asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on his last meeting with representatives of the Scottish Law Commission in Edinburgh.

Relations with the Scottish Law Commission are handled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who will be replying to the similar Question addressed to him on the Order Paper today.

In view of the fact that the Scottish Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland and the Church of Scotland favour divorce law reform, will the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland recommend to the Government that legislation be included in the Government's future plans on this subject, especially in view of the fact that the Government have not announced any plan for introducing any Scottish measures next Session?

It is far too early to announce plans for the inclusion of any kind of mesaures, Scottish or otherwise, in next Session's programme. It is normally a matter for the Queen's Speech, which will come later in the year. The Government recognise the views expressed by the various bodies mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend has consistently said that the Government are prepared to give drafting assistance to any private Member who brings in this type of legislation. Beyond that I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend said in answer to a Written Question put to him last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).

Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have followed the matter closely were disturbed by the Written Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), especially in respect of the reference to the Government's legislative programme for next year already being heavily committed. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that this is in no way a retreat from the assurance he has given me, in a letter, that if no sympathetic Member obtains a high place in the ballot the Government will give careful consideration to making time available for this matter?

This matter, like all other legislative matters, is under almost constant consideration. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) may laugh, but when the Conservatives were in office they did not have a very good record on this aspect of policy. It ill-becomes the hon. Gentleman to treat this matter with frivolity. The House will be well advised to await the outcome of the draw for the Private Members' Ballot, when that takes place.

I should like to raise a point on forthcoming legislation. In the crofting counties there was great interest in the revised Bill for crofting reform, which was regarded as an improvement on the previous Bill. Can the Minister give any guarantee that it will be brought forward in the next Session?

The guarantee that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is that my hon. Friend who is responsible for crofting legislation has this matter under very active consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give his approval to Scottish local authorities to make contributions to the Warren Springs Laboratory in Stevenage.

Provided contributions do not exceed the limit specified in Section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, my approval is not required.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, because some of the officials in my local authority are under the misapprehension that they are not allowed to make contributions. This laboratory investigates obnoxious smells which are a source of serious concern in two sections of my constituency. The first concerns an industrial factory near a housing scheme. The second concerns a corporation tip, also near a considerable number of houses. It is a serious problem for them, and they will be grateful to know that they can now contribute.

I need add nothing to what I have said. We have not invited local authorities to contribute because we are not inviting them to take on additional expenditure for any particular matter; but, of course, they have full powers to do this if they so wish.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he is giving to local authorities in Scotland to ensure that expenditure for salaries and related purposes are in accordance with the Government's counter-inflation policy.

I shall shortly be writing to Scottish local authorities about the White Paper on "The Attack on Inflation" and the provisions of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill which specifically concern them. Ministers have taken and will continue to take every suitable opportunity to remind authorities of the need for restraint in their expenditure and, in particular, for economies in staff costs.

Does the Secretary of State realise that, quite apart from repeated increases in local authority salaries for senior officials, the great perks bonanza is continuing, with reports of 5½ per cent. mortgages and cheap car loans for senior officials paid for out of ratepayers' money? Does he further realise that this growing tendency of certain local authorities to spend money as if it were going out of fashion is creating a serious and grave danger of bringing local authorities into total disrepute? Will the right hon. Gentleman end his spineless silence and not merely caution restraint but demand an immediate probe and full inquiry into the remuneration of local authority senior officials to end the contempt with which ratepayers are being treated?

It is a pity that we did not have the benefit of the presence of the hon. Gentleman in the House when the Conservative Government put through the Act reorganising local government. I do not doubt that he was one of those Scottish Conservatives who had their cars labelled "Freedom". Evidently he does not trust local authorities. We are taking every opportunity in these and other matters to impress on local authorities the need to use their freedom wisely and well. The feelings of ratepayers are what matter in this respect.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to one report, one officer in the Strathclyde Region will receive a salary of £17,000 per year because he looks after a population of 2½ million? Does he realise that, as Secretary of State for Scotland, looking after 5 million people, he should therefore receive £34,000 a year, and that the Prime Minister, respresenting a population of 55 million, should have £374,000 a year? Is it not time that we scrapped this unrealistic machinery and introduced a new negotiating authority which would peg local government officers' salaries substantially below those of Cabinet Ministers?

I am interested in what my hon. Friend said. I shall immediately sign him up as my personal shop steward in respect of these matters. We have negotiating machinery, covering the whole country, on which there are representatives of ratepayers. For example, there are representatives of Scottish local authorities on the negotiating boards. I remind my hon. Friend that at one time he was very concerned about this matter. What we have to impress upon local authorities is the importance, at any time, of the negotiations in hand.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young school leavers left Scottish schools in the summer at the earliest possible leaving date.

Precise figures are not yet available for this summer, but it is expected that about 33,000 will have left on reaching school leaving age.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 16,000 unemployed school-leavers in Scotland at present and that employment prospects are particularly bleak for the 33.000 16-year-olds whom he has mentioned? Although, in the long term, we can look forward to measures, such as those of the Scottish Development Agency, with a strong public enterprise role, helping in some way to make up for the lack of jobs being provided through lack of investment in the private sector, will he urgently consult the Secretary of State for Employment with a view to taking immediate emergency Government initiatives to ensure that these young Scots get the right to work?

Initiatives have already been taken, for example, by the Manpower Services Commission in its statement on 2nd July, from which a number of measures will follow—a training award scheme, special financial incentives to employers in the construction industry to encourage recruitment, measures relating to apprentices, and so on. A good deal has already been done. However, I should not disguise from my hon. Friend or the House the fact that the employment position for school leavers this year is likely to continue to be difficult and a good deal less satisfactory than in recent years. I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing everything we can to improve the situation.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the figure of nearly 16,000 is about half the total number of school leavers and is more than twice as bad as the worst figures of the past five years? Is it not a tremendous condemnation of the Government's policies over the last 17 months, and of their failure to manage the economy? When will he stop being so complacent and do something about it?

I have already said that we are doing certain things about it. I do not recollect hearing any constructive suggestions by the Opposition regarding this matter or, indeed, anything at all. The figures are serious, and I am in no way complacent about them.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the outlook for the Scottish economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish CBI to discuss Scottish economic problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the outlook for the Scottish economy over the next year.

I would refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) on 9th July.—[Vol. 895, c. 506–8.] The success of recent Government measures to attack inflation, which the House has supported, is as important to the Scottish economy as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

I am prepared to meet the STUC and Scottish CBI as the need arises, and shall be discussing the economic situation with the STUC again tomorrow.

