asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students will be leaving teacher training colleges in the summer of 1976; and how many are unlikely to be offered teaching jobs in the autumn.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of how many teaching posts will not be filled next session by education authorities on account of financial restraint by local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on teacher supply.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the job prospects of students currently enrolled at Callendar Park College of Education, Falkirk.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the unemployment situation in the teaching profession.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of student teachers leaving Scottish colleges of education at the end of this session are expected to be offered employment in Scottish schools.

As I indicated in my reply of 26th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White), it is not possible to make precise estimates at this stage. I am pursuing the various courses of action to which I then referred.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that was a most unsatisfactory answer? He gave no indication whether student teachers will find themselves joining dole queues. If Socialism is the language of priorities, surely he can work out whether he has spent so much money on trying to nationalise the shipbuilding industry that there is not enough money left. Is there enough money available to give jobs to these teachers, so that our children may obtain the education that they deserve and that this country requires to get itself out of the present mess?

I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman as excited about Scottish education as he seems to be today. I do not recall seeing him similarly excited before.

I was once the Minister in charge.

That is what I meant. The hon. Gentleman must not speak in generalities. If he refers to my main answer he will see that I said that, despite anything we are able to do this year—and I indicated in my answer a number of avenues that I am pursuing—there are a substantial number of student teachers —I cannot at the moment put a figure on it—who will not be able to obtain jobs. I regret that situation very much, but it is not possible to make provision in that way in the preesnt financial situation, either by providing more in rate support grant or by asking education authorities to employ more teachers at their own expense. At the meeting I had with education authorities last Friday they accepted that situation.

In view of the justifiable anger and resentment caused by the Prime Minister's recent statement that student teachers should look elsewhere for jobs, will the Secretary of State elaborate on the proposals to use some of the job creation programme money to provide employment for student teachers? Will he give an assurance that any jobs created for these students will be jobs in teaching rather than outside? Would it not be economic and educational madness to spend £14 million of public money in training 2,000 teachers and then expect them to take jobs outside teaching, when thousands of parents are demanding a better standard of education for their children?

It is unwise of my hon. Friend to disparage projects that have already been put up and accepted under the job creation programme. Those projects are relevant to the qualifications and experience of student teachers. My hon. Friend will also know that I am looking into the question whether the rules unler which job creation money is deployed can be extended in the way indicated.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that he has lost a golden opportunity to improve teaching standards in Scotland with the available teachers? Does he accept that we have a moral obligation to the teachers concerned in view of the vast sums spent in educating them? Is he willing to look carefully at the many practical suggestions made by us in a recent late-night debate in the House as to how public expenditure can be cut in other areas—for example, by abandoning certain nationalisation programmes—so that these teachers may be employed to the benefit of Scottish education?

The fact is that the Conservative Opposition, apart from cutting public expenditure in other ways, are committed to cut public expenditure at local level also. That will affect education, and it is about time the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) came clean on where he and his colleagues stand.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that people who join the special recruitment scheme have to sign a form to the effect that they intend to teach in Scottish education, and that a number of these people, when reaching graduate status, did not take a job in industry because of their obligation to the Government? Does this not mean that the Government have a moral or legal obligation to give these people employment?

We do not have a legal obligation, but I accept that we certainly have a moral obligation on the questtion of the special recruitment scheme. This is one of the matters that I discussed with local authorities last Friday. They said that they already gave preference, wherever it was possible, to people who were coming out from the special recruitment scheme and they promised me that they would continue to do so. This is extremely important.

Why, last year, did the Secretary of State permit 300 more applicants to go to colleges of education for secondary school qualifications when he knew that the writing was on the wall and that those people would not get jobs this summer?

There are still considerable subject shortages in the secondary schools, and that will still be the case even at the start of next session. The increased numbers of students last year were directed largely at meeting the difficulties we have in particular subjects. As for the numbers for next year, I made it clear to colleges of education that within the reduced totals for secondary training they should give emphasis to those subjects where we still have shortages and less emphasis to those subjects where there are likely to be sufficient teachers available.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the teachers about whom we are rightly concerned entered universities and colleges of education in 1972 and 1973, when there was a Conservative Government in power? May we have an investigation into the question of who is responsible for this blunder of producing excessive numbers of trained teachers, and may we know what action my right hon. Friend proposes to take to avoid a repetition of such an event?

