asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to assist the Fife Health Board to acquire central headquarters.

Premises in Kirkcaldy, for adaptation as the central headquarters for Fife Health Board, were acquired in June 1975. When the board's proposal was approved in principle in 1974, an undertaking was given that part of the cost of adaptation, as then estimated, would be met by an additional financial allocation. I understand that the board is at present considering the alternatives of adaptations and new purpose-built premises.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a long waiting list for orthopaedic beds in Fife and a great urgency for more geriatric beds? Until the new central headquarters is provided, a fair amount of hospital accommodation will be used for administrative purposes. Will my hon. Friend do everything possible to assist the board in reaching a decision and getting the necessary finance to start the new building?

To a certain extent my hon. Friend has got to the kernel of the problem. The problem is not so much the need for a new headquarters building as for geriatric beds and other urgent medical facilities. We shall give the highest possible priority to that, bearing in mind the need for a central headquarters building. We accept that the fragmentation in three different towns is not an economic proposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received to date in connection with his recent proposals for reductions in teacher training facilities and colleges of education.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received to date regarding the future of Craigie College of Education, Ayr; and if he will make a statement.

I have received over 700 letters and petitions about my proposals, of which over 400 include references to Craigie College.

In view of the fact that the majority of Scots Members on the Scottish Grand Committee have expressed no confidence in the consultative document, will the Secretary of State say whether any impartial authority in Scotland has suggested that the highly efficient, popular, fully subscribed and purpose-built college of physical education at Cramond should be transferred to the hopelessly inadequate facilities at Dundee at a cost of somewhere in the region of £1 million?

I wonder whether there is any impartial authority in Scotland on anything. As I said in Committee upstairs, I shall take account of all the representations made to me.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, following his rejection by the Scottish Grand Committee last week, the people in these colleges expect him to adopt a completely new approach to his plan as expressed in the consultative document? Would he be prepared to look at the representations already made and to receive representations from local authorities which may wish to see him on the subject?

My hon. Friend has had a number of meetings and I, too, shall have a number in the next couple of weeks. Obviously, we shall listen to all the representations made to us. All I would say is what I have said already on a number of occasions—that there must be a substantial contraction in the teacher training service in Scotland.

Does not the Secretary of State realise that there is widespread opposition to the proposals in the consultative document among the staffs, students, boards of governors, trade unions and church leaders because of a lack of any educational case or even a financial case in that document? In view of the lack of confidence in the Scottish Education Department, would it not be better to set up an independent body to investigate the whole structure of tertiary education in Scotland instead of closing down colleges or merging them?

I cannot accept that criticism. Obviously, at the colleges affected by the closures there will be strong feelings against the proposals. There is nothing extraordinary about that. As I have said, however, there must be a substantial reduction in the teacher training system in Scotland—that is very much in the interests of the students—otherwise we will be simply taking on people to become qualified teachers when there are no jobs available for them at the end of the day.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, while the people of Scotland are coming to expect more and more betrayals from this House, they will feel—and it is high time the Government recognised this—that the biggest betrayal of all is of educational services in Scotland? When can we expect the Secretary of State to give replies to the detailed points raised in Committee so that we can relay them back to the people concerned?

I reject the first criticism absolutely. We now have in Scotland the best pupil-teacher ratios that we have ever had. We have also eliminated part-time education for the first time for many years. Those factors should be taken into account.

What representations has my right hon. Friend received on the consultative document from the General Teaching Council?

I am meeting representatives of the General Teaching Council on Monday 7th March, when no doubt they will let me know their views in detail. I gather that they have had a meeting and taken certain decisions, but I am not aware so far that I have actually read the representations which they have made to me.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that his totally inadequate consultative document fails to grasp the educational opportunities which the temporary fall in pupil numbers presents? When will he produce a proper consultative document with the financial facts and with details of opportunities for new educational advancement and a scheme to spread the fall in numbers over 10 colleges, particularly three big ones—Jordanhill, Moray House and Dundee?