Will the Secretary of State explain his apparent utter complacency and lack of success in safeguarding Scotland's interests at a time of crisis, when Scottish living standards, employment, investment and business confidence are all sliding disastrously and we have a major steel crisis? Where has his fighting spirit gone? Why has he become so silent these days? If he has lost his fighting spirit, would it not be appropriate for him to make way for a fighter when Scotland needs a fighting Secretary of State more than ever before?

The hon. Gentleman must not take too much out of himself. He must save himself for the fighting which is going on within the Conservative Party, regarding the terms of its policy. I am not prepared to take that kind of nonsense from him. The hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Conservative Government when the figure of unemployment in Scotland was higher than it is today. That went on for more than two years. Indeed, there was then no economic crisis and world recession, and there was no spiralling increase of oil costs. That was the Conservative Government's unique achievement, which considerably changed the whole situation in Scotland. Indeed, they left the whole country at a standstill and in despair, and we had to pick up the pieces.

What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about it?

The hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing about it. If he is so concerned, I suggest that he should have been here at 5 o'clock this morning, when he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment deal with this situation.

Given the magnitude of our present unemployment problems, especially among young people, will the Secretary of State discuss with the Scottish TUC and press in the Cabinet for the acceptance of the idea of work creation schemes proposed by the Manpower Services Commission and the TUC? When the Cabinet further discusses the temporary employment subsidy, bearing in mind the importance of small firms to the Scottish economy, will he argue for that subsidy to apply to firms with fewer than 100 employees?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive approach. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has already referred to this matter. My right hon. Friend will very shortly be making a statement which should cover many of the points made by my hon. Friend, particularly affecting young people.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the exchanges in both directions with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) are of little help to the unemployed or to anyone else in Scotland? Does he accept that this is a serious situation? Is he not in a position to demand a much larger budget for the Scottish Development Agency than was originally suggested?

I should be happy indeed if we could provide the Scottish Development Agency with all the powers that it requires. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in Committee the Scottish National Party did not help towards that aim. I should be grateful to see a speed-up in the provision of the powers which we think are necessary to deal with this situation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that £300 million is not a bad start, in addition to what is already being spent. I hope that the House as a whole will appreciate that we are concerned and are doing something about the matter. However, so far I have not heard a single constructive suggestion from the Opposition. Indeed, the SNP has suggested that we slow down operations in the North Sea. That would create more, not less, unemployment.

Order. The dialogue that is going on below the Gangway is not appropriate.

If the right hon. Gentleman has recovered from his display of pyrotechnics, will he please direct his mind to the Question, which refers to the outlook for the Scottish economy? Will he tell us whether he considers that the outlook for the Scottish economy is the same as, worse than, or better than, the outlook for the English economy? We all know about his concern, but what is the outlook for our economy?

The hon. Gentleman should know that the outlook for the Scottish economy is brighter than that for the English economy. He should also know that the Scottish economy and the British economy generally are so interlinked that we require an overall solution. Anyone who shakes his head at that is not living in this world.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main problem facing the Scottish economy and that of other areas of Great Britain is the failure of capitalism and private enterprise to invest? Is it not abundantly clear that British and Scottish industry require investment of a nature which must now come from public sources, and would it not be a help if the Tory Party and the SNP removed their resistance to our attempts to invest in this way?

I do not like to think what would have happened to our economy if we had taken the non-interventionist line of the Opposition. What would the people in Edinburgh have felt about Ferranti, and the people in the rest of Scotland about British Leyland and Rolls-Royce? We must appreciate that there is a lack of confidence which is created by inflation and the world recession. Unemployment is higher in Australia than it is here, and the unemployment level of 8.6 per cent. in the United States is much higher than the British figure of 4.1 per cent. The Scottish unemployment figure is not as high as it was when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was in office. We shall need to invest, and we require mobile industry, but we cannot get that in a period of world recession, and this will affect our ability to achieve improvements at the rate we wish.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he now proposes to improve road safety on the A74; and if he will make a statement.

As foreshadowed in my statement of 17th June, the overall accident pattern, the way the road is used and various possible safety measures have now been examined. As a result, I have decided to modify the existing signs to show the general speed limit for heavy lorries. Additionally, more A74 route repeater signs will be used, to stress that the road is an all-purpose trunk road and not a motorway. Police patrols and other enforcement measures have been intensified and proceedings are being instituted in a large number of cases. The case for providing safety barriers at certain points is being examined, and the road surface and layout are being improved where necessary. My officials are to hold discussions with representatives of road users about the road, the way it is used, and features of it which affect regular travellers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am grateful for his statement and his indication that progress will be made in the very near future? Will he make a further announcement, perhaps during the recess, on any physical improvements in road access and underpasses, because the people of Scotland will not countenance any further delay to improvements in road safety on the A74? Will he press on the police forces concerned that the only way to make an immediate impact on this road is for speeds to be reduced and for them to make certain that commercial vehicles and private cars keep to the required limits?

That is a fair point. The question of speed is all-important, but there has to be a recognition by all who use this road that they should drive to the conditions of the road and traffic at any particular time. There is no easy solution. There are accidents even on motorways. We are having joint discussions with lorry drivers and haulage associations, and also with the motoring organisations, to bring in people whose point of view may not have been taken account of by the engineers. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about access roads, this is a very busy farming area but very few accidents have taken place at the access roads. During the six months of the winter there was not one fatal accident on the Dumfriesshire section of the road.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the solution used on the Continent and ban all heavy lorires from the middle or outside lanes of this road? Does he realise that heavy lories are the chief cause of accidents on this road?

I would not say they were the chief cause. They are certainly involved in accidents. Heavy lorries represent about 25 per cent. of the traffic on this road and they are involved in about 30 per cent. of the accidents. There is no easy, quick or sloganised solution. I hope something will come out of the discussions, but I have seen protests from lorry drivers that they are being blamed for the accidents. All road users must drive with care and observe the signs. They must realise that they are not on a motorway, and that speed limits do matter. I am glad to say that there has been an improvement in and stepping up of police management in this matter, with considerable effect.

Is the Secretary of State not being pathetically complacent about the problems being caused by this road? Does he not realise that it carries considerable loads of traffic in the summer and that it is ridiculous that a road of this calibre, which is a main umbilical link between Scotland and England—a link he is particularly keen to maintain—was not constructed as a motorway? Will he undertake that it will be upgraded to a motorway within the soonest possible time?