It is true that the students who are training to become primary education teachers, and with whom we are now dealing, went into the colleges in 1973. Looking at this matter in retrospect, it is clear that the numbers entering colleges then were too great. That is also true of 1974 and 1975. As for the future, I have said that in the current year there will be a substantial reduction in the number of entrants, particularly for primary teacher training.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is both a moral and a financial obligation here? Is he aware that there is a moral obligation, in the sense that the students entered the colleges with a firm understanding that work would be available for them? Should not the Government honour that pledge? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a financial obligation, in the sense that it has taken over £6,000 to train each student and that it will cost a lot more public money if they have to be retrained or go on the dole?

There was not, and there cannot be, any guarantee for anyone entering teacher training that he or she will automatically be employed as a teacher at the end of that training. I have made that clear, and I make it absolutely clear again. Unfortunately, unemployment among any section of the community represents a considerable waste of education and training. Deplorable though it may be, the situation of the student teachers is no different, in principle, from that of many other sections of the community at present. We must, first, get general unemployment down and, secondly, achieve an economic situation in which we can afford the expansion in social services to which we have been accustomed in previous years.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us do not agree that a blunder was made, and that we believe that more teachers are required in our schools? Is he aware that the job is there to be done and it is our duty to these people, to whom we made a commitment and who are now coming out of colleges, to find them a place in the schools? The money is there. It can be found. If children are suffering will my right hon. Friend do as much as possible to get the money, so that these teachers are placed where they should be—in the classrooms?

It is no use my hon. Friend saying that the money is there; the money is not there. I have made that clear. I should also say that pupil-teacher ratios in our schools next session will be the best ever, and we shall be in a position to eliminate part-time education, which has been a disastrous and distressing feature of the school situation, particularly in the west of Scotland, for as far back as I can remember.

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman come clean on this matter and admit that the real crisis in education has arisen because the Government's economic policies are in ruins? Why is he so stubborn that he will not admit that there should be a reassessment of priorities on expenditure in the way that we have repeatedly advocated, so that money is spent on essential things, as his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) has argued? Why was he not able to give the House an answer to the central question, which is, how many of these people will be unemployed? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us now, how soon will he be in possession of the facts?

I shall give figures relating to the second point of the hon. Gentleman's question as soon as I can. I shall make a forecast on the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman: it is that the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon will call for massive and immediate cuts in public expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations on agricultural tied cottages.

Discussions are continuing with interested parties. Some of them have still to let me have their observations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that on Saturday there was a meeting of the Scottish committee of the farm-workers' section of the Transport and General Workers' Union which appears to have decided in favour of a licensing system combined with a statutory obligation on local authorities? Does he accept that this important change in the attitude of the main union representing farm workers in Scotland underlines the case for specific Scottish legislation on this issue? Will he say what consultations he is having on tied accommodation outside agriculture?

If I may take the last point first, to extend any investigation of this subject into the possibility of legislation covering tied accommodation generally—and there is something to be said for that—would considerably extend the period of consultation. I am aware that the meeting to which my hon. Friend referred took place on Saturday. I share the concern of the TGWU on this subject. There is agreement on the need to protect those who are most vulnerable, such as the sick, the disabled, the aged and the widowed. I have made that clear to all interested parties.

Will the hon. Gentleman welcome this example of Scottish industrial democracy, where both sides of industry in Scotland agree that the tied cottage system should remain and is no danger to Scotland—an attitude far different from that taken in England?

That is a rather naïve approach to this question which does not do it justice. I have made it clear to the farmers' union, separately, and only last month in the presence of the TGWU, that we shall fulfil this commitment. I seek the co-operation of both sides, landlords and workers, in doing something about a problem that should have been tackled years ago.

Does my hon. Friend accept that whilst there must always be a case for "on-the-job" housing, which is what tied cottages are, there is no case for that accommodation being used as a lever both to depress farm workers' wages and to act as a form of discipline in terms of their conditions?

