asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the Isle of Mull.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the island of Scalpay.

I have no plans at present for such visits but, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) on 20th March, I am always willing to consider or undertake visits where circumstances so warrant.

Does the Secretary of State for Scotland appreciate that if he is going to pay a visit to Mull and he wants to go direct to Tobermory, he had better go very quickly, because David MacBrayne Ltd. has announced plans to withdraw its call at the town of Tobermory, the chief town of the Island of Mull? Does he agree that that is a bad thing? Does he further agree that if the service were subsidised it could be continued in conjunction with the steamer service call at Tiree?

If that is the question the hon. Member wants answered, I should be grateful if he would put it on the Order Paper.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he visits Scalpay he will see a very progressive community, which has built up a fine fishing fleet and even has a shipping company with three coasters? At the same time, he will see a community that has the problem of an appalling freight cost doubled through having to take goods, to Harris from the mainland in the first place and then across to the Island of Scalpay. Will he make a quick decision on the views put to him by the delegation that saw his hon. Friend the Minister of State? May I thank the Minister for the time and attention he gave to the delegation?

I am aware of the prosperity of Scalpay. One must recollect that there was a time when it looked as though the island was going right down. It is thanks to the Labour Government and the Highlands and Islands Development Board that it has progressed as it has.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State, on the way to the islands, would consider visiting local authorities in the west of Scotland to discuss the welcome announcement made yesterday about the dispersal of Civil Service jobs? In the course of doing that, will he ensure that not only Glasgow Council but other local authorities in the area with particular facilities to offer, such as education, housing and environmental facilities in Dumbartonshire are consulted? Will he draw to the attention of the Civil Service the unique environmental qualities of the islands, which we hope he will be visiting, which make for a very happy life in those parts?

Once again I welcome the remarks my hon. Friend has made about yesterday' announcement, but that is another matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on his policy on rents after December.

Details of my right hon. Friend's plans for the public sector were given in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) on 25th July. As regards the private sector, my right hon. Friend proposes to extend phasing to increases in rent for all categories of tenancy following registration of fair rents.

Does that mean that for the private-rented houses of Scotland, apart from the introduction of phasing over a three-year period, the Government intend to continue the principles of the Housing Finance Act 1972, which was so bitterly condemned by the Labour Party?

No, I do not think that it means that. What it means is that we are extending the phasing in respect of private housing, and until we have had a chance to look at the whole system of determining rents for the private housing sector, this proposal will be of considerable help to the private tenant.

I assure the Minister that the people of Scotland more than welcome the freezing of rents until May next year. We also welcome the steps outlined in the consultative document, which will soften the harshness of the Tory Rent Act.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure his views are widely accepted in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the timetable for the construction of the underpasses proposed for Great Western Road, Glasgow.

As my noble Friend the Minister of State has already indicated to the hon. Gentleman by letter, my right hon. Friend is not in a position to comment on this, as no firm proposals for the construction of underpasses at Great Western Road have been submitted to him by Glasgow Corporation.

When coming to a decision, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the strong local feeling against underpasses and, indeed, the whole disastrous and unnecessary scheme for dualling this road? Does he see his right hon. Friend in the rôle of Prince Charming, the protector of beauty against the many rapes being perpetrated upon the Great Western Road and many other parts of Glasgow?

My right hon. Friend fulfils many rôles and I dare say he can add that to his list. I am aware of the local feeling and this is one of the matters to be taken into account. However, we have not yet had proposals from the corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions he has come to on island transport, having spoken to the delegation from the counties concerned; and if he will make a statement.

I had a full and very useful exchange with the delegation on 16th July when I undertook to initiate a review of the present arrangements for the support of shipping services to the islands. The result of this review will be made public as soon as possible.

I thank the hon. Gentleman on behalf of that delegation for the talk that he had with it, but may I point out that the numbers of day trippers have never been as small as they have been this year and that hotels and boarding houses have never had such a poor turnover? Many firms are stopping supplies to the islanders. Will the hon. Gentleman look further at this problem to see what can be done to subsidise fares and essential goods?

