asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now prepare definite proposals for a relief road for Montrose; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend's decision to transfer the trunk road to the inland route means that this will be a matter for Tayside Regional Council. A line for the relief road has still to be fixed.

Is the Minister aware that the reporter described the situation in Montrose as intolerable and recommended that the making of the order should be delayed for three years in order that an improvement to the relief road could be carried out? May we have an assurance, under the decision that the Secretary of State has taken, that when that improvement is carried out it will qualify for help from central Government funds, because it is something which is absolutely essential?

I am aware of the difficulties in the Montrose area. My noble Friend who deals with roads on a day-to-day basis at the Scottish Office is prepared to increase capital expenditure guidelines for roads and transport to allow the regional council to construct an inner relief road. He will treat this expenditure as eligible for any assistance towards the cost of oil-related works which may be available at the time of construction.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread disappointment in South Angus with his decision to de-trunk the Dundee-Arbroath A92 road, which is badly in need of upgrading and improvement? If the Minister's proposals for the north-east oil route are to be carried out, will he give a categorical guarantee that the Forfar bypass will be given maximum priority and an early starting date?

In Montrose there has to be a new line, which goes through a substantial amount of private property. I do not think that the hon. Member would be the first to say that we should ride roughshod over private property. Compulsory purchase orders have to be obtained. I refer back to the question by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). As far as I know, my noble Friend is prepared to consider a meeting with the Tayside Regional Council on this matter.

In the light of this decision and because of the frustration about this road and the importance to the United Kingdom economy of the Aberdeen oil area, will the Minister consider making the road from Perth to Aberdeen, via Forfar, a dual carriageway?

I shall convey that view to my noble Friend who deals with this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the impact on the fishing industry of exploration for oil inside the estuary of the Firth of Forth.

The impact on the fishing industry of oil and gas exploration in United Kingdom waters, including the Forth estuary, is carefully considered by the Government as and when such developments are proposed. Apart from seismic surveys on which local fishermen were consulted, there has not been any oil exploration in the Forth estuary.

As it would appear that the seismic survey is likely to lead to further drilling for oil, and since the fishermen already have to contend with the dumping of sludge and ammunition and the possibility of a pipeline across the estuary, does the Minister agree that it will be pretty tough going in the Forth estuary?

I do not agree. There has been an excellent relationship between the authorities—the Gas Corporation, the Coal Board and the oil companies—and the Firth of Forth fishermen, who are extremely voluble in conveying their comments and protests to the hon. Member. I do not anticipate any difficulty. There was a seismic survey, but that fact does not enable me to say whether there is oil under the Firth of Forth.

Is the Minister aware that there have been many complaints from fishermen about debris resulting from oil exploration and other oil activities in the North Sea? Have the Government been able to do any more about this? Has notification been improved? Has the Minister any hopes of a general insurance scheme that will cover damage from this source?

In 1974 the Government set up the Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group, which provides a forum for discussion of the more general issues between the oil companies concerned, the fishermen and any other interested parties. This issue gives rise to a real problem, and we constantly remind the oil companies of their obligations not to dump debris in places where it could cause difficulties.

Will the Minister ensure that equipment used by the companies in exploring for oil or exploiting oil resources is clearly marked, so that it can be readily identified by any fisherman who happens to pick it up in his boat's propeller?

It is tempting for oil companies and anyone else to dump things over the side and hope that they do not cause damage. It is equally tempting for fishermen whose nets are damaged to put the blame on the oil companies. This is a problem, but I am satisfied that a degree of understanding and co-operation exists.

Will the Minister consider this question more seriously than he appeared to in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour)? The problem causes genuine concern. Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend enjoys the confidence of the fishing community far more than the Minister does, especially after the Minister's scandalous speech at Peterhead, describing the 50-mile limit issue as pure gimmickry?

The last point in the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise on this Question. I am treating the subject seriously. It is one upon which hon. Members make representations, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has no complaint about the way in which I treat his complaints or suggestions to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the Moss/Morran project since he announced his decision on the report of the public inquiry, giving provisional support to the planning application.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in the last three months against the projected petrochemical complex at Moss Morran, near Cowdenbeath, and what replies he has made.

I have received over 100 letters in the last three months containing representations against the proposed petrochemical complex at Moss Morran. Of these, six have been received since my letter of 29th March, which indicated on a provisional basis the decision that I am minded to issue. All representations have been acknowledged only, since I have still to reach my final decision on the planning applications concerned.

In spite of those objections, the vast majority of people in Fife welcome my right hon. Friend's provisional support for the project at Moss Morran. Once the issue of the radio mast has been settled and my right hon. Friend decides to give his final approval for this project, will he do everything possible to ensure that the oil companies utilise the site to the full, thus ensuring that the maximum number of jobs are made available to the area?