I quite agree. One of the serious questions facing the industry is the financial implications of total abolition. I take the view that so long as farm workers are among the lowest paid workers in Scotland we need to be concerned about them.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what is required is for local authorities to make houses available for agricultural workers coming off the land when they are ill, when they want to leave the industry, or are retiring? Would not that solve a lot of problems?

The farmers are well represented here today. We are taking one of the special Scottish considerations into account here, namely, the reorganisation of local government and the commitments of housing authorities. It is because of that that I want time to ensure that there will be adequate housing provision in the remoter areas.

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

While there are difficult issues relating to limits and conservation to be resolved, there is cause for rising confidence on account of the continuing improvement in the market situation. The high level of prices was maintained throughout the first half of May, and the prices are well above those for the comparable period in 1975.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in spite of the welcome increase in earnings, the average vessel of the STF is still losing, before depreciation, about £30 a day? In the light of this fact, and in the light of the catastrophic results for the industry of the Iceland agreement, what urgent measures is the right hon. Gentleman taking to see that British fishing interests are fully protected with regard to EEC fishing policy? What are the Government now doing about the further threat posed to the industry by the reported intentions of the Faroese to extend their limits?

The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions, the answers to which have already been given by fisheries Ministers and the Foreign Secretary in the House. Concerning the STF, the figures on costs were produced on 27th May. I met the STF in Glasgow the following day and was provided with the figures. I said that I would see that they were considered as urgently as possible, and when I have done that I shall let the STF have a reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that British fishing interests—and by that I mean big trawler interests—are conning the British public and the British housewife into imagining that it is only cod that the housewife wants? If my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were to get together with other parties interested in the fishing industry they would soon find that there were many other fish in the sea which could be caught, to the benefit of the British public, from the point of view not only of taste but of the purse.

I certainly agree that with the new situation it will be necessary for us, as far as possible, to persuade consumers to change their buying preferences, but that is not an easy matter, as I think that the House will appreciate. Nevertheless, price will be a factor in this situation, and there are certain possibilities that we shall explore. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture makes a statement about the longer-term future of the fishing industry, which I hope he will be able to do soon, this is the type of matter with which he will be dealing.

Will the Minister say when he proposes to introduce a boat-scrapping subsidy, and when he proposes to introduce an early retirement scheme for fishermen?

I cannot give answers on those points at present. However, the hon. Gentleman will now that, in the context of the Iceland agreement and the effect of that on the distant water fishing industry, a number of possibilities have been put to the Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread appreciation in Scotland, particularly in Aberdeen, of the direct interest that he is taking in the fishing industry, as well as of that being taken by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary? Is he aware that there is still a feeling that we ought to have a more structured future for the industry, and that his commitment to look into this matter and produce a plan as quickly as possible will be of great benefit to all concerned?

When I had my meeting on 28th May, I said that I hoped soon to be in a position to meet the industry to talk about longer-term matters, rather than simply immediate problems, and that statement was welcomed by the industry.

Reverting to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what we want to hear are his answers to the problems of the Scottish fishing industry, because he is the Scottish fisheries Minister? Without going into the merits of the Icelandic situation, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the repercussions from it will be very serious, in terms of increasing the pressure of fishing vessels within Scottish waters? The only circumstances in which the agreement could be tolerated in Scotland would be to renegotiate the common fisheries policy as soon as possible and to ensure that there is no yielding on the 50-mile exclusive fishing zone which has been put forward in Brussels by his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

One of the troubles with the common fisheries policy is that Conservative Members did not make any serious attempt to deal with it when we entered the Common Market. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that this is one of the matters that we are now pursuing actively with our Common Market partners.

I shall allow one more supplementary question on this Question, but I must tell the House that I shall have to allow fewer supplementary questions on the rest, otherwise we shall never get anywhere.

Will the Secretary of State take a leaf out of the book of the Icelandic Government and see to it that there is now more effective policing of Scottish waters, to ensure that our resources are at least adequately protected, in view of the way in which the fisheries protection fleet has been run down in recent years?

I do not accept that. It is not even accurate. However, the question of policing—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman keeps interrupting. Apart from anything else, I cannot hear what he is trying to say. It is not accurate to say that fisheries protection has been run down. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman in so far as policing will be extremely important when the limits are extended. This is a matter to which we shall be paying particular attention in these negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an up-to-date statement on the extent of unemployment in Scotland; and what prospects school leavers will have of obtaining employment.