As I told the delegation, and as I have told the hon. Gentleman before, we want to consider whether the present arrangements are the best or whether they can be improved.

When the Minister is carrying out his review, will he bear in mind not only the increasing and extremely heavy burden of the freight, but the difficulties borne by many port authorities through delays in steel and rising costs. I have in mind in particular the important improvements at Lerwick and the roll-on/roll-off terminal at Stromness.

That is another question, but I am willing to look at that.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the three-day working week. Will he acknowledge that one of the greatest burdens that the Scottish tourist trade has to carry this summer is the massive increases in cost as a result of his right hon. Friend's Budget? In particular, what help has the increase in petrol costs given to the tourist industry?

The criticism that I mentioned was specifically drawn attention to by the Scottish Tourist Board in its annual report, which is why I mentioned it. I do not accept that my right hon. Friend's Budget, taken in conjunction with the other economic measures of the Government, has had the kind of effect stated by the hon. Gentleman on the tourist industry or any other industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards resolving the Scottish housing problems revealed in the report of the Cullingworth Committee.

Since the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee's report on "Scotland's Older Houses" was published in 1967 and up to the end of 1973, 112,000 houses classified as "unfit" or "below the tolerable standard" have been demolished in Scotland and 236,000 houses in both the public and private sectors have been improved with the aid of improvement grants.

In spite of that, will the Minister concede that the number of housing starts in Scotland has fallen off year after year? Last year, the number of new starts was the smallest for 18 years, and even when he was last in office the Minister did not achieve his own target of 50,000 houses. Will he further concede that, given the trend to smaller families and urban dereliction, this is one of the most serious of Scottish problems? In view of these facts, will he consider reconvening the Cullingworth Committee to examine the problem?

I have no difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman about the record of the previous Government, because the number of houses started and completed by them showed a continual decline between 1970 and 1974.

If the hon. Gentleman truly seeks to give a balanced picture of the housing position in Scotland, does he agree that what matters most is the quality of the housing in Scotland? Does he recall that he has just reminded the House that 236,000 houses in Scotland were improved, largely as a result of the improvement grants introduced by the Conservative Government, which he is so ready to criticise?

I certainly do not criticise the improvement grants, but the vast proportion of the number that I have quoted is in local authority housing. It is important to do this in the private sector, and that is one of the purposes of the recent housing Bill. Quality is important but, unfortunately, large numbers of people in Scotland do not have a house at all and we must, therefore, increase the number, too.

Will the Minister say by what date he hopes to see all houses in Scotland above the tolerable standard?

I think that it would be unrealistic to give a date.

What plans has the Minister for discussing with local authorities the benefits that will flow to them and to the improvement of housing in Scotland from the Housing (Scotland) Bill that was initiated by the previous Government, and which he so skilfully put through the House this Session?

Obviously there will be continuing discussions on this but, as I made clear when the Bill was going through the House, a number of circulars on particular aspects of the Bill will be going out soon, so that we can make a good start in implementing the Bill's provisions.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek a meeting with Lord Crowther-Hunt to discuss the question of self-government.

I have, of course, had numerous discussions with Lord Crowther-Hunt on the question of devolution.

May I express to the Secretary of State the considerable satisfaction of the Scottish National Party group at the fact that Lord Crowther-Hunt has offered to come to Scotland and have discussions on the Scottish National Party's constitutional proposals?

I cannot give the hon. Lady that assurance. This matter was relevant for discussion the other day. The discussions that Lord Crowther-Hunt has had have been very full indeed, both here and in Scotland. I was present at some of them, and at others both the Ministers of State in the Lords and the Commons were present. We are gathering opinions from a very wide field about the constitutional consultative document.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ever have the nerve to meet Lord Crowther-Hunt again after the astonishing events in the early hours of Tuesday last, when we had a four hours' debate on the Kilbrandon Report, with not one contribution from the Government Front Benches—and without one Scottish back-bench Labour Member being present? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this was outrageous, and insulting to the people of Scotland?