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his debut on the Front Bench at Scottish Question Time. That was a very well-prepared question. I wish that it was worth answering.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the development of the Scottish mackerel industry.

Last year there were substantial increases both in landings and in first-hand sales for human consumption. It is too early to make a firm statement about 1977.

Is the Minister aware of the gross over-fishing by Scottish boats now taking place off the Cornish coast? Does he agree that the industrial techniques which are being used can lead only to the bankruptcy of the Cornish mackerel industry in exactly the same way as they have already led to the bankruptcy of the Scottish herring industry? Has he any powers to deal with this problem? If so, is he prepared to use them?

I am always being told that Scottish fishermen are paragons of virtue and do not engage in any illicit or illegal practices. Apart from the recent prosecutions, which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, included other than Scottish boats, there is no reason why boats should not fish legally for mackerel in the permitted limits.

indicated dissent.

That is a matter of opinion. It is one of the things under consideration in relation to future quotas under the common fisheries policy. Obviously, we want to conserve even stocks of mackerel, which are now becoming increasingly popular.

I agree about conservation, but has the Minister studied the case last week when some of my constituents appeared in court in Cornwall? Does he intend to make any representations against the appalling fines levied on them there, about the fact that one of the magistrates indicated a preference before the case, and about the fact that the local fisheries officer had told the court that he was out to "get the Scots"?

I am not surprised at that further expression of inflammatory anti-English sentiments by the hon. Member. I regret any fisherman being found illegally fishing, whether he is a Scottish fisherman or not. It does no service to the fishing industry of this country if hon. Members will not oppose the idea of anyone fishing illegally.

Does not this episode prove conclusively that the well-being of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom is a matter for the United Kingdom and that the Scots, the English, the Irish and the Welsh have a common interest in getting a sensible fisheries policy?

Yes, there is no doubt that there will be increasing pressure on certain species, including stocks of mackerel, simply because of the reduction in the availability of stocks of other species. The Scottish fishermen are to be congratulated not only on the fact that last year they caught more mackerel in Scottish waters but, more important, on the fact that more of the fish are going for human consumption.

Would not the Minister agree that incidents like this could become more frequent unless we can solve the problem of exclusive limits? Has he anything new to report on that? Has he any hope to offer that we might reach a conclusion in the near future in the discussions in the EEC?

It is asking the impossible, I suppose, to expect the hon. Member to give any credit to this Government for anything, but we have made considerable progress with various conservation measures in the EEC. I should have thought that he would welcome that, because it is the basis of our policy. In discussions within the EEC we have even reserved our national interest.

Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's view on moral grounds that one cannot argue from a Scottish fisherman's point of view for protection for the Scottish inshore fleet and at the same time deny the same protection to the Cornish fisherman?

That sounds so philosophical that I am not sure what my hon. Friend means.

Just say "Yes."

If I knew what the question meant, I might be able to do so. There are peculiar, local, even unique circumstances about the method of fishing by people in Cornwall. I should like to see them preserved. I do not think that that is inconsistent with sound conservation measures outside the limits.

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

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

Does the Minister agree that, in view of the disreputable massacre inflicted last night on the Government's excellent Scotland and Wales Bill by Scottish Conservative and Scottish Liberal Members—I agree that he might find this difficult to answer—it would be equally disreputable to get rid of the local hospital in Glencoe? Will he accept that one of the worst aspects of the reorganisation of local health organisations in Scotland is the increase in centralisation, against which we must fight?

After that supplementary question, I can imagine that there might be a desire in Glencoe to get rid of several local features, possibly at the next election. The hon. Gentleman received a copy of the consultative document published by the area health board, which is due to meet next on 18th March. If there is any proposal to close the local hospital at Glencoe, that will come to my right hon. Friend and will have to be approved by him. The hon. Gentleman should not get excited prematurely.

Is the Minister aware that the Glencoe hospital covers a big chunk of my constituency? Can he at least assure us that when the matter comes before his right hon. Friend, the representations against the closure will be fully and carefully considered?