Total unemployment in Scotland at the May count was 6·6 per cent. An increase in the number of unemployed school leavers is to be expected after the end of the current school year, but the number of vacancies being notified by employers is increasing, and prospects should further improve as the general strengthening now evident in the economy leads to an upturn in overall employment.

Will the Minister assure the House that he will instigate a crash programme for projects under the job creation scheme in order to make certain that as many as possible of the 71,000 school leavers should go on to jobs, as well as very many others of those presently unemployed in Scotland?

The problem has been recognised. Extra funds have been made available for training. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the school leaver recruitment subsidy scheme has provided jobs for 3,000, which we welcome. None of us is complacent about this problem. We shall take all the measures that are possible to ensure that these people are found employment.

In order to increase job prospects in Ayrshire, will my hon. Friend put pressure on the Secretary of State for Scotland to review the previous Secretary of State's refusal to grant planning permission for an oil terminal and oil refinery at Hunterston? That is something that he could do right away, thus guaranteeing 5,000 jobs immediately to the people in North and Central Ayrshire.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is well aware of the representations that have been made by my hon. Friend over a long period.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of one slight snag in the otherwise good job creation programme, namely, the minimum size of project required before a scheme qualifies for assistance under that programme? Does not that make matters rather more difficult in small towns and rural communities?

I shall certainly consider the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but it is really a matter for the Manpower Services Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what new measures he proposes to introduce to deal with Scottish unemployment.

As my right hon. Friend said in reply to a similar Question from the hon. Gentleman on 12th May, the Government have already taken substantial steps to reduce unemployment. The various measures referred to at that time continue and have now helped to protect or create over 16,000 jobs in Scotland.

Does the Minister recognise that the steps announced on 12th May and on earlier occasions appear to have had little impact on the unemployment situation in Scotland? Does he remember that the previous Secretary of State once declared that he would resign if Scottish unemployment reached 100,000? What figure does it have to reach before the new Secretary of State resigns?

Unemployment is a serious matter and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will treat it accordingly. The Government have taken positive steps on unemployment in Scotland. The measures that we are introducing to deal with inflation are designed to help. It was a disappointment to many of us to find that the Scottish National Party will again be linking with the Tory Party in an attempt to defeat some of those measures tonight.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the prospects of Scottish shipyard workers could be seriously damaged by undue delay on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill? Will he use what influence he has to see that the Bill's Report stage is reintroduced as soon as possible, despite the intimidating tactics of Mace-waving Tories, aided and abetted by SNP Members who not only join them in the Lobbies but tear up telegrams from trade unionists?

I am one of the sponsors of the Bill, and I am determined, as my colleagues are, that the industries shall be taken into public ownership. The people of Scotland showed by returning Labour Members, particularly in the west of Scotland, that they were determined that such Bills should be put on the statute book. That is what we intend to do.

Does the Minister think that the redundant steel workers in Scotland would agree with him that nationalisation helps to secure and save jobs? Is not all the evidence to the contrary? How can the Government justify the deliberate creation of teacher unemployment in Scotland when they are squandering hundreds of millions of pounds on nationalisation, which will destroy jobs?

The steel workers of Scotland want to see a modernised steel industry. The amount of investment going into Lanarkshire and other places is well received by them. It is always significant to listen to hon. Members make such comments about unemployment when we bear in mind that they voted against all sorts of measures to improve job prospects, such as those concerning Chrysler and British Leyland and Industry Bills and other proposals of that kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representation he has had in the form of submissions on the transport consultative document regarding the function of the traffic commissioners at public hearings; and if he will make a statement.

I have had no such representations. A statement on transport policy will be made later in the year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the provision that gives the right of objection at traffic commissioners' hearings does not include the people who are most adversely affected by cuts in bus services—the users themselves? Does he agree that it is not enough that merely councillors, politicians and Members of Parliament, particularly, should be allowed to make only a brief statement? Should it not be possible for bus company witnesses to be questioned by bus users, particularly where their services are undergoing cuts?

Order. I know that it is a long time since I called the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter).