I think that probably more insulting to the people of Scotland was the fact that the last Conservative Government, in their first Queen's Speech, suggested that they would bring forward proposals for an elected Assembly. Almost four years went by, and we never saw these proposals, and, so far as I can gather, there is even a possibility of a shift from what they suggested then.

On a point of fact, may I say, in relation to the last contribution, that I at least was here, and went to bed because the contributions were so preposterous?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number of representations he has received on the question of devolution, indicating how many of them express a desire for complete separation of Scottish government from that of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Up to the present time I have received comments from over 50 organisations on the schemes of devolution set out in the Government' consultative document. I have also had about 170 letters from members of the general public in Scotland, of whom 69 favoured separatism or self-government, though not always in precise terms.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether precise terms were indicated by the Scottish National Party? Can he also say how many Scottish people he thinks know the meaning of "devolution"?

It is only fair to state that the Scottish National Party referred to its objective of independence, but, like the other organisations, it directed its reply in the main to the schemes of devolution set out in the consultative document.

As some 25 Scottish Labour Members are missing this morning and as no fewer than 39 were missing from this week's debate on Kilbrandon, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is indicative of his party's attitude to a Scots Government and Scots devolution?

I think the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He is doing a quick count. Many a time I have done a quick count and never seen a single member of the Scottish National Party.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider taking steps to assist those who will suffer the loss of a 75 per cent. rate of house improvement grant because their applications for grant were approved after 30th September 1973.

I have nothing to add to the reply given on 30th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small).

Is my hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people will lose 25 per cent. of the house improvement grant which they expected? No doubt he is also aware that I have written to the Minister of State in another place about retired people and people nearing retirement, who will suffer a substantial loss because of delays caused by the three-day working week, shortage of materials, and so on.

These matters have been debated already. This is a difficult matter, and there are bound to be hard cases which fall just on the wrong side of the line. In all the circumstances, the concession which was announced on 30th April seemed to us to represent the best answer.

Has this not been a quite exceptional year—utterly different from any other? Will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? Many people, through no fault of their own, are failing to obtain the grants.

I accept that it has been a very exceptional year, with a three-day working week. We were not responsible for that. We have tried as far as possible to produce arrangements which would meet, generally, those people concerned, but I have neved disguised the fact that there would be hard cases.

May I press the Minister again on this matter? Will he consider using the powers which exist under the Act to make an order to assist these people? Will he also look again at the possibility of at least paying the grant on work which has been done, even if the whole work has not been completed?

I think the essence of the scheme is that there was a completion date; that was the original date of 23rd June 1974. The essence of the modification was that there would not be a completion date, but the work had to be approved before 30th September 1973. If one changed that, for example, to 31st October—if that were practicable—or 31st December, there would still be hard cases involving people whose approvals came a few days later. Therefore, one does not remove the problem completely. I think that one simply has to accept that that is so.

May I appeal to my hon. Friend to reconsider the position? As one who has practical experience as a building contractor, I know the difficulties that have been experienced in getting work carried out owing to the three-day working week and other factors. We agree that the three-day week is not the responsibility of the present Government, but it is right that we should take the matter into consideration. There are innocent people who have been endeavouring to get their work carried out in accordance with the desires of the Government, and it is through no fault of their own that they have been unable to do so.

I do not disagree with anything that my hon. Friend has said I repeat, however, that all these matters were taken into account before we made the modification which we announced on 30th April. There is no question of our not taking these matters into account. They were all carefully considered when we made this statement. We recognised that there would be hard cases. In the circumstances it was inevitable, whatever one did, given that it was intended by the previous Government, from the inception of the scheme, that there would, in fact, be a closing date. That is something which we have to bear in mind. The closing date, of course, was originally 23rd June 1973 rather than 1974. Therefore, there was already a year's extension involved, to the credit of the previous Government.

Must the hon. Gentleman be so inflexible? Surely the point that really matters is that where people have suffered in this way it is through no fault of their own. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have brought this to the attention of the Scottish Office.