Yes, I can certainly give that assurance.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the massacre at Glencoe was a massacre of Scots by Scots? Is it true that it is called the "Glen of Weeping", after the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick)?

One lesson that I have learned in politics is never to become involved in domestic disputes.

If the Minister will not go to Glencoe, will he go further and visit the Western Isles, where people are facing fares increases on the ferries which are greater than the increases allowed under the Government's policy? Are they covered by the Price Code, and, if so, what will the Minister do about the matter?

That is a totally different question. If the hon. Member is so interested in the subject, I should have thought that he would take the trouble to put down a Question.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the massacre last night came about as a result of the actions of a few of my hon. Friends taking a principled stand on the matter, allied with a successful attempt by the Tory Party, acting in unison, whiplashed into the Lobby by the Leader of the Opposition, not on the basis of devolution but almost entirely in a desire to inflict an electoral embarrassment on the Labour Government?

I can think of no better way to put that than the way in which my hon. Friend has just put it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what statutory duty is imposed on local authorities to investigate complaints from local authority house tenants regarding the conduct of neighbouring tenants; and if he will make a statement.

The investigation of complaints is one aspect of the management functions vested in local housing authorities by Section 149 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem of neighbour trouble among council house tenants is growing at an alarming rate and that many tenants are living in a state of tension and misery? Does he agree that the housing authorities have little power in the matter and have no statutory right to intervene in cases where individuals are involved in noise disturbance and verbal abuse? Since parents are allowed to attend children's hearings and to attend committees dealing with school attendance defaulters, does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities should have the power to form committees or panels for people with individual complaints against others?

I can sympathise with my hon. Friend. This is one of the most difficult human problems facing housing authorities. Housing authorities do, however, have powers—I am not suggesting that eviction cures the problem—which are in my opinion adequate at present to deal with a human problem which should obviously also involve social workers.

Does the Minister agree that the problems outlined by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter) could be improved if he gave more encouragement to more Scottish local authorities to sell council houses to sitting tenants and thus give them more interest in themselves, their houses and their neighbours?

No. That is a doctrinal approach. With respect, I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the problems in some housing estates—

Disgraceful. Withdraw.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having served on a Scottish—

At the end of Question Time.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's feeling, but perhaps he would be kind enough to wait until the end of Questions.

I shall repeat what I said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I said that I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has knowledge of many of the housing estates where the greatest problems are—[Interruption.] It is a more diplomatic way of saying that he does not know anything about the problem. I have already said that I have a lot of sympathy with authorities which are battling with this problem, but it certainly will not be solved simply by selling council houses.

Order. As a fellow Celt, I appreciate the difficulty of being brief, but I would appreciate questions and answers being a little briefer.

Since investigating complaints requires housing managers, have the Government yet considered the report on housing management of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, which stated that it was appalled by the low level of professional training in Scottish local authorities? In view of that report, can the hon. Gentleman promise the House an early response to the recommendation that the central Government should become more involved in the training of housing staff?

As my hon. Friend knows, it was through the initiative and encouragement of this Government that the Scottish Advisory Committee was asked to treat housing management and, indeed, its improvement, including professional training, as a priority. Since the report was published only a week ago, I cannot yet give a response to it. But I treat this as a matter of urgency and I shall respond to it sympathetically.

In reference to the difficulties of housing management, is the Minister aware—if he is aware of anything—of the desperate shortage of trained housing managers in Scotland? Will he give a definite assurance that he will take action on the SHAC report?

I have already said that I shall respond to it as sympathetically as possible, but whatever problems we have in housing management they are Scottish problems created by an indifference of too many people to attempting to solve them. There is no political mileage in it for the Scottish National Party. Yes, we shall respond sympathetically and urgently, because housing management and its improvement is one of our housing priorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the estimated level of rates in the current year.

For the present financial year I have nothing to add to the information given to the hon. Gentleman on 21st October 1976. For the next financial year I am confident that local authorities will react responsibly to the Government's advice that expenditure should be stringently controlled and rate increases kept to the minimum compatible with maintenance of reasonable standards.