My hon. Friend keeps a close watch on all the problems in Dunfermline and the surrounding areas. I understand and share some of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend in this case. The solicitor who represented his constituents has complained to the Minister of Transport, but these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I have to advise my hon. Friend to raise the matter with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

My right hon. Friend is, of course, willing to meet the Scottish Council as and when the need arises.

Will the Minister take an early opportunity to discuss with the Scottish Council the net loss of jobs and investment in Scotland that would result if central control of the direction of industry, which is exercised by the Department of Industry through industrial development certificates, were to be replaced by indiscriminate competition between Wales, English regions and Scotland in the event of a devolved or separate Scottish industrial policy?

Over the past few weeks we have made our views clear on the matter of devolving the powers of the SDA to the Assembly. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, we transferred Section 7 powers from the Department of Industry to the Scottish Office some time ago. But it has always been the view of the Government that we ought to preserve the industrial and economic integrity of the United Kingdom, which we generally believe to be to the benefit of each and every one of us.

Does the Minister of State see any continuing rôle for the Scottish Council now that the SDA has got under way? If he does, will he discuss with it the machinery under Section 7, which is allegedly retaining control in his hands for industrial development in Scotland but is still requiring approval by committees in London?

In the last part of his question the hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood the situation. We are willing to discuss with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) the relationship between the SDA and the Scottish Council, apart from promotional efforts, and so on.

If my hon. Friend meets the Scottish Council, will he give it an estimate of the thousands of jobs that would be lost to Scottish workers in the unlikely event of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill being defeated by an unholy alliance of the Tory Party and its new and permanent ally, the Scottish National Party?

Perhaps the Scottish National Party would at some stage like to indicate directly to the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), and perhaps to Scottish trade unionists, why it decided to vote with the Conservative Party against the Government's proposal on aircraft and shipbuilding nationalisation. At the same time, it might also take the opportunity to tell the people of Scotland why it proposes to continue its unholy alliance and vote with the Conservative Party against the Government tonight.

When the Minister meets the Scottish Council, will he explain to it why the Labour Government's policy and the social contract have thrown 52,900 Scots out of work since March 1974? Will he listen to the Scottish Council, and to the advice that it will give him on making Scottish businesses more profitable again by changing the Government's policies, which have been ruining far too many of them?

That question comes rather peculiarly from the hon. Member, who was a member of the Administration that had so much confrontation with working people in Scotland and gave rise to the three-day working week and everything to do with it. The social contract has worked exceedingly well, and the trade unions are to be congratulated on the responsible attitude that they have adopted to the country's economic problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the need to increase the level of assistance to help retired and disabled people retain the use of the telephone.

No such representations have been received. The question of assistance is in, any event, a matter for social work authorities.

Will the Minister accept that there might well be a need for a survey to be carried out by the Government with regard to giving advice to local authorities concerning their duties, in view of the low proportion of money spent on assistance with telephones for retired and disabled people? Does he agree that the increase in costs for telephone users affects very heavily those who are disabled and retired, and that the telephone forms a useful lifeline, particularly where geriatric and other care in the community has been cut?

I do not for a moment deny that there are difficulties at the present time in attempting to satisfy all the requirements for telephones. I hope that the hon. Member will recognise that during the short period of two and a quarter years in which the Government have been in control of the country's affairs they have made an unprecedented improvement in the care of the disabled. I mention very briefly the new non-contributory invalidity pension, the new invalid care allowance, the mobility allowance, and the disabled housewife benefit, which we hope to have next year. There has been a substantial improvement in the care of the disabled.

Although I accept what my hon. Friend said about what the Labour Government have done in relation to disabled and retired people in Scotland, may I ask whether he accepts that local authorities in Scotland have not been carrying out their duties in relation to the supply of telephones to the disabled and the old people? Given the complete separation that the SNP wants, will my hon. Friend say, if he can, what would be the cost to the Scottish people of looking after the disabled people in Scotland?

There are two very distinct questions here. On the first, over the last five years expenditure on social work has increased by 80 per cent., as against 10 per cent. for local authority services generally.

Has the Minister estimated the extent to which telephone charges and television licences in Scotland would increase in cost, particularly as between Scotland and England, in the event of a separate Scotland?