As regards the extra money, I have already said that local authorities have the power to give loans in cases of hardship. There is no question of inflexibility. If one is to operate a scheme of this description, with a terminal date, there has to be some kind of terminal arrangement. Inevitably, given that there are terminal arrangements, some people will, unfortunately, fall on the wrong side of the line. The normal arrangements for 50 per cent. of grant are continuing, however, and under the new Housing Bill in housing action areas the grants may be 75 per cent., or may go up, in special cases, to as much as 90 per cent. Therefore, there is no question of the Government's treating the matter unsympathetically.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the prospects for beef producers in Scotland.

There are good grounds for confidence in the prospects for beef production in Scotland. We have a quality product efficiently produced, and the new beef slaughter premium, together with the increased calf subsidy, gives our producers an assurance of fair returns through the coming autumn and winter.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that further action is needed to help the industry to recover from the Government's folly earlier this year? When he introduces these new actions, will he make certain that he takes full account of the type and quality of beef cattle bred in Scotland?

I am constantly being enlightened about the mysteries of agriculture, particularly in respect of beef production. I am told that it is a long-term industry, so I cannot imagine that if there are any worries and concern now they have all arisen since March of this year. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks. It is our aim, and always has been, to ensure a prosperous industry that is fair to the farmer and fair to the consumer, and consideration will be given to whatever steps need to be taken to achieve that.

Will the Minister look a little further than the ranches of Provan and come to the rest of Scotland and see herds of cattle that have been bred specifically for Europe? Will he urge his right hon. Friend to re-start the export of live cattle so that these animals can go to the markets for which they were bred and for which they are intended, where the farmers get a reasonable return for them?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invitation to visit his attractive part of the country, but I suggest that I am more familiar with that area than he is with Provan. But this is a different question. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this matter arises out of the O'Brien Report. It is a separate subject, and an assurance has been given that it will be discussed in the House before any changes are made.

Is the Minister not surprised at the conversion of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) to the virtues of the Common Market?

There are obviously advantages and disadvantages to be gained from the Common Market. I am aware of the slightly unscrupulous attempts by certain Members to exploit some of the practical difficulties that have arisen, but more responsibility rests on the previous Government than on myself for some of these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for there to be a substantial cash injection into the infrastructure serving the Aberdeen area.

The main constraints in the area are shortages of skilled men and materials rather than of cash.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether it is common sense to spend more than £2,000 million of taxpayers' money to nationalise, for doctrinaire reasons, the United Kingdom oil industry—which no Government can run, anyway—when such money could be far better spent on the infrastructure of Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe—on schools, roads, houses, and so on?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures, but in any case this will be an extremely useful, productive and profitable investment for the taxpayers and citizens of this country, and I am very happy that the Government have decided to take these steps.

Does the Minister accept that the problem of a shortage of skilled labour will not be overcome in the North-East until ade- quate housing is provided? Does he also accept that there must be an acceleration in the housing programme and in the availability of resources for housing in the North-East, and will he deal sympathetically with the request from Aberdeen County Council for special assistance for Aberdeenshire, in view of the additional expenditure that it is having to lay out because of oil-related development?

I agree that we need more houses in this area. We are doing everything possible to see that the housing programme is speeded up there, but the problem is not one of cash but of resources. If the hon. Gentleman and anyone else have particular ideas about the way in which we might help, I should be willing to look at them.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that within the next month or two the Government will produce a White Paper setting out in great detail exactly what has been done about infrastructure for oil development, so that the people of Scotland may understand that the problem is being adequately handled by the present Government?

That is an interesting suggestion. I would not guarantee a White Paper, but I promise to send my hon. Friend something that he will find very useful for his election address.

Will the hon. Gentleman wake up at last to the fact that the taxpayers of Britain do not want their tax or their savings to be squandered by the present Government on mad schemes of nationalisation?

That seems to be just a little away from the question of infrastructure serving the Aberdeen area.