Is the Minister aware that the present level of rates is causing immense hardship to individuals, to industry and to commerce? As the Government only yesterday announced new proposals to restrict increases in prices, and as we already have controls on dividends, wages and rents, can he tell the ratepayers of Scotland why he has not put a ceiling on rate increases for next year?

It has been interesting, as information has come forward in recent weeks about proposed rate increases for next year, that the increases on the whole—although, of course, the situation varies from one authority to another—have been rather less than was originally forecast. For example, Glasgow yesterday stated that the proposed rate increase there might be only 3p in the pound and Monkland district said that there would be a reduction of 1p in the pound. I believe, therefore, that authorities are paying attention to the exhortations that they have had from the Goverment to exercise due economy in the coming year and that that is the best way to proceed.

First, does the Secretary of State agree that he has a duty to explain to the people of Scotland that it was the Scottish Conservative Party which created the regional tier of local government in Scotland which has caused many of these problems? Secondly, does he agree that one of the worst features of Strathclyde at present is that it is run by the Labour Party? Thirdly, does he agree that the most successful local authority in Scotland to keep down the rates is the Cumbernauld district, which is run by the Scottish National Party?

I do not agree with the last two of those questions. On the first, I do not think that it is necessary for me to explain to the House such iniquities as are in the Local Government Act 1973 since the hon. Gentleman does it so coherently.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy regarding the granting of planning permission for the storage of nuclear waste.

In any such case the planning authority would no doubt wish to be assured—as I would, if I were to call the case in—that the nature and scale of the proposals were acceptable and in particular that the waste would be stored safely and without harming the environment.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable public concern which exists about the possible health hazards resulting from such storage? In order to set at rest public anxiety on this matter, could he give some indication of the criteria that would guide him in allowing planning permission for storage and in allowing planning permission for prospecting for possible storage sites?

That latter question is a a matter for the local authority, not for me. Unless a planning application is called in all planning matters are in the first instance for the local authority con- cerned. It is not for me to intervene unless it is absolutely necessary. Concerning safety and other aspects, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to one of his hon. Friends on 10th February indicating the statutory provisions under which I, as Secretary of State, operate at the moment and would operate in the future. In all these matters, I know that there is public concern and feeling.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say anything about the discussions that the Government have had with the European Community on this difficult issue?

The particular exploration programme that affects the South of Scotland, for example, and other parts of the United Kingdom at present is something that is being done with EEC co-operation. It is not even a United Kingdom effort. It is an international effort, because there is a joint responsibility not only at EEC level but, I think, even wider than that, of all nuclear nations to find satisfactory solutions to the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste. We approach this matter with the intention of having—as we have at present—the most rigorous standards of safety.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in this matter and in the related question of uranium mining his assurance that he will have the greatest concern for the environment is very welcome? Will he also assure us that, as well as the safety angle, he will take into fullest consideration the views of local inhabitants affected, and particularly the structure plans which have been drawn up with such tremendous efforts in these areas?

Yes. Again, I have to have regard to all these matters. In the particular case of the controversy over Orkney, I do not think that I should say anything more at present, because, as I think the right hon. Gentleman recognises, in certain circumstances I might have a quasi-judicial planning function to carry out. However, I shall take fully into account all the matters that have been mentioned by hon. Members.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I am very glad that he has made this reassuring statement to the people of Scotland in relation to test borings and nuclear waste? Will he also bring home to the Harwell laboratory the fact that it must not prospect and carry out boring operations without planning permission in the near future?

I think that in this case the local authority has taken the view—about which I understand that at an earlier point there was some dispute—that planning permission is in fact required. Certainly that is now what is happening. However, I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that on some of these matters involving individual applications it is difficult for me to say anything without appearing to prejudge an issue that will ultimately come before me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm with regard to the expansion of the nuclear programme that we are now looking for disposal sites because of the CEGB's programme? Will he also confirm that Scotland is well endowed with generating capacity for many years to come?