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "within the soonest possible time"? Are we to create a completely new road? He should talk more sense—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman knows that improvements are going on. I do not know how familiar he is with this road and the conditions on it—

Answer the question.

The manners of the SNP are really disgraceful, both inside and outside this House. They do no credit to the people of Scotland.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am probably the only hon. Member who carries a driving licence for a heavy goods vehicle? Is he aware that I have been using this road since 1938, and in a question six weeks ago I asked what kind of disaster would be needed before something was done about the A74? Does he recall that 14 days later 11 people were killed on this road? Does he realise that I am delighted with his answer but that it is no use of drivers who appear in court having their fines paid by trade unions, and that unless they lose their licences, accidents will continue to happen?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. I know of his experience, and I have discussed this matter with him The important factor is the way in which the road is used. When an accident occurs we examine it to see whether the condition of the road had anything to do with it, whether the mechanical state of the vehicle was the cause, or whether it was caused by incompetence of the drivers. Anyone who thinks that the easy way out is merely to create a better road and therefore a safer road, does not understand. Drivers must appreciate the kind of road they are travelling on, and should drive to suit the conditions. The figures for accidents on the 68-mile stretch of the A1 in Yorkshire are relatively the same as for this road.

The approach by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who is immediately concerned with the road, was very different from that of other hon. Members, who seek simply to make propaganda out of this issue.

Contrary to what has been said in some parts of the House, is the Secretary of State aware that to raise this road immediately to motorway standard would isolate the communities in the areas through which the road passes? In the various plans that the right hon Gentleman may be bringing forward for structural improvements to the road, will he ensure that consideration is given to the future, and to the hopes of all hon. Members that eventually the road will be taken up to motorway standard, and that improvements will be made to that end?

We may move in that direction ultimately, but the hon. Member must know that his Government took a decision on this road in April 1973, in respect of improvements, and that we have been carrying out those improvements and stepping them up. We have drawn on the experience of the users of this road in deciding what improvements should be made.

Hon. Members have referred to the need for safety barriers, but at certain points they could be a danger rather than a help. We would have to decide what sort of barrier was needed. All these things are being examined and decisions about improvements are being taken continually.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what immediate and long-term steps he is taking designed to reduce the number of road accidents in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

In 1974, there were fewer road casualties in Scotland than in any year since 1963, and provisional figures for the first five months of 1975 suggest that this trend is continuing. Scotland benefits from general road safety measures in force throughout Great Britain. Within Scotland, new and improved roads help to reduce accidents, and the Road Safety Advisory Unit of the Scottish Development Department continues to investigate and advise. The new and more broadly based regional police and local authorities will develop road safety training and education work.

I am disappointed with that reply. In view of the feelings of my constituents, is it not about time that the road from Hamilton through Clyde-side was straightened and widened in order to avoid heavy lorries passing through my constituency? My constituents are scared of them. In view of the 22 deaths on the A74, will my right hon. Friend look into the question of the serious difficulties created by cars and lorries moving from motorway conditions on to dual carriageway roads, with the difference in speed limits and conditions which obtain? Will my right hon. Friend plaster that road with signs? Will he congratulate the police on their latest efforts in convening special courts in Lanark to convict motorists and lorry drivers? In one instance a motorist was driving at 106 mph on the A74. Will he do something about the A74 in terms of road signs?

As I have explained, that is precisely what we are doing on the A74. We want to impress on people that they are on an A road and not a motorway. The question of access is being examined. We have asked the agent authorities to make proposals to improve access and and to cut down the number of access roads. I note what my hon. Friend said about the police, and I am glad that he appreciates what has been done. There was considerable publicity about this road and about what was likely to happen in Lanarkshire in relation to the Glasgow Fair weekend, but there were no fatal accidents on that Lanarkshire road in the heaviest of the weekends. I take my hon. Friend's point about roads which lead into motorway sections, but there is always a problem there. When a new motorway is created there is a new pattern of feed-in of heavy lorries and industrial traffic, and this places a further burden on local authorities. I understand that they are looking at these points, however.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the problems of the road between Stranraer and Gretna, caused by juggernauts coming over from Northern Ireland? Many of the boys driving these wagons are not old enough to hold a heavy goods licence. They stop their vehicles and swap for more experienced drivers when they get near Dumfries. Many accidents are caused by these inexperienced drivers. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake more rigorous inspection of these drivers at the port, to make sure that they are experienced, and can handle these wagons?

A number of hon. Members from the Galloway area have written to me about this point, and we are looking into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the oil platform construction site at Portavadie.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit this site.

When the Secretary of State makes plans to visit the site at Portavadie, bearing in mind the huge sum of Government money invested in it and the importance of future expansion of tourism in the area—and since the company involved is having to reconsider the transport arrangements—will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up proper vehicle ferries at Tarbert, on Loch Fyne, and Portavadie, with a view to further developing the area?

We have looked into this matter, but we feel that the need has not been proven and we are not willing to give a grant for it. We have suggested that the harbour authority should discuss the matter with the Strathclyde Regional Council. I understand that when the site is operative the contractors will use their own ferry, so that their operations will not be affected by the absence of a normal roll-on roll-off ferry.

When my hon. Friend takes the boat across the Clyde to go to Argyll he will see very large bulk oil carriers discharging their cargoes into smaller tankers, which will transport the oil to refineries outside Scotland. This means that not one job is provided in Scotland in connection with that oil. Is my hon. Friend aware that while he is on the boat to Argyll, if he looks towards the Ayrshire coast he will see the Hunters-ton peninsula. We are very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving permission for an oil platform site there, but the people are disturbed and dissatisfied at his persistent refusal to give a final decision on the applications for an oil refinery on the peninsula, in spite of the ever-increasing level of unemployment.

I have not yet said that I am going on the boat, but if I do I shall look out for all these interesting things. I have nothing to add to what has been said by my right hon. Friend about the oil refinery at Hunterston, except that there are very serious nuclear safety factors involved there which must be taken into account; but my right hon. Friend has already made his view clear about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from local authorities requesting information about changes in the financing of school transport; and if he will make a statement.

None. The Government are reviewing the provision for school transport in the light of the report of the Working Party on School Transport set up in 1972 by the then Secretaries of State for Education and Science, and for Wales. and of views expressed on the report by interested bodies, including the Scottish local authority associations. It is, however, too soon to say when conclusions will be reached.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of sending children to some schools is becoming prohibitive? Is he aware that in certain circumstances—at Inverkeithing High School, for example—parents are obliged to make their children stay for school meals rather than that they should bear the cost of bus travel home at midday? Does he not agree that where there are two or three children in a family who are not entitled to free travel, the cost of bus fares and school meals represents a heavy draw on the budget? Why cannot the local authorities, with the help of the Government, do something about this?

