may not be prepared to make a disproportionate effort to find the answer. Is he aware, from the correspondence he has received since the election, of the growing concern among low-paid workers in Scotland—who do not have large unions to pressurise the Government—that the only effect of the social compact so far is to drive their wages further and further down compared with those of other people, and that they are now looking for some form of relativities policy to stop them becoming the new poor of the 1970s?

We receive about 8,000 items of mail a day at St. Andrew's House, and I reckon that today we have not received a single one on the subject the hon. Gentleman raises. The number of letters we receive on any subject is usually in inverse proportion to the din created by Opposition Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the interests of curbing vandalism, he will consider seeking powers to prohibit the sale of paint spray guns to teenagers.

I am concerned about the extent of the damage to property caused by the use of aerosol paint sprays. But I do not think it would be right to prohibit the sale of articles which have many legitimate uses.

I was not suggesting that their sale should be restricted outright. Would it not be possible to impose restrictions on sales to young people, in the same way as restrictions are imposed on buying drink, fireworks and similar goods?

That is not a very practical or constructive suggestion. In 1970 there were 12 million aerosol paint sprays sold in the country. It would be very difficult to enforce the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Will the Minister advise local authorities to learn some of the lessons of the success of East Kilbride in dealing with the matter? First, the local authority there attempts to remove the effects of paint spraying as soon as it occurs. Secondly, it provides enough community facilities to make sure that people have better things to do.

Many hon. Members will be aware of the imaginative approach to the problem. We have the Scottish Council on Crime, and a committee is in the process of being set up to deal with truancy and indiscipline in primary and secondary schools. I believe that along with the efforts of social work departments, this kind of imaginative treatment will make a big contribution to minimising the problem.

Does the Minister agree that it is a desperately serious problem? We read in the papers this morning that one local authority is employing private security firms to try to control vandalism in some areas. Would not it be a simple remedy if those who defaced public buildings with aerosol cans were forced to clean up the buildings?

Yes, Sir, but I think that it must be done in co-operation with the authorities. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member has ever sprayed a building—I know that he is a vandal in other matters—but if he had done so he would know that there are problems in getting the paint off certain surfaces. That is why I say that it must be done in cooperation with the authorities, while involving the culprits.

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

There is too much happening in Scottish education to encompass within a short reply. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific point in mind I shall be happy to deal with it.

I have a specific point. Will the hon. Gentleman devote less time to hounding grant-aided and independent schools and spend more time trying to ease the scandalous conditions that exist in many local authority schools in Scotland?

I spend no time at all hounding the grant-aided schools. Most of the time that I devote to dealing with education is spent in trying to deal with the inheritance the hon. Gentleman's Government left, and the scandalous situation in education.

Does the Minister realise that he has made a monstrous statement about grant-aided schools today? Why has he not given the normal increase in grant to cover increased costs and salaries for the grant-aided schools this year? Does he appreciate that he has effectively put up the fees by 25 per cent. for many parents who cannot afford them, and that he has had no consultation with the grant-aided schools? That is no way for an Under-Secretary in charge of education to behave.

I shall be happy to deal with many of those points if the hon. Gentleman is lucky enough to have the opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment. The fees charged in grant-aided schools would have had to be increased irrespective of our decision. What we have done will cost the average parent of a pupil at a grant-aided school £10 per annum. In any event the parents would probably have had to find an additional £40 because of increased costs.

Does the Minister agree apart from the matter of making a survey of education that it is rather silly to have Scottish schools administered through the Scottish Education Department while Scottish universities are run by the University Grants Committee? Does he agree that we should have our own separate organisation for university education in Scotland?

I am not prepared to comment on that. If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question on the Order Paper he shall have an answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the figures for under-age drinking convictions in Scotland for the years 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973.

The number of young people under 18 convicted in 1973 of buying excisable liquor or consuming it in a bar was 1,216. Because of a change in the method of collecting statistics, exactly comparable figures for earlier years are not available. In 1970 the number convicted of buying liquor was 719, in 1971 it was 766, and in 1972 it was 688.

The Minister will appreciate that these figures are most alarming. As a matter of urgency will he take steps to arrange for consultation between the Scottish Health Education Unit, the Scottish Education Department and local authorities throughout Scotland so that young people may be made fully aware of the dangers of this habit?

I do not think that it is wise to use exaggerated phrases about alarm. It is certainly a subject that gives great cause for concern, particularly for those who are working with young people. Some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised are my hon. Friend's responsibility. Those matters are on board, and there is a pretty substantial programme of health education, which includes the dangers of drinking and alcoholism.

Will the Minister say how the Government's consideration of the Clayson Report is progressing, and what progress is being made on consultation about the report? Will he say when the Government will be able to make a statement on Clayson and to bring forward proposals to the House?

It is probably making as much progress as it was under the hon. Gentleman's régime. There has been no great public pressure for reform. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are considering all the specific recomendations in the Clayson Report, and we hope to make an announcement as soon as possible.