May I correct the Minister on that? It is not at all irrelevant. My hon. Friend pointed out that it is proposed to spend £2,000 million on the British National Oil Corporation, and that this money ought to be spent on infrastructure, particularly roads and houses, and providing a fund to help to relieve the intolerable strain being placed on local authority finances.

I have answered all these questions before. I remember that what was worrying the hon. Gentleman the last time we had Questions was the matter of improvements at Aberdeen harbour. Perhaps he will again be good enough to thank the Government for seeing that these improvements are going ahead—another example of practical help for his area.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made as to the level of milk production in Scotland in the months October 1974 to March 1975; and if he will make a statement.

Present indications suggest that Scottish milk production between October and March next will be around the level of the same period last year. It is Government policy to secure maximum economic production of milk in the country. The recent increase in the calf subsidy and the beef premium payable from next month will both be of assistance to the dairy sector.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that all the indications of recent months point to the likelihood of a shortage of milk? Having just experienced a shortage of sugar in Scotland, we surely do not want to have a shortage of milk. In addition, are we not likely to arrive at a situation, by the end of next winter, in which the cost of production of a pint of milk is likely to be twice that which the public is paying for it?

There are two questions here. I remind the hon. Member that production in March 1974 was 6·7 per cent below that in March 1973—I certainly do not take responsibility for that drop—so there is concern about increasing the levels of production. I know that there is a problem on the manufacturing side. I can only repeat that I have asked for detailed representations from the milk marketing boards, and they are in the process of being made. They will be given sympathetic and urgent consideration.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the beef premium will help the dairy farmer? Is he aware that the keeping of cattle in a shed ready for the fatstock market, for killing, for one or two months in order to gain the advantage of the premium means that they will be eating their heads off and making no beef? It will be a costly way of manuring the fields of Scotland.

It may be a costly way of manuring the fields, but if my hon. Friend is any example of a typical farmer, he has done quite well out of it and I have no reason to doubt that he will continue to prosper.

I am glad that the Minister has been able to assure the tea drinkers of Scotland that they will have plenty of milk for their tea! But I believe that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) mentioned sugar. As the hon. Member is very flexible and broadminded, and as this is the last day before the recess, may we please be told when we shall have enough sugar for the tea as well?

This is a warning to me not to indulge in informal discussions with the hon. Gentleman. I accept that there is some concern about the sugar situation and I hope that one of my right hon. Friends will be able to comment on it.

Surely the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) will recognise that the Government have taken steps to keep the price of a pint of milk under control? I should say, also, that there is no justification for the statement—

Order. Hon. Members tend to be making speeches this morning.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I should say that the hon. Member for Fife, East should be aware of the point I have made about the price of milk. Is the Minister aware that our report from the Select Committee on Expenditure in the next day or two, on the subject of milk production, will bring a great deal of illumination to the hon. Member for Fife, East?

I think all hon. Members will recognise that because of the subsidies to the consumer to hold down the price of milk, there has been an increase in the consumption of milk, which I think is desirable. But it obviously presents problems for the industry, and, as I have already said, we shall give it every consideration when the detailed representations have been made.

Will the Minister say when these consumer milk subsidies will be applied to milk produced in the islands which are outside the scheme operated by the milk marketing boards?

We gave an extension to the islands which I thought had been received with great satisfaction. It had never been done before, and I should have thought that the hon. Member would at least have complimented the Government on taking that step.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take action to end the delay in approving essential local authority road projects; and to what extent this delay is due to the allocation of resources being diverted to priority projects in the north of Scotland.

The need to restrain capital expenditure has meant that some local authority road projects have been delayed, but the position is kept under constant review so that delayed schemes may be started as soon as possible. The priority being given to oil-related schemes has not been at the expense of the allocations available for projects elsewhere in Scotland.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer will be appreciated, because councils in Scotland have the definite impression that essential local road development projects are being held up because the moneys which should be used for those purposes are being diverted to the North? Will the Minister give an assurance that, as oil is a national asset, the cost of these road projects arising from the oil boom will be met out of the National Road Fund and certainly not out of the Scottish allocation?