No, I do not think that I could say that, because, proportionately, Scotland has rather more nuclear power at present than have England and Wales, and that would certainly be true if the SGHWR or another generating station went ahead at Torness. This is not an English problem. Scottish waste is going to England for disposal now.

Considering that the vast majority of the people of Galloway, and probably of South Ayrshire as well, are utterly opposed to having a nuclear dump in our hills, is it not the case that this scheme of test borings is a complete waste of time and energy because the results will never be applicable in our hills?

I do not know whether I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. Again, I do not want to prejudge the issue. However, as far as I am aware, the people of Galloway and South Scotland are at present happy to have the benefits of cheap nuclear power from Hunterston.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Russian fishing vessels are at present fishing within 200 miles of the Scottish coast.

The latest information indicates that there are some 16 Russian fishing vessels currently within 200 miles of the Scottish coast.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while we can be grateful for the steps taken to reduce the Russian fishing fleet, there is a real worry that as fast as the Russian boats are put out EEC boats will come in to take their place?

No, I do not accept that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the work done in the introduction of a licensing system for non-EEC countries. That is something for which we are entitled to some credit. It is obviously in the interests of conservation to ensure that no country, whichever it may be, is able to exploit stocks to the extent that exploitation has taken place in the past.

In this regard, when does the hon. Gentleman propose to introduce the order to ban the landing of ungutted haddock in Scotland's ports? What representations has he had on this matter from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the producers' organisations?

An Anglo-Russian chairman.

I should say, for the benefit—

That is about as low as you can get.

Order.

I should say, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that haddock has nothing to do with Russian fishing vessels. Seriously, however, agreement was reached at a meeting on 4th February. I understand that the industry, which is fairly divided on this issue, is having second thoughts. A meeting is to take place tomorrow, so we are still giving consideration to whether or when to introduce an order.

I take the Minister's point that he is in favour of conservation on a non-discriminatory basis. What is his reaction to the Irish Government's proposal that vessels in excess of 110 ft. in length, from whatever country, should be prevented from fishing within 50 miles of the Irish coast? Is there not here the germ of an idea which could be developed for our own fishing industry?

I cannot win on this one, because of the blatant exploitation for vote purposes by the SNP. I should prefer it if hon. Members recognised that conservation measures have to be varied, perhaps, depending on the circumstances of each country. Therefore, that is the basis for the Irish proposals, and I would not dissent from what they have done.

While accepting the conservation measures that the Government have already taken, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say what talks have taken place with regard to policing, the type of gear used and the sizes of the nets actually being used?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is one of the conservation measures that we have introduced. It is certainly a priority, along with the other conservation measures, because the size of nets is an important factor in our policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent report commissioned by the Scottish Home and Health Department showing that Scotland has the worst record of dental disease in Western Europe.

The most recent relevant report is that published in 1974 on "Adult Dental Health in Scotland 1972". It records that in Scotland 44 per cent. of adults were without natural teeth as compared with 37 per cent. in England and Wales. No comparison is made with the rest of Europe, for which comparable statistics are not available. A number of measures have been introduced since the report which, it is hoped, will lead to an improvement in dental health.

Does my hon. Friend agree that according to medical opinion dental decay adversely affects the lives of our people? Is he aware that according to recent statistics Scotland has the worst rate of dental decay among Western European countries? Will he encourage local authorities to act, and will he assure them that additional funds will be provided from the Exchequer to enable them to do so?

I certainly cannot assure any local authorities that additional funds will be available from the Exchequer for any aspect of policy. However, the specific point raised by my hon. Friend is really one of research. We have made arrangements for an advisory dental research unit to be set up in one of the three dental teaching hospitals in Scotland to assess the effective use of dental procedures and related health services in order to try to bring about a very much needed improvement in dental health in Scotland.

Is it not tragic that, almost 30 years after the foundation of the National Health Service, almost half of Scottish adults have no natural teeth? Given the failure of all advisory commissions followed by all Governments up to now, what reason does the Minister have for supposing that this new advisory unit will make any significant difference to the problem?