My hon. Friend will know that educational authorities have certain discretionary powers. At the minute they need not stick to the recommended limit for free transport, and in the past some of them have decided on more generous limits, at their own discretion. I understand that if the home of a family of school children falls just outside the limit, bus fares can be quite a heavy burden. However, discretionary powers are available to local authorities to meet these cases.

Does the Minister agree that the two-miles' limit is applied somewhat inflexibly by certain local authorities? Will he make it clear to local authorities that where either road safety or exposed weather conditions are factors they should apply the two-miles' limit with flexibility, and provide transport where it is necessary?

I should be rather chary of recommending such a thing to local authorities. At the moment they have complete discretion, and they take different views in different areas. Some authorities would be glad to be more flexible, but they believe that if they make a concession in one area, in particular circumstances, it is liable to be quoted against them elsewhere. This happens. These are matters wholly within the discretion of local authorities I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be drawn to their attention.

Does the Minister not agree that the present recommended cutbacks in public expenditure by local authorities militate against their use of this flexibility? Does he not further agree that it would be more advisable to issue free public transport passes to all students attending school in the area? This would mean that the Government's commitment to encouraging children to stay on beyond the school leaving date would be more likely to be carried out.

In terms of additional public expenditure, it would not be one of my priorities to give free school passes to all children regardless of the distance they live from school. As I have said, local authorities may use their discretion in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the state of the fishing industry in Scotland.

The industry continues to face difficulties arising mainly from reduced catches and reduced prices at the ports. In the light of these difficulties the Government have decided, as was announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to extend the present temporary aid to the industry for a further six months.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although anything is better than nothing, to cut financial aid to the industry at this time is scandalous? Is he aware that 30 per cent. of the Scottish fleet has had to be tied up over the past 18 months, and that this drop in financial aid will mean that this horrific figure will increase even further? Does he not also agree that there is a need for a scheme to be introduced after September to give the fishing industry the certainty of stable, long-term financial viability?

It is unusual for the hon. Gentleman to exaggerate in the way he has. There has not been a cut in financial aid; the scale has been reduced at the top end, as the hon. Gentleman knows, which has resulted in a modest reduction. The overall figure is reduced because fewer vessels are involved. To call it scandalous is certainly an exaggeration.

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman made. What does the industry really need? It needs to be able to catch more fish, but it also needs more people who are willing to eat fish, otherwise there is no guaranteed certainty of profitability for the industry, at its present size.

Is the Minister aware that as far as it goes this new offer is better than nothing? However, perhaps it does not go far enough. Can he bring us up to date on the limits? Is his advice still that a 50-miles limit will not achieve very much, although the industry very much wants it? If this is so, is it the Government's policy to go for a 200-miles limit? When shall we reach a measure of international agreement on this greater limit?

That is an improvement. At least the right hon. Gentleman has said that the announcement is good as far as it goes, and I welcome that. He knows that Government thinking and strategy on limits are continually evolving. It is far from being a simple issue. It is perhaps, made more complicated and delicate by the announcement by Iceland, with which I shall be dealing in the next Question.

Does the Minister recognise that we also welcome the extension of the subsidy? Does he further recognise the relatively greater importance of the fishing industry to Scotland than to the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he accept my plea for him to take the lead in pushing for an extension of the fishing limit to 200 miles?

We are making progress; we have now had the announcement welcomed, and I appreciate that. It is no secret that the Scottish Office takes the lead in many issues involving the United Kingdom fishing industry, because of our greater interest in fishing and its effect on our communities. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the need to think ahead on the whole question of limits, including those related to the common fisheries policy of the EEC.

I, too, acknowledge what the Government are doing, and particularly the part played by the Scottish Office. In all seriousness, I ask the hon. Gentleman to pay attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said. This is an industry on which the livelihood of many people depends. It is also an industry on which the livelihood of many communities depends. The industry is crying out at present for a longer-term strategy, rather than the hand-to-mouth existence which the Government are handing out at present.

I appreciate that. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that in the long term the industry inevitably looks as though it will be a contracted industry. That is the problem facing all of us. We have had constructive discussions with the industry, and I shall certainly continue to help the industry in any way I can.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the changed fishing pattern round the Scottish coast which is likely to emerge as a result of Iceland's decision to operate a 200-miles' fishing limit.

The recent announcement by the Icelandic Government made it clear that they wish to hold discussions with interested States on the consequences of their claim to a 200-miles' fishing limit. It woud not, meantime, be helpful to speculate on the outcome to these talks, or on any effect this might have on the pattern of fishing around the Scottish coast.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever may be the outcome of the discussions that we may have with Iceland, that country is obviously determined to limit the amount of fish caught round its coasts, and that as a result this will put a greater pressure on other waters around the Scottish coasts? Would it not be a good idea to have an early conference of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission to consider how to meet the new situation which Iceland's attitude has caused?

I am not aware of any statement made by the Icelandic Government that their intention is to reduce catches. Certainly they are concerned about conservation, as we are. However, at this stage it would be wrong to enter into a wider discussion, given the fact that we have already sought and agreed to have talks with the Icelandic Government.

Is it not the case that if Iceland's policy is successfully pursued it will become all the more difficult for us to persuade our Common Market partners to alter the common fisheries policy? Does this circumstance not make it imperative that before the next 12 months are up we should reach some concrete decision on the common fisheries policy?

I am afraid that I do not regard the situation in that light. The EEC has a powerful influence as a market for Iceland. It would be wrong to convey the impression that we want to threaten Iceland, because that is not the atmosphere in which to proceed with talks that have been freely offered and accepted.

Is there any chance of getting trawler-free zones off the west coast of Scotland to try to protect the herrings that are left? Perhaps fishing, including fishing by British boats, in that area could be prohibited during certain times of the year, so that the fish stocks can build up.

To talk about trawler-free zones which would include British trawlers, as the hon. Gentleman has said, is certainly a little far reaching. I am sure that he knows that we have already reached some kind of agreement about and improvement in the reduction of industrialised fishing, and we shall continue to do everything possible to secure the livelihood of our fishermen.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that most hon. Members will welcome his statement that there is to be no browbeating of Iceland, which has taken this measure to protect her national interests? Is it not disgraceful that we should wait for a small country such as Iceland to take these steps before we take them ourselves?