In your interests, Mr. Speaker, I shall not be tempted to go into that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what preparations he is making to meet the need for additional pre-registration posts in medicine and surgery for students who will graduate from the University of Glasgow in 1977.

Discussions with the universities and health authorities have been taking place on both a Great Britain and a Scottish basis, to consider the various possibilities.

Will the Minister confirm that he will meet out of central funds the necessary finance to provide the extra posts and accommodation that will be required?

Our early examination of this problem has shown that there is no need for the additional finance to be provided from central funds. This is not part of the problem. The problem really is that next year at Glasgow University the first of the five-year curriculum students and the last of the six-year curriculum students will be graduating. The requirement is to find posts for them. It has nothing to do with the need to provide additional resources from public funds.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how often since February 1974 requests from district councils in Scotland relating to the sale of council houses have been refused.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to allow tenants to buy their council houses on attractive terms.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with Scottish new town corporations regarding the sale of houses to their tenants; and what encouragement he has given to local authorities to allow tenants to buy their own homes.

Since July 1974, when our present policy was announced, requests for the sale of 258 local authority houses have been received and 161 have been refused.

Does the Minister realise that there is less home ownership in Scotland than in any other country in Western Europe? How does he reconcile the Government's lip service to home ownership and the belief, stated by the Minister just now, that it should be left to local authorities to decide these matters with his statement, also given just now, that more than half the requests from local authorities have been refused by his Government?

The hon. Gentleman can do better than that if he tries a little harder. We are not paying lip service to anything. The housing problems of Scotland are too serious to be sloganised about. Part of an overall strategy could perhaps include the building of more houses for sale, even by the public sector, and possibly include the sale of some council houses. But the problems must be seen in the context of a wider and more fundamental approach to the housing problem.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend on coming to office and recognising so soon that the most deprived area in any country in Europe is the East End of Glasgow. I also congratulate them on the swift manner—

Order. Whoever is to be congratulated, it is not me, at the rate at which we are moving. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to ask a question?

I have no objection to being congratulated. It does not happen too often. However, I welcome what my hon. Friend said. I think that there has been a marvellous response to the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend. Even within that area we shall be giving consideration to the extension of private ownership as part of the overall strategy.

In view of the very serious problems in Scotland, compared with any other country in Western Europe, does the hon. Gentleman realise that if he encouraged and advised local authorities in this matter he would give them a chance to cure the lack of mobility of employment in Scotland, create a personal interest in home ownership, and also encourage more variety in the supply of houses?

The only point the hon. Gentleman makes that is worthy of consideration is the one about mobility. I accept that. It is quite wrong to think that the selling of some council houses will provide us with an instant solution to many of the social and environmental problems in some public sector housing. The financial implications in housing revenue accounts, subsidies and the availability of mortgage funds have all to be taken into account.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall the Government's circular issued on 7th July 1974 deliberately discouraging the selling of council houses? Is he aware that since then sales have dropped from 2,248 in 1973 to only 277 last year? In view of the fact that a recent survey in a Scottish newspaper showed that 80 per cent. of Scots wished to own their own homes, does he not think that the Government are flying in the face of what people in Scotland actually want?

That is cheek, coming from the hon. Gentleman. The Daily Record survey did not publish the number of people who had been consulted. I am awaiting those details with interest. It is all very well to say that that was the view of 80 per cent. of those who replied. They may have been only a handful of people. Among the disastrous policies which the hon. Gentleman pursued when in office were his Government's housing policies during the period between 1970 and 1974. We are not discouraging local authorities, but we certainly thought that that was not the right priority in providing housing for the people of Scotland.

Will my hon. Friend consider recommending sales of casual vacancies with vacant possession in order to test the market?

I am not too sure what that means. I had better give a qualified answer and say that if my hon. Friend has any ideas on it I shall look at them with great interest.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that all he has done today has been to confuse the issue? Why, on the the one hand, does he say that he is giving discretion to local authorities and, on the other hand, refuse something like half the applications that local authorities make to him?

We have not given complete discretion to local authorities. I never said that we had done so. I am merely saying that they are required to submit applications and that we look at them in the light of a number of factors, including building programmes and waiting lists. I think that that is eminently satisfactory, and most local authorities accept it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will convene a special meeting with all Scottish fishing interests to report on progress made at the Law of the Sea Conference and to consider any fresh proposals to put forward when the conference resumes.