Whatever steps we take in this matter, we must depend on the co-operation of the people themselves. If people do not take an interest in their own dental health, there is not much that any Government can do about it. As in so many other aspects of life, the responsibility is with the individual.

Does my hon. Friend recollect that in Kilmarnock a pilot study was carried out of the advantage of adding fluoride to the water supply, which showed that dental caries could be cut by half? Will my hon. Friend further encourage local authorities to add fluoride to the water supply, and will he make some money available to see that this can be done as quickly as possible?

The one thing that I know about Kilmarnock—my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is not present—is that everyone there has his wisdom teeth. However, on the question of the fluoridation of water, we have asked the health boards—whose responsibility basically it is to encourage the local authorities—to draw this matter to the attention of local authorities again, in the hope that local authorities will give it the most serious consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in the last five years prisoners in Scotland have escaped from custody while being transported between prison and the courts.

On five occasions.

Does the Minister agree that there has been widespread concern throughout the United Kingdom following the escape of William Hughes in Leicester and the horrible events that followed, and that if the Home Secretary had been asked about prisoner transportation security immediately before that happened he would probably have said that he was satisfied? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House that in Scotland, as in England, the matter is being looked at again very carefully?

Yes, Sir. I can tell the House with some assurance that since the Hughes escape we have had a look at the procedures for the transport of prisoners between establishments and courts and are satisfied that they are adequate. But we are interested to see the outcome of the Hughes inquiry, and if there are any aspects of that inquiry that we feel could be implemented in Scotland to increase security we shall take steps to implement them. We regard it as a very serious matter, and we have a close watch on it.

As most prisoners on their way to and from the courts in Scotland are normally held in reception boxes in Scottish prisons, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity of answering Question No. 23, in my name?

In a sense that would be unfair, but I can say that there have been major improvements to those reception boxes.

When the Minister is considering this very important problem, in view of the excellent record that Scotland has in comparison with England, will he—not to make any nationalist point—advise the English that we have a rather good way of getting our prisoners to court and back again in custody, and that to transport them in individual taxis as is done in England asks for the problems which have tragically arisen?

There is close liaison between the Home Office and the Scottish Office on all aspects of security. I am sure that the Home Office will be interested to see how we conduct our procedures in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the allocation of money for the next financial year to Ayrshire and Arran Health Board; and if he will make a statement.

Under the terms of the interim report of the Working Party on Revenue Resource Allocation, the Ayrshire and Arran Health Board will receive an increased allocation for the next financial year. All health boards will be notified of their allocations as soon as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement showing a substantial increase in the money to be allocated to the board next year will be much welcomed by my constituents? Does he realise that this is the first victory in the Lambie campaign against the Glasgow Mafia to get a fair deal for the people of Ayrshire and that I, too, welcome his statement today?

I am not sure about that compliment. We have had a working party looking at the allocation of resources to the various health boards in Scotland, and it is as a result of that first look at the allocation of resources that the Ayrshire and Arran Health Board will receive this increased allocation. I am very grateful for the complimentary remarks my hon. Friend made in the latter part of his supplementary question.

Will the Minister assure me that some of the increase will go to the Island of Arran to look after the hospital services there, and that it will not all go to Central Ayrshire?

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows about the massive expansion programme that is going on in my hon. Friend's constituency. Some of the increased resources will go to community medicine projects as well, but the use of the resources is primarily a matter for the health board.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Coupar Angus.

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

The Minister will be aware that Coupar Angus straddles one of the main oil routes from Aberdeen to the South. Is he also aware of the shocking state of the road and of the potholes in it and in the related roads? Will he instruct the Scottish Development Department immediately to give the Tayside Regional Council £500,000 which it requires to repair the road? We on the SNP Bench will not take public expenditure cuts from this Government or the rag tag and bobtail of the Conservative Party.