The economies of our countries are entirely different. I appreciate the reasons lying behind the decision of Iceland, but at present we have a licensing system which operates generously for the United Kingdom fleet. We have no reason to assume that that harmonious arrangement will not continue in some form. I am confident that we shall have constructive talks with Iceland, which will be to the advantage of our industry.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he will make a statement on his last meeting with representatives of the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Society of Scotland in Edinburgh.

I have had no formal meetings with representatives of the Scottish Law Commission or the Law Society of Scotland in recent months. I do, however, meet the chairman and president respectively of these bodies at frequent intervals and exchange views and information with them on a wide variety of subjects with which they are concerned.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Government will introduce legislation to make it unnecessary for Scots resident in Scotland to travel to London at great expense in order to complete formalities at Bow Street Magistrates' Court when they wish to seek employment abroad?

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of that supplementary question, which does not follow in an obvious way from the original Question. The introduction of legislation on this topic is not a matter for me, although I am very much concerned with the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman has rightly highlighted. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already assured the hon. Gentleman of his interest and concern in the matter, in a letter that he has written to him. I think that the hon. Gentleman can take it that the fact that he has highlighted this matter is very much appreciated by the Government.

asked the Lord Advocate what recent representations he has received about the reform of divorce laws in Scotland.

None, Sir.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a widespread and growing bitterness in Scotland about the way that this House is handling this matter, which affects the happiness of thousands? Is this question not far too important to be left to the hit or miss methods of private Members' legislation? As plenty of time exists in the House, if the will exists in the House, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend to see that in the next Session of Parliament the Government provide time for the introduction of Government legislation to prosecute this report?

This matter was dealt with by my right hon. Friend in reply to the first Question on the Order Paper today. There is nothing much that I can add to that. The hon. Member has highlighted the concern that exists for divorce law reform, and I share this concern, as he knows. But we must consider the other side of the picture, as given in the reply which my right hon. Friend made in writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). As he made clear in that reply, Governments—the hon. Gentleman's Government and the Government now in office—have taken the view—wisely, and taking account of all the considerations involved—that in this field the appropriate way to proceed is by private Members' legislation.

Why is that so, when the Government can give time for the Hare Coursing Bill, and here is an issue that cuts across every party in the House? As all responsible bodies in Scotland want to harmonise the law of Scotland with that of England, will the Lord Advocate now give an assurance about this matter, or will his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talk to the Leader of the House with a view to giving time? It is simply not good enough to leave it to the whims and chance of the Ballot for Private Members' Bills.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Leader of the House, and, of course, it is his responsibility to concern himself with the time available for legislation. It is not my responsibility. But I ought to repeat what I sought to say when answering an earlier question. I very much appreciate the concern and anxiety for reform in divorce law, but it would be quite wrong for people who express that concern not to recognise the strong moral feelings that exist on the other side of this issue.

Is the Lord Advocate aware of the growing practice of people in my constituency being advised to seek residence just over the border and commute to work in order to be able to avail themselves of the facility of the divorce law of England? Is that not bringing the law of Scotland into disrepute? If a private Member introduces a Bill early in the Session, what is to stop the Government's referring it to the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading?

I am aware of that anomaly. No doubt others will take note of the second point the hon. Gentleman raises.

Does the Lord Advocate consider the law relating to marriage and the family an important branch of the law? If he does, why does he appear to favour changes in that law without any explanation to this House of the principles involved in the changes? Will he now withdraw the unworthy allegations of obstruction which on 9th July he directed against those of us who believe that it is utterly wrong that legislative changes of this nature should go through the House without one word of debate on Second Reading? Is that really what, as Lord Advocate, he believes in?

Now that the hon. Gentleman has finished his pyrotechnics, I should say that I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman, in his own mind, is not being obstructive in this matter. I think that, as he sees it, he is seeking merely to have a proper Second Reading debate about the merits of this cause. That is the point he makes. Whether that is a matter of substance I leave to those who read Hansard and I hope that the reading of Hansard will include the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the Committee stage of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in a previous Parliament, when I think the hon. Member made many excellent Second Reading speeches.

asked the Lord Advocate what steps he is taking to ensure that the European Commission in formulating EEC legislation is adequately informed of its impact on Scottish law.

Earlier this year I took the initiative in having a discussion with the Director General of the Legal Service of the European Commission, in which I drew attention to the separate nature of the Scottish legal system and to the necessity of the Commission's taking Scots law into consideration in formulating proposals for EEC legislation, and I propose to take further steps in this regard shortly. I also make every effort to ensure that Scottish legal advice is available to the Commission with respect to particular proposals for legislation. I should add that so far I have found the Commission well informed on Scots law and extremely anxious to take it into account in framing any proposals.

I am grateful for that reply. Does that mean that the Lord Advocate agrees or does not agree with the highly critical comments recently made by Lord Hunter, in which he basically alleged that the Government—not just the present Government but all Governments since we entered the Community—have, in their relationships with the Commission, ignored the differences between Scottish and English law? Does the Lord Advocate agree? He knows that the statement has been made. Is he taking steps to ensure that Scottish lawyers are employed within the directorates of the Commission? If so, when does he expect to have some results from them?

As to the first matter, I certainly agree with Lord Hunter in so far as he was stressing the need for Scottish law to be taken fully into account in Brussels. I do not go the whole way with Lord Hunter, because I think that he does not fully appreciate the extent to which Scottish law is being taken into account. I am not satisfied with the position, but I do not wholly agree with him on the matter.

On the second point, I say with some regret that the Director of the Legal Services Commission, whom I met in January this year when I was in Brussels, has since died. Accordingly, it has not been possible for me to follow up the exchanges I had then. It is my intention to take that up as a matter of urgency.

Will the "further steps" to which the Lord Advocate referred in his first answer include submissions to the Tindemans inquiry?

I should require notice of that question.

Is the Lord Advocate aware that on the legal committee of the EEC there is no Scottish qualified lawyer—though there could have been, as I myself applied but was turned down—and that Lord Hunter appears to regret that fact? Does the Lord Advocate not realise that information must go two ways? We very much appreciate his answer about the information given to the EEC, but is not the House very much concerned about the degree of information coming to the Lord Advocate? As he must be aware, in this House there is not the same scrutiny available for the vast outpourings of EEC legislation as there is for United Kingdom legislation. As that is admitted is it not time for the Lord Advocate to set up some sort of special office under his Department for the specific purpose of scrutinising all legislation from the EEC as it affects Scottish law?

The hon. Lady has previously put questions to me about information coming to the Lord Advocate. I hope that these answers satisfy her. I have noted her concern—a concern which I share—that there should be two-way communications in this field.