This was discussed at a meeting that my right hon. Friend and I had with representatives of the fishing industry on 28th May, and I do not think that a further meeting on this specific aspect of policy is necessary meantime.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the changed circumstances arising out of the Foreign Secretary's announcement this week about the Icelandic dispute bring a new element into the discussion, and would not it be better for any further consideration to be conducted on that basis?

Perhaps I may refer to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said on 7th June. He made the specific point that we were taking into account the changed circumstances following the agreement with Iceland, and he gave an assurance that we would be having consultations with the industry in both the short term and the long term.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the nature of his reply to the representations by the Monklands District Council calling for legislation to provide for the payment of full-time members of local authorities.

My noble Friend Lord Kirkhill replied on 2nd June to a letter on the subject from my hon. Friend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposal from the Monk-lands District Council arises because some of its members who are experienced workers have become redundant due to industrial closures and find employers most unhelpful in providing alternative jobs? In the circumstances, will my hon. Friend discuss fully with the Convention of Local Authorities in Scotland both this aspect and the financial loss that members of local authorities are suffering at present?

I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's views. As one who served on a local authority for a period in the city of Glasgow, I am well aware of the sacrifices made by many people serving on local authorities. Even with the £10 allowance, which has tax and other deductions made from it many people are making a financial sacrifice to serve their local authorities, and they do not get credit for it. As regards discrimination against the people whom my hon. Friend mentioned, I have no evidence to substantiate that claim, but this is a matter that could be discussed at the next meeting with the convention to see whether any help could be offered.

Is the hon. Gentleman collecting figures about the amounts paid in attendance allowances by each authority? If he is, is the figure more or less than he expected, and are the Government considering the substitution of salaries for attendance allowances?

The question of salaries was not included in the last review. As for the collecting of information about the amounts paid out, I have not yet had that information presented to me. I am prepared to assist the hon. Gentleman, if necessary, but I should point out that, even with the amounts paid, most councillors serving local authorities in Scotland are still making a tremendous sacrifice to look after the affairs of local government.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Woodside, Perthshire.

My right hon. Friend has, at present, no plans to do so.

Will the hon. Gentleman instruct the Scottish Office to cut through the red tape that is presently holding up the reconstruction of the Damhead Bridge between Woodside and Coupar Angus? Is he aware of the ludicrous traffic situation that now exists, in which heavy oil-related traffic has to use back roads to get to and through Coupar Angus?

I am conscious of the problem. The hon. Gentleman has raised it with my right hon. and hon. Friends before. However, he knows that this is a matter that he should raise with the Tayside Regional Council, which is responsible for the work.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy toward those recommendations of the Layfield Report which affect the proposed Scottish Assembly.

The Government's examination of the recommendations of the Layfield Report is going ahead. I have nothing to add at this stage to what my right hon. Friend told the House on 26th May in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan).

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the Government's attitude will be to the rating of agricultural land either under a devolved Scotland or in the present situation? Would it not be a further intolerable problem for Scottish agriculture?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to give an answer on one aspect of the Layfield Report. We have asked for comments on the recommendations as a whole. When we have them, we shall make a considered statement, and I have no doubt that we shall say what we think about that and other matters.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that it would be unrealistic to make any radical change in local government finance in Scotland until we get rid of the ludicrous regional authorities, such as the one controlling Strathcylde?

No, I do not agree with that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the implementation of phase 1 and phase 2 of the East Fife Regional Road.

This road will form part of a revised trunk road pattern in Fife, which was recently agreed with the regional council. The preparation of the necessary trunk road orders is in hand and the regional council has been asked to complete the preparation of the Thornton bypass. It will probably be the first scheme to be carried out.

Is the Minister aware that the contract documents stage of the road will be reached in the autumn of this year? In view of the long delays which this project has suffered under several Governments, will he give an assurance that the road can be started at least not later than 1978?

I can give an assurance on the latter point, but, to be realistic, the starting date in my estimation will probably be nearer 1979–80. The intention is that the work should proceed in phases. It is desirable that there should be no undue delay, but that has to be considered in terms of the road programme and the finance available.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sums of money allocated for improvements annually at Arbroath Infirmary over the past five years, giving figures for other comparable hospitals of the same grade and status in Scotland.