I think that there has been a misunderstanding about this, but I repeat that the priority being given to oil-related schemes has not been at the expense of roads elsewhere, and the 20 per cent. cut announced by the previous Government in expenditure for the present year has not applied to oil schemes; but that has not been made up by greater cuts elsewhere. I am happy to give that assurance.

Is the Minister aware that the inner road in Edinburgh can be delayed for ever?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's strong views on that matter. I do not think that it would be safe for me to commit myself to saying whether I agree with them.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will give advice to the new local authorities in Scotland with a view to curtailing expenditure on council office development.

Authorities are already aware that approval can be given only for office building that my right hon. Friend considers essential.

Does the Minister agree that the people of Scotland will express astonishment if the creation of fewer local authorities is to be accompanied by an orgy of council office building? Will the Minister use his powers in granting loan sanction and look carefully at applications, such as that from the Ettrick and Lauderdale District Council for a building at present costing over £600,000 when existing accommodation could possibly be improved and made satisfactory?

I know of the situation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I can only repeat that this application, like any other applications for council buildings, will be rigorously examined. Only essential projects will be allowed to go ahead.

Will the Minister also bear in mind the concern being expressed in some areas of Scotland, particularly the Tayside region, about the policy of the new regional authority in proceeding to appoint a large number of salaried posts beyond those which were initially recommended by the advisory commission?

That is rather a different question, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Lords has already spoken to the local authority associations about the need for economy, asking them not to build up excessive numbers of staff. I have no reason to suppose that the generality of new local authorities in Scotland are unaware of the Government's view about the need for economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the present level of house construction in the north and north-east of Scotland.

I shall not be satisfied until all outstanding housing needs have been met. Local authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association are building houses as quickly as they can in the north and north-east of Scotland. I shall continue to give them every encouragement in their task.

I am grateful to the Minister and to his predecessors for the help that is being given, but will not the Minister accept that the shortage of housing is the biggest single need in the North-East at present, and that we are disastrously behind target? Does the Minister realise that in the decade ending in 1981 an estimated population increase of about 50,000 persons is expected in the area. Does he accept the report of the North-East of Scotland Joint Advisory Committee that unless something urgent is done about the housing drive, oil-related programmes will have to be cancelled or postponed?

I am aware of the problems in the area and I have spoken to the local authorities about them, as, indeed, has my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the other place. The hon. Gentleman is very free with his generalities about problems, but he does not make much in the way of a practical contribution to how they may be solved.

Are there hard facts on the likely population explosion? It is often talked about, but one would like to have figures broken down, if possible, into the various local authority areas, so that local authorities can make sensible forward plans for the number of houses they need. May I make one "plug" for my constituency, which is increasing in population for reasons in addition to oil-related benefits? The first reason is that there are two bases there and the second reason is that it is such a desirable place that many people from all parts of the United Kingdom want to live there. May I ask for some statistics on population in a forward sense?

I shall see whether I can provide them, but, again, I have no reason to think that local authorities are not aware of the problems. They are very much aware of the problems, and arrangements are being made to help them as much as possible, both in the North-East—as I have already mentioned—and through the Moray Firth Working Party, on which local authorities, the Scottish Office and other agencies are represented. We are aware of the problems, and everything possible is being done to produce practical solutions to them, but I am always willing to listen to practical suggestions.

Will the Minister tell us from his experience whether there are willing sellers and willing buyers of land, or would compulsory purchase orders be required in order to make progress?

The situation varies in different areas. Some local authorities, for example, have been very good about building up a land bank in advance. This is a development which, within the limitations of the finance involved, I certainly wish to encourage.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Norway to examine their planning laws in respect of offshore oil development.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State visited Norway from 3rd to 6th June when he had general discussion with the Norwegian Government Petroleum Directorate, with Statoil, the Government oil company, and with the local authority in Stavanger, and had the opportunity to see at first hand and discuss the working of the Norwegian planning system as it affects oil.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he not accept that two of the secrets of the success of the Norwegian oil development have been, first, the ability to take quick decisions in relation to planning matters and, secondly, to gear the rate of exploration to maximising Norwegian involvement in the industrial opportunities while conserving the interests of the environment and the economy of Norway?