Will the Lord Advocate confirm that the last Government's appointment of a Scottish judge as the sole British representative on the European Court of Justice ensures that Scottish legal principles are taken fully into account whenever legal matters are being determined by the court?

I am happy to confirm that.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement. As the House will recall, following the collapse of Court Line I appointed inspectors on 22nd August 1974 under Section 165 of the Companies Act to inquire into all the circumstances relating to the collapse of that firm. Subsequently, following the approach by individual MPs on behalf of their constituents, the Parliamentary Commissioner decided to undertake investigations of allegations of maladministration arising from the statements made by Ministers prior to the firm's collapse. Both these reports were published at 3 o'clock this afternoon and are now available in the Library and the Vote Office.

I would like to take this opportunity of expressing the Government's gratitude to Sir Alan Marre and the inspectors and to pay tribute to the thoroughness of both reports.

Neither report makes any criticism of the decisions taken by the Government in the handling of the issues. Indeed, the reports pay tribute to both officials and Ministers for the speed and sense of responsibility with which they reacted to the situation as it developed.

Both the PCA and the inspectors do, however, criticise in certain respects the statements made to Parliament on 26th June and 1st July by the then Secretary of State for Industry on behalf of the Government. They accept that the statements were made in good faith and reflected the confidence which the Government genuinely felt at the time about the prospects of the business based on a careful assessment of the best information available to it, but they consider that the statements went further than was justified in reassuring the public about the continuation of the company's operations for the rest of the summer season last year. The Government note and respect the criticisms made in both reports, but the Government considered then, and still believe, that the statements made were right in the difficult circumstances at the time.

Shame.

Arrogance.

The Government have carefully considered in the light of the reports whether any further measures to assist those affected are called for. This is not a case in which any legal liability arises. The Government's statements were not phrased or intended to give a formal guarantee, and did not do so. Furthermore, the House will recall that the Government decided last September to legislate to compensate those Court Line and other holidaymakers who had a reasonable expectation that they were protected by adequate bonding arrangements but who nevertheless suffered loss as a result of the failure of their tour operator. The Air Travel Reserve Fund Act 1975 has accordingly established a fund to which the Government have offered a £15 million interest-free loan and from which the Court Line and other holidaymakers to whom I have referred are being reimbursed and future holidaymakers will benefit. The Government have, therefore, concluded that no further payment out of public funds would be justified.

Disgraceful!

Mr. Shore However, wider issues of public policy are involved. Very difficult questions of judgment are always involved in deciding how much or how little should be said publicly in situations of this nature, particularly when there is a risk that a wrong emphasis in a statement may bring a company down. This is a matter of continuing concern to all Governments. Because of the importance of the questions raised, the Government feel it right that there should be an early opportunity for debate, and my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will make an announcement shortly about the arrangements.

Will the Secretary of State understand that we on this side of the House think that it is totally disgrace- ful for the Government to reject the Ombudsman's report in this way? Will he understand that this report by the Parliamentary Commissioner fully vindicates our request last year for a full inquiry? Will he understand that it fully supports our view that the Secretary of State for Energy misled the House and the wider public at the time of the announcement last year, and that we on this side of the House unreservedly support the Ombudsman's conclusions in paragraph 87 of the report that the statements were liable to leave a misleading impression with the public"? Will the right hon. Gentleman specifically explain whether any Government have ever rejected a report of a Parliamentary Commissioner before? Does he agree that in the circumstances the loan made under the Air Travel Reserve Fund, which must be repaid by future holidaymakers, should now be turned into a grant from the Government, and that the responsibility for that grant must lie at the feet of the Secretary of State for Energy?

When the right hon. Gentleman says that the statement was made in good faith, is he aware that in paragraph 79 of the report it is specifically made clear that the Minister was briefed to take a more cautious view of his civil servants, and that he ignored that advice? Will he understand that what the House needs is not a debate next week, not a statement by him, but an explanation and apology from the Minister responsible, the Secretary of State for Energy?

The hon. Gentleman's remarks were entirely predictable and once again reflect his over-rapid response to reports which I doubt whether he or other hon. Members have yet had much opportunity to examine.

The hon. Gentleman has made a number of attacks, thinly disguised as questions, on the Government. Very tendentious pieces have been taken from the report. The hon. Gentleman has made points which I believe should rightly be taken up in the debate, which I very much hope we shall be able to hold shortly.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, I can tell him that my right hon. Friend looks forward to an opportunity to speak for himself.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the unanimous and firmly worded criticisms made by the three distinguished inspectors, drawn from different professions, cannot be brushed aside with a perfunctory gesture of respect? Is he also aware that what is said about a debate will be welcomed, because the whole unhappy incident raises yet again the question of the quality of commercial information available to Ministers?

The hon. Gentleman is on to a very serious point, certainly at the end of his question, when he spoke about the quality of information available to Ministers and what Ministers can and should say in public about that information. That is one of the really serious issues which I hope that we shall debate.

We did not brush aside the conclusions of two reports. What we did, as we had the right to do, was to come to the genuine conclusion, in the face of the obvious difficulties, that we disagreed with the finely balanced judgments reported by the two inspectors. We look forward to an opportunity of explaining exactly why.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's criticism is ill-founded, bearing in mind that the Government's measures were the means of saving many jobs, particularly in Appledore in North Devon, and that the financial compensation to holidaymakers fully justified the public expenditure incurred?

It is right for my hon. Friend to remind the House of two of the major background features of the whole affair—first, that the Government's main rôle in relation to Court Line was to take measures which would safeguard the jobs of many thousands of shipbuilding workers, and, secondly, that—as I think the whole House will in the end agree—the major problems with Court Line were the problems that arose out of its own financial mismanagement.

Is it not extraordinary that the Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and treat this report from the Ombudsman in such a way as to make the public believe that it is useless for him to produce any reports? Would the right hon. Gentleman have accepted the report if it had been favourable to the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he believes that the fund ought to have a direct contribution from Government since at present it is being built up by the public for the benefit of the public?

I entirely repudiate the idea that the report is useless. On the contrary, the whole value of reports of this kind is that the Parliamentary Commissioner is afforded full access to all the documents and all the reports. He gives his best judgment on all the facts. Let me put this point to the hon. Gentleman in return: if the report had been marginally in favour of the Government as it is marginally against them, would that have silenced him and his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench? I do not think so for a moment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that judging from my correspondence from people directly affected as customers of Court Line, and from conversations with hon. Friends, what people seem to be primarily concerned about is not that this should be a cockpit of political in-fighting but that there should be the right to compensation for losses? Will my right hon. Friend address himself to this problem and give the House the assurance that those who sometimes had saved for a considerable time for their holidays will be fully compensated so that those who approve of the prudent housekeeping shown by the way in which this arrangement will be financed, and their constituents, will be satisfied?