On the latter point, I refer my hon. Friend to what is said in the provisional note that I sent out. He will appreciate that it is difficult for me to say anything beyond that, because I have still to reach a final decision on this application and I am still receiving representations—at least the time is still open for them—about radio transmissions. I cannot give a final decision until I have considered those representations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the three Labour-controlled authorities—the Fife Regional Council and the Dumfermline and Kirk- caldy districts—are most anxious that a speedy decision is reached on this matter? What is the attitude of the Forth Ports Authority and of the Health and Safety Commission to the matter?

I cannot add to what was said in the report of the inquiry, which has been made available to the parties concerned. I assure my hon. Friend that when I have considered these further representations on radio transmissions there will be no undue delay in my reaching a final decision.

What are the implications of the right hon. Gentleman's decisions so far in relation to the pipeline from Aberdeenshire to Fife, which will service the refinery, in view of the strong local objections to it? When will the Health and Safety Executive report be available on this matter? There is great concern about the safety of the pipeline.

That is a separate matter. Pipeline authorisation is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. It is not possible for me to say much about it. I am, however, aware of the hon. Gentleman's views. I have had representations, for example, from the NFU and I have offered it a meeting with my officials to discuss some of the problems of laying pipelines across agricultural land.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall representations being made from the petrochemical industry about the shortage of instrument mechanics in the Forth Valley, and potentially at Moss Morran? Does the Secretary of State realise how serious the situation is? What is he doing to increase training facilities, and when does he expect the report of the Manpower Services Commission on the subject to be published?

If the decision were to be that this project should go ahead, matters of that sort would be relevant. If the hon. Gentleman reads the report, he will see that some of these questions of labour supply are dealt with extensively.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his good decision to give the go-ahead for the petrochemical developments at Moss Morran. Will he reconsider, therefore, his bad decision to stop such development at Hunterston? Will he give the go-ahead for petrochemical developments in the West of Scotland, which has the highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom?

I am not aware that there are any petrochemical developments currently before me relating to the West of Scotland. If there were, I should no doubt consider them.

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

My right hon. Friend is always happy to visit Edinburgh, as he does frequently, and he will be there again on Friday.

Will my right hon. Friend visit the hydro-electric board offices and look at its accounts, since it has substantially increased its charges in each of the last three years? Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents are having great difficulty in paying these high accounts, and in some cases have had to cut off their heating systems?

When next my right hon. Friend goes to Edinburgh, it is highly improbable that he will be able to visit the hydro-electric board's offices, for the good and simple reason that, subject to certain safeguards, he has no power to intervene in what is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of the board.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the St. Enoch's area of Glasgow.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the St. Enoch Station area.

As and when the Secretary of State visits the St. Enoch's area, will he explain to the people there that the move of a computer-based package covering the pay and records of the Armed Forces will not take place, and that he knows that it will not, because it will cost £200 million, it will destroy the efficient record keeping of the Armed Fores, and the concentration of all this in one area will pose a grave threat to national security?

I do not know anything of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Government have yet to make up the package for dispersal to St. Enoch's Station area. It is still a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence. We on the Government side of the House have been long committed to dispersal to Glasgow and to the West of Scotland. We have repeated that pledge time and again, and I repeat it once again this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received from ratepayers in Kyle and Carrick and Cunninghame districts protesting about the effect of the revaluation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the representations he has received to date regarding the current revaluation in Scotland.

I have received a total of 951 representations regarding the current revaluation in Scotland. These include a further 885 from Kyle and Carrick district and a further four from Cunninghame district since my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) on 15th March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these figures—I have many more letters to send on to him—show great anger among the ratepayers, especially among the ratepayers of the town of Troon? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that although, in valuing property, the assessor has to consider certain principles common to all properties within all the areas of Scotland, these figures show that there has been discrimination against the ratepayers of the Kyle and Carrick and Cunninghame districts? Will my right hon. Friend now agree to reconsider his previous decision and allow an inquiry into this discrimination, or, if it is not possible, to refer the whole matter back to COSLA for its consideration and advice?

My hon. Friend and others have made the charge of discrimination before. I can give only the answer that I gave before, that there are appeal procedures available. I have advised ratepayers who are aggrieved with the valuations to challenge them in their local valuation appeals committees. That is where the matter must be tested. If, the appeals having been made there, there were any evidence of discrimination, I should be willing to look at the matter further. However, the ratepayers—I say this, I hope, without offence and without complaint—would be better directing their appeals to the local valuation appeals committee than writing to me, because I am not able to deal with their appeals. They must be dealt with in these local appeals committees.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that where whole areas are being discriminated against it is difficult to appeal? As far as I can make out, it is not possible to appeal in any meaningful sense. Bearing that in mind, and in view of what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said and also that Argyll is second only to one district in Ayrshire in the way in which it has been hit, is it not time that the Secretary of State acted to help people of all income classes in these areas to prevent them from being subjected to this absolute imposition?