This information is not readily available, but Tayside Health Board has provided the relevant information on improvements in hospitals within its area. As this is in the form of

asked the Lord Advocate what result emerged from his official visit to the courts in Glasgow in May.

I visited the Glasgow District Court in March. I was pleased with the state of the prosecution in that court, and the figures that I have subsequently received show that the position is still improving. There is room yet for improvement but I am hopeful that by the end of the year there will no longer be any delay in bringing cases before that court.

Has the Lord Advocate noted the recent Rotary Tools trial in the Glasgow Sheriff Court, which appears to have cost the taxpayer a scandalous amount in administrative and legal costs? Will he consider ways in which such justified prosecutions can be undertaken at less cost?

I am investigating the matter of the cost of the trial. On the major issue that the hon. Gentleman put to me, it is only fair to say that the nature and gravity of this case made it necessary for it to be taken in a court higher than a summary court. One of the

Is the Minister aware of the enormous wave of protest throughout the Arbroath district against the Tayside Health Board's proposal to downgrade the status and function of Arbroath Infirmary? Will he ensure that no decision will be taken without full consideration being given to the views of the people of Arbroath?

I am aware of the wave of protest in Arbroath, as is the regional health board. All considerations will be taken into account before a decision is reached.

In view of the sensitivity of Scots law to the rights of the accused, will the Lord Advocate look at the practice in Glasgow courts by which persons not eligible for or admitted to bail are allowed to lay in for 110 days and, because the prosecution is not ready, are then released without bail?

That is the first suggestion that I have heard that a practice of that kind exists in Glasgow. Perhaps the hon. Lady will write to me about it. It is a matter of such importance that I am surprised that she has not written to me about it before.

Does the Lord Advocate agree that the recent Rotary Tools trial is a clear indication of private enterprise?

I can only say that it is not the kind of private enterprise that I should wish to condone.

Does the Lord Advocate agree that in the Rotary Tools trial the employees of private industry were dealt with more severely by their companies than were the employees of nationalised industries involved in the trial.

I doubt whether that is true. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table a specific Question on that matter.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the trial were published in paper book form quite a bit of the money could be recouped for the Scottish Office?

It is right to refute any suggestion that the cost of trial was excessive. But I am looking into the matter.

asked the Lord Advocate what steps are being taken to review the identification procedure in criminal cases.

Along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland I am considering the recommendations of the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure in Scotland and those of the Devlin Committee for England and Wales in so far as they may be relevant for Scotland.

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer. Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety in England and Scotland over identification in recent cases, including the Meehan case? When he says that he is considering the Devlin Report in so far as it is applicable to Scotland, can he explain in which ways it is not applicable to Scotland?

Perhaps the most obvious distinction between England and Scotland in this respect is the Scottish insistence on corroboration. That is a vital safeguard. In England one can be put in gaol for a substantial period on the evidence of one eyewitness alone, but that situation cannot arise in Scotland. I am looking into these matters. It does not follow that because we have this great safeguard of corroboration we should be complacent. There are many other matters to be examined.

I agree that we should not be complacent. However, will the Lord Advocate make it clear that the positions in Scotland and England are so different that the people of Scotland should not be panicked by recent visual identification cases in England which have nothing to do with a vocal identification case in Scotland?

For the first time I am in unqualified agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Will the Lord Advocate refuse to be stampeded into taking measures that will not redound to the benefit of the people of Scotland? There have been a number of cases in Scotland and England in which the benefit of the doubt has been given, but that does not confer innocence. It merely means that the person is not guilty. Can the Lord Advocate ensure that eye witness identification will still play an important part in the proceedings?

I agree with my hon. Friend's last point, but I think that he was treading on treacherous ground on the earlier part of his question. It is extremely difficult and dangerous to go into the merits of cases in which the Royal Prerogative has been exercised, and there are sound reasons for the practice not to do so.

Does the Lord Advocate agree that there is no machinery in Scotland for ordering a new trial if new evidence comes to light having a bearing on the innocence of a man who is in prison? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be making proposals based on the Thomson Report?

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a weakness in the Scottish law. It is one of the matters that we are looking into.