My hon. Friend will know that the whole purpose of the Act we introduced some months ago was to make sure that holidaymakers, not only with Court Line but with a number of other travel firms that failed in the special circumstances of last summer, received monetary compensation. I am glad to say that that compensation will shortly begin to be paid. In addition, what we have tried to do is to make provision for the future so that if and when such collapses occur again they do not lead to the kind of appalling loss and mess with which we were faced last summer.

Leaving for the debate those matters suitable for it and referring to the Ombudsman's report, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not believe it to be a serious situation when bodies and people such as the Ombudsman, whom we have come to regard as an independent arbiter, have their reports brushed aside by the Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we saw this yesterday with the report of the Civil Aviation Authority? Surely it is not beyond the Government to say in an honourable way, "We admit that we made a mistake."

I repeat that we did not brush aside this criticism. It is right that the House and the Government should have the opportunity to put their side of the story. We shall do that. We have no doubt that the House will then be in a much better position to make a judgment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner is a report to Parliament not to the Government? Is he aware that it was available to Members only at three o'clock although for the Government it was evidently available much earlier? Does the right hon. Gentleman further appreciate that this is not the first time that the Government have pre-empted the Select Committee on a Parliamentary Commissioner's report before the Select Committee has had an opportunity to consider it? If the Government are to treat reports which they do not like in this way, the whole purpose of the Select Committee will be defeated.

I understand the difficulties to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. We felt that as we were receiving not only a report from the Parliamentary Commissioner but also the report of the inspectors, it was right for us to give our reactions and state our conclusions on them at this time and thus to prepare the way for a debate before the recess overtakes us.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is overwhelming support for the Government in constituencies such as mine where large numbers of men work in the shipyards affected and where many people were also affected through their holiday plans? Does he realise that there is overwhelming support for the action taken by the Government to protect people from the effects of the private financial take-over that was the cause of all this trouble?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. I said earlier that it is all too easily overlooked in the general discussions that have taken place and the comments that have been made, particularly last summer by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and some of his hon. Friends, that the major result following the Government's intervention in Court Line, or the Government's response to Court Line's approach to them, was the saving of thousands of jobs in the shipbuilding industry.

As the Member who raised this matter with the Ombudsman, may I remind the House of the statement by the present Secretary of State for Energy to me to the effect that he would await the Ombudsman's report with confidence? Is not the position now that the right hon. Gentleman has been found guilty of misrepresentation to this House and to the country, against the advice of his officials, in seeking to strike a posture as the saviour of the holidays? Is it not also the case that he has been shown beyond peradventure to have cost thousands of our fellow citizens their money and their holidays last year? In those circumstances—the Government having accepted a referee in the form of the Ombudsman and having kicked that referee in the teeth—is not the Government's action a disgraceful exhibition of misrepresentation and capricious disregard of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report in which the public at least repose more confidence than do Labour Members?

The hon. Gentleman has disregarded not only the Parliamentary Commissioner's report but also the report of the inspectors. I do not know on what other basis he can establish the point he has made that my right hon. Friend was guilty of misrepresentation. He is not in the least guilty. The whole judgment of the inspectors and the Parliamentary Commissioner turned upon whether there might have been included a reply to a supplementary question that was not raised. That is the fact of the matter. The significance of that will be debated properly next week.

Is it not the case that responsibility for the collapse of this company rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the directors of the company? Talking about misrepresentation, is it not the case that the financial and legal advisers of that company and the board misled the Government when they applied for assistance in June 1974? Is is not a fact that if the Secretary of State had not saved the shipyards and the jobs then, this company would have collapsed much earlier?

My hon. Friend is on a central point. If the Government had not made money available to save the shipbuilding industry, the whole company would have collapsed and it would have collapsed slightly earlier, involving more holidaymakers in loss than was the case when it went down in August.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Government's attitude to the publication of this report raises serious issues about the relationship between the Government and the reports of the Ombudsman? Does the Minister realise that if the Government try to slide or manoeuvre themselves away from the report, after the Ombudsman has made it, that will raise serious long-term issues? All Ministers—I include myself—from time to time make errors of judgment. To put it at its lowest, the report shows that the Secretary of State for Energy made an error of judgment. When we make errors of judgment, an apology to the House costs nothing. I hope that my remarks will be regarded seriously by the right hon. Gentleman.

When the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to study both reports he will find that they both emphasise the fact that my right hon. Friend spoke on behalf of and with the authority of the Government. Therefore, there is no point in trying to single out my right hon. Friend for Opposition censure.

We accept that the issue of the relationship between the Government and the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner is very important. We do not lightly disagree with those reports, but this not an unheard of occurrence in the history of Parliament. Although we must give due credit and pay proper respect to the reports brought before us, we cannot accept that they are infallible.

Several Hon. Members rose —

Order. The House will have an opportunity of debating this matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I heard the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) say that paragraph 79 of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report referred to the then Secretary of State having deliberately ignored the advice of his civil servants. I have read paragraph 79—

Order. This is a matter for argument. It is not a matter for the Chair.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Is it not customary in the House, apart from calling the old favourites to ask supplementary questions, to allow those with a constituency interest—that includes my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) and myself—to put questions? Is it not disgraceful that that has not been done in this case?

If the hon. Member is describing my conduct as disgraceful, he must do so by a motion. There is to be a debate on this matter. I shall consider the prospects for hon. Members in that debate.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and without entering into the previous discussion, some of us have intimate information about the events of that time. Surely it would be interesting for the House to know that we possess information which may well not be otherwise understood by the House? It is wrong for the House to arrive at a judgment on the basis of exaggerated statements made by the Opposition which can easily be repudiated by the facts of the situation.

The Chair is in a difficulty on an occasion such as this. If in the statement it is said that there will be an early opportunity for debate, I must be entitled to bring the proceedings to a close. We have a heavy agenda for today. There is to be a Ten-Minute Bill. If there had not been the intimation of an early debate I should have allowed the supplementary questions to continue. I must be allowed to exercise my judgment, especially as it is now 3.55 p.m.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—and I do not often raise points of order. It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) raised an extremely important point which is not, with respect, a question of argument. He challenged an Opposition Front Bench spokesman with having uttered an untruth. Normally that is a matter for withdrawal in the House if the allegation is correct. I believe that the allegation is correct. All of us who have read the paragraph believe the allegation to be correct. I should have hoped that you, Mr. Speaker, might direct the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to withdraw.