I shall confine my remarks to roads. Expenditure on road maintenance is normally revenue expenditure, which is under the control of the regional authority. For capital expenditure on road works, including improvements, the region was given £3·4 million in 1976–77. The allocation for 1977–78 is £3·25 million. It is for the region to decide how it wishes to spend that money, either on improvements or on creating new roads.

Will my hon. Friend persuade the Secretary of State to go to the village of Blairgowrie, very close to Coupar Angus, and visit Mr. John McEwan, who is carrying out a massive study of land ownership in Scotland? As the information is available in the Scottish Office, will my hon. Friend now publish it so that we may see the exact power of the landlords and landowners in Scotland?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend. I shall take his comments into consideration.

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, because of the particularly difficult weather conditions this winter, roads in areas such as that under discussion have taken a tremendously heavy hammering, as anyone who uses them must know? Will he give an assurance that in connection with oil-related development special consideration will be given to roads which are subjected to heavy traffic going to the oil areas—particularly the A94—in order to help local authorities in those areas?

We have the extraordinary expenses allocation within the rate support grant for oil-related areas, but we are under expenditure constraints. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we have increased the expenditure by a little for 1977–78, to the sum of £3·25 million for Tayside at least.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which ministerial posts in the Scottish Office will no longer be required if the Scotland and Wales Bill is enacted and a Scottish Assembly established; and what functions are attached to them.

The number of ministerial posts in the Scottish Office, as elsewhere, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

I am surprised that the Question was not transferred. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, with eight Ministers in the Scottish Office, Scotland has a greater direct involvement in government than any other part of the United Kingdom? After last night's vote, does he not think that he should reconsider the fact that if there is an Assembly in Edinburgh Scotland's influence and involvement in the United Kingdom are bound to be seriously diminished? [Interruption.]

As my hon. Friend says, it is the supplementary question that should have been transferred. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. There are only six ministerial posts in the Scottish Office, not eight.

What about the Law Officers?

They are not part of the Scottish Office. There is not likely to be any increase in the number of Ministers. There may be a reduction.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many people who are in favour of devolution in Scotland are none the less concerned about the great increase in the number of politicians and civil servants foreshadowed in the Bill, and that unless there is a clear reduction in the powers and scope of the Scottish Office and in his own position devolution will not be genuine but a sham?

There will be a considerable reduction in the responsibilities of the Secretary of State when the Bill is enacted. That will be reflected in the number of civil servants in the Scottish Office, and no doubt also in the number of Ministers who will remain as Scottish Office Ministers. But the latter point is not really a matter for me. One of the most interesting features of last night's vote was the way in which the Liberal Party ratted on its pledges.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it seems very curious for the Liberal Party to try to justify its shabby and unprincipled behaviour last night on the basis of the number of Ministers who might be talked about in a Question today? Is not this even stranger than the argument advanced yesterday by Liberal Members that they wanted a concession on proportional representation, which was advanced in the House and defeated? Are they not slightly mixed up?

I think that they are rather more than slightly mixed up. My impression yesterday was that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and his right hon. and hon. Friends—for whatever reasons seemed sensible to them, but they were rather obscure to the rest of us—were anxious to betray their election pledges. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman wanted to do that.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the House is anxiously awaiting a further statement of definition of the Government's intentions in relation to the devolution Bill? In view of his support for the measure and the fact that it was in his manifesto for the last General Election, will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge that he will vacate his own office of Secretary of State as a question of principle if the Government abandon the Bill?

I do not think that we are inviting applications for Secretary of State yet. As for a general statement, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear last night that we shall continue with the Bill tomorrow. There is a day's debate ahead of us, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like the rest of us, is looking forward to that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the nonsense from the Liberals last night, given the support of other parties the Government theoretically had a majority of over 30 and that the Labour Party cannot evade its responsibility for the loss of the guillotine last night?

What I take into account in all this—and what will no doubt be reflected in any statement about the Bill subsequently made by the Government—is that the Bill now before the House had a substantial majority on Second Reading.