It is not always entirely fair to make comparisons, because the economic circumstances, consumption of energy of all kinds, are very different. The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the speed of decision. He will be aware, of course, that it is very dangerous to make that kind of statement, because in Norway no public inquiry system is involved. If that system were denied the people of Scotland, I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain about it.

Will the Secretary of State invite some senior Norwegian Ministers here so that they may learn at first hand about some of the advantages that we have in these procedures? Is it not a case of seeing fields to be rather greener on the other side of the North Sea? There are quite a number of Norwegians who think that we do many of these things rather better than they do in Norway.

There is something to be gained by having a look at other people's planning procedures, but we must not forget that the situation is entirely different. The Norwegians are fortunate in having available deep water at places where population, infrastructure and other facilities already exist. For instance, in Stavanger one can have platform building of a kind which would create difficulties in Scotland because of the limited number of places available so far. So we should be careful about that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I entirely agree with him about the need to emphasise the total difference between United Kingdom requirements and those of Norway—a difference between 8 million tons of oil a year and 100 million tons of oil a year? Will he further recognise that Norwegian planning procedures are not so very much in front of ours? It was only a few months ago that the Norwegians instituted designated sites for oil development, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will publish those in the autumn of this year. Further, will he utterly reject the Norwegian plan of setting up Statoil, and reject the British parallel of the British National Oil Corporation? Since his hon. Friend asked for suggestions for helping the infrastructure, will he spend on infrastructure the £2,000 million that he says he is going to spend on the BNOC?

It is about time the hon. Gentleman made up his mind. One minute he castigates us about the British National Oil Corporation and the next he asks that it be sited in Aberdeen.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications in respect of hotels and boarding houses under the Fire Precautions (Loans) Order 1973 have been made to local authorities inside and outside the development area, respectively.

The administration of the Fire Precautions (Loans) Order is a matter for the local authorities and I regret that information on the total number of applications made in Scotland is not available. I understand that two applications have been received in respect of premises outside the development area.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that does not seem very good progress in tackling something that has caused considerable alarm? Is he prepared to comment on the question whether the apparently very small number of applications being made outside the development area, namely, in Edinburgh, is caused by the exclusion of Edinburgh from the development area? Would this not be a good reason for giving Edinburgh full development area status?

The last point is not a question for me. I am sorry if the hon. Member has tried to leave the impression that this administration has been lax in its responsibilities. I intended to compliment the previous administration on introducing the order.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish a list of those sections of the A9 where improvements are to be undertaken, together with the expected dates of completion.

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the expected completion dates of the four schemes now in progress. I cannot forecast completion dates for the schemes on the remainder of the 137 miles from Perth to Ardullie until the procedural formalities and engineering plans are completed and contracts let.

Will the Minister, however, deny the strong rumour that is going around at the moment that certain sections of the A9 improvement, authorised by the previous administration, are to be delayed by the present Government?

Yes, I can deny that. I am not sure where these rumours come from or whether they are spread innocently or maliciously; but I can deny them.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to pay a visit to Caracas to attend the Law of the Sea Conference.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he bear in mind that an undertaking was given at Question Time previously that if the circumstances warranted it the Secretary of State would consider the possibility of visiting Caracas?

If hon. Members keep up pressure, I dare say I can be tempted to visit the conference. It appears to be lasting a considerable time.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for speeding up the process for dealing with planning applications referred to him.

My right hon. Friend's Department is conducting an exhaustive review of the management of planning, including all aspects of the planning process.

Will the Minister undertake to make special investigations into the decision-making process within the Scottish Development Department, and particularly within the road section of that department? Is he aware that developments in all affected areas of the country are now being held up due to what can only be described as bureaucratic bumbledom?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in another place about some individual matters in his own constituency. I am anxious that there should be no delay in decision making in the Scottish Office or elsewhere.

asked the Lord Advocate when he is next to meet representatives of the Law Society.