I recognise your difficulties, Mr. Speaker, in this situation. But is the House to have no protection when the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) deliberately and directly misleads the House by saying that certain words are contained in a paragraph of a report, which is before the House, when they do not appear therein?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I do not want to trespass on your judgment, particularly as there is to be a debate next week. I must point out, however, that my remarks have been called in question. Serious points have been made. Would it be permissible for me to read four lines from the paragraph mentioned so as to clarify my remarks? That will take only a moment. It would explain the matter to hon. Members who may not so far have read the passage. The passage reads: the Department did not think that this had been or could have been absolutely guaranteed. This is clearly borne out in the notes for supplementaries which an official prepared for the Secretary of State and which made it clear that guarantees could not be given … I believe that I was entitled to assume that the Secretary of State for Energy therefore decided consciously to ignore the advice of his officials.

These exchanges have made it clear that I was right. This is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for argument.

With the greatest of respect, and while I appreciate your difficulties, Mr. Speaker, can the House receive no protection when the hon. Member for Henley deliberately excluded half a sentence from the passage which he quoted?

Frequently comments are made whether the remarks of hon. Members opposite are incorrect or inaccurate. Those are matters for debate. The Chair cannot possibly judge immediately whether an hon. Member has gone beyond the limit. I have not read the paragraph. I should have to check what was said from the Official Report. I should have to check on the point of order which was made. This cannot be a matter for ruling by the Chair. It must be a matter for debate—and there will be a debate.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This raises the position of Front Bench Members and their relationship to back-bench Members.

The Secretary of State announced that the paper was available only at the moment when he spoke. Many hon. Members have not had time to read it. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was therefore under a special obligation to be more than careful in giving an impression of any part of that document.

It is against all honour and tradition for a Front Bench spokesman from either side to give a totally wrong and false impression about a Minister. But having done so, he is obliged to withdraw his statement and to enable that to be subject to debate. But now he must withdraw.

Order. The hon. Member is on a slightly different point of order about the time at which hon. Members received a document. If I may say so with respect, it is a pity that all hon. Members did not receive it at the same time. That is not a matter for me. That is an obiter dictum, and I am careful not to make too many of them.

It is wrong to suggest that it is a matter of order when an hon. Member says of another hon. Member that what he has said is inaccurate, incorrect, ill-judged or a breach of this, that or the other. That is not a matter for the Chair. That is a matter for debate. I must insist on that. I have no power to order any hon. or right hon. Member to withdraw unless he has used unparliamentary language, and I do not think that any unparliamentary language has been used today.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled that you have terminated this question time because there is to be a debate next week. May I put it to you that the debate next week will take place upon all the political events surrounding the Court Line affair, and that the statement today is concerned with morality and the moral principles involved—

Order. We must get on. Dr. Marshall.

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law in respect of the rating of caravans. Such a Bill is necessary to resolve—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was said that the Leader of the House would be making a statement about the revised form of business. He has now disappeared.

Order. There will be a Business Statement tomorrow. Thursday is the day for a Business Statement.

Such a Bill is necessary to resolve the confusing situation which has arisen this year over the rating of holiday caravans which remain at their holiday sites all the year round. I expect that most hon. Members will have heard about this problem from constituents owning such holiday caravans who, when visiting their caravans for the first time this year, discovered that a rating proposal, and in many cases a rates demand, had been made in respect of their individual caravans.

Altogether there are 4,300 holiday caravan sites in England and Wales, with over a quarter of a million caravans. Until 1st January 1975 all but 80 of these sites were rated as single hereditaments. Because of a decision of the courts back in 1966, rating and valuation officers are now required to treat each individual caravan as a separate hereditament in the valuation list. A corresponding court decision in Scotland was made in 1974. It is the impact of those legal decisions which has hit caravan owners this year.

Previously, when each site was rated as a whole, the site owner paid the rates to the local authority and passed on this expense to caravan owners as part of their normal site rental. In none of the cases I know of where caravans are now rated separately have I heard of the site rental being correspondingly reduced. These caravan owners, therefore, are faced with the prospect of having to pay rates on their caravans twice over.

Furthermore, the valuations now determined for separate caravans when totalled for a particular site are generally much in excess of the previous single valuation for the site as a whole. For instance, prior to this year's change, a group of eight caravan sites in the Tendring district Essex had a total rateable value of £28,000. With the change to individual caravan rating, the total has risen to £96,000. This has come about independently of any general rating revaluation. Perhaps some of the finer points of rating and valuation practice are involved here and have brought about this strange result, but these are technicalities which the caravan owner in general cannot be expected to appreciate.

Many owners of holiday caravans are not well endowed financially. The new additional rates are adding hardship to confusion for them. Some owners are thinking of selling their caravans and others are towing them around on the congested roads to the coast rather than leaving them fixed and thereby rateable.

Equally anxious over the new situation are the local authorities—numbering 159 altogether in England and Wales—which are required to collect the rates on these caravans. The district authorities all round our coastline have to bear the administrative brunt of the problem, calculating and delivering rate demands for each individual caravan. The problems involved are Herculean, particularly when details of caravan ownership are difficult to obtain or when caravans charge hands or are moved round the same site.

One local authority, the East Lindsey District Council, covering the whole Lincolnshire coast between the Humber and the Wash, has had an extra 21,000 hereditaments added to its rating list, an increase of 45 per cent., because of the change in the rating of caravans Any extra revenue which could accrue to such an authority will be largely offset by the cost of collection and by the corresponding reduction in the resources element of the late support grant it receives from the Government. The Association of District Councils strongly supports the treatment of holiday caravan sites as single hereditaments.

The Bill which I am now seeking leave to introduce would tackle this problem simply by amending the law to reverse the court decision in 1966 in the case of Field Place Caravan Park Limited v. Harding. The Bill will not exempt holiday caravans from rates, so there is no question of giving caravaners an unfair advantage over other holiday home owners.

The Bill will simply require sites to be rated as whole hereditaments, which is the position which in general obtained before this year. I regard the Bill as a straightforward application of common sense to a confusing and anomalous situation. I shall pursue the objectives which I have described as far as I have opportunity to do so, and I now ask the House to make one such opportunity available to me.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. David Marquand Mr. John Mendelson, Mr. Caerwyn Roderick, Mr. John Watkinson and Mr. Frank R. White.