I have an arrangement whereby I meet the President of the Law Society of Scotland every month to discuss current problems. In addition, I meet him on other occasions when he asks for a special meeting.

Will the Lord Advocate confirm that the Law Society is currently studying ways of speeding up and improving our planning procedure? Does he think that the Law Society will soon be able to put its conclusions to him? If not, when does he expect the Law Society's conclusions to be reached? Will he say what proposals he would put to the Law Society for its consideration during its study of this important subject?

In reply to the hon. Gentleman's last point, I should require notice of that question. As to the first part of his supplementary question I suggest that he has the wrong end of the stick. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland convened a working group in May of this year to examine the possibilities of simplification of planning procedures. The group has met twice and it is hoped to see the first fruits of its work this autumn.

When the Lord Advocate has met the Law Commission, has he discussed what would be an appropriate definition of Scottish citizenship? What problems might arise under the property laws connected with persons who may or may not meet the requirements of such a definition?

That is not a matter which I have discussed with the Law Society of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Law Commission, but in my answers I have been referring to the Law Society of Scotland. I do not think that anyone in the Law Society of Scotland or in my Office has any difficulty about knowing what determines whether a person enjoys Scottish citizenship.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets representatives of the Law Society of Scotland, will he discuss with them whether they feel that the powers held by them at present are sufficiently strong to deal with members of the legal profession who perhaps do not always maintain the highest standards of that profession?

The hon. Gentleman may care to know that the Law Society itself, which is the best guardian of professional propriety, is concerned that an appropriate Solicitors (Scotland) Bill should be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.

When the Lord Advocate next has a discussion with the representatives of the Law Society, will he once again consider that long-discussed matter of divorce in the sheriff courts?

The hon. Lady is right to raise that matter, but it is a topic that is not without controversy. However, the subject is constantly under discussion in Scotland by the Law Society of Scotland and other bodies.

asked the Lord Advocate what Acts of Parliament he currently has under consideration for repeal as being obsolete.

The repeal of obsolete and unnecessary statutes is a matter which is under continuous review by the Scottish Law Commission, along with the Law Commission, and reports containing proposals for repeals are periodically placed before Parliament.

I am grateful for that reply, and to know that the Lord Advocate has the matter in hand. Will he consider taking two other steps? First, when we have Bills before Parliament, will he make certain that they are self-contained and not full of cross-references to other Acts? Secondly, to solve our general difficulties, will he see that we have rather less legislation?

In reply to the hon. Gentleman's second question, on reflection he may feel that there is much necessary legislation—particularly in relation to the matter of non-controversial law reform in Scotland—which we wish to see on the statute book.

asked the Lord Advocate when he last met the Council on Crime.

I attended the last meting of the Scottish Council on Crime, which was on Friday 7th June 1974.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets the council, will he seek its views on the present powers of children's panels? Are the powers adequate to deal effectively with juvenile vandalism?

I think that I have already told the House that that matter is under consideration by the Scottish Council on Crime.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the people of Scotland are utterly sick and fed up with the vandalism that is now taking place, and that hard-hitting sentences are required?

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am bound to say that experience suggests that sheer severity of penalty is not the most effective way of dealing with this problem.

Although he has expressed a contrary opinion, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is a very urgent and serious problem in many parts of Scotland? Surely there is a case for his taking the initiative of bringing together the top legal minds and the Council on Crime, as well as others who may be able to help, to see whether, together, they can find an answer to what is becoming an alarming problem in some parts of Scotland.

I accept that that is a useful suggestion. Indeed, steps have already been taken in that direction, and the Scottish Council on Crime deserves considerable credit for it. In certain cases in which vandalism is serious, it is possible—without accepting the hon. Member's suggestion—that charges in connection with such crimes could be referred to the sheriff courts rather than be dealt with by lower courts.