I reject the proposition that there has been discrimination. If it can be proved that there has been discrimination, I shall look at the matter again, but no evidence has been adduced so far for that proposition. Inevitably when there is a revaluation some areas come off better than others. If there were no relative changes in valuation, either between areas or between individual ratepayers, there would not be any purpose in having a revaluation. I repeat—I said the same thing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency when I was there the other day—that people who are aggrieved with valuations must go through the normal local appeals procedure. I advise them strongly to do that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received a flood of protests from the town of Troon—many of which I received via Londonderry? Is he further aware that I have in interest to declare? I am a victim as a resident of Kyle and Carrick. Bearing in mind that there is a very general feeling of discrimination, and appreciating that my right hon. Friend cannot deal with the question of appeals—his advice is right on that matter—does he think that it would be worth while sending this matter for consideration by the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council?

I shall certainly consider that suggestion. I do not think that at the moment I have a matter which I could appropriately refer to the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council. If I had any evidence of irregularity or genuine discrimination, I would consider that matter. It may be that it would then be appropriate to put the matter to the council. I do not think that it would be appropriate now, but I shall consider what my right hon. Friend has said.

What steps can the Secretary of State take about the position in Orkney, where a very steep increase in rates is due not for services provided for the local people but for services provided for the oil industry? Does he not think that it is time that we had another look at the Layfield Report?

That is a different question. Valuations have increased in Orkney more than elsewhere. But the valuations in Orkney were written very low compared with those in the rest of Scotland before the latest revaluation. Therefore, one has to take that into account also. The valuation principles are the same everywhere in Scotland. It is not particularly surprising, in view of the increased level of economic activity in Orkney in recent years in relation to oil, that the valuation should have increased disproportionately there.

Has the Secretary of State received a document from Kyle and Carrick District Council which demonstrates perfectly clearly that apart from individual increases there is a general increase in valuation which is much greater than that in other parts of Strathclyde? This has two effects. First, many individuals feel greatly aggrieved when they have to pay a 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. increase in rates at a time when wage increases are pegged to 10 per cent. Secondly, commercial interests are quite clear that this can result only in increased unemployment.

I am aware that the valuations in the area of Kyle and Carrick have increased more than they have elsewhere. That applies to Ayrshire as a whole. That does not mean to say that the new valuations are too high. It could equally follow that the old valuations were too low.

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

I have no immediate plans to do so.

The Secretary of State will be aware from his previous visits to The Borders that there is great anxiety that the programme for the building of the new hospital should keep pace with the target. Is he able to tell us whether that will be so, when he expects the project to go to tendering, and when he expects building to start?

I can give the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman seeks on this matter. The tender date to which we have been planning will be met. There are a number of internal planning procedures in the hospital service which will have to be gone through. There was a little delay at the beginning, but we are confident that the time will be made up and that we shall go to tender on the date planned, though I would not like to quote the exact date.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he accepts the most recent plan for the redevelopment of Hampden Park; what grant he will authorise; and if he will make a statement.

I have now discussed with the bodies concerned the proposal by Strathclyde Regional Council for an £8 million development at Hampden. The matter of Government grant is being considered urgently.

Is the Minister aware that in this year of great success for Scottish football, with Scotland reaching the World Cup finals, he alone, of all those concerned, seems unable to make his mind up about the future of Hampden Park? Will he make a decision to proceed before the World Cup finals, because it would be a great boost to Scottish football and an encouragement to other teams?

The hon. Member has this genial form of hypocrisy. Considering that he held the office that I held for some time, and that he was a Minister responsible for sport and has visited Hampden on many occasions, he was aware of the state of Hampden for many years and did nothing about it. I met the various parties concerned on Monday. It was only last Monday that we found out about the details of the £8 million plan. The architects at the Scottish Office are discussing the plan in detail with the architects at Queen's Park, and my right hon. Friend hopes to come to a decision as soon as reasonably possible.

May I once more ask my hon. Friend whether he will insist, with the authorities concerned, that there will be no deal whatsoever unless the improved stadium can accommodate at least 100,000 spectators, in view of the unbelievable scramble for tickets for big games at Hampden?

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is lucky when the allocation is made. This point was raised at the meeting, and there were two options. One was to have a stadium that could accommodate 98,000 spectators. The other was to have all seating, with 65,000 spectators. That has not been finally decided, but I shall convey the point expressed by my hon. Friend to the authorities concerned.

Does the Minister agree that any improvement in Hampden Park—with which the SNP is in total agreement—would incur more public expenditure? Does he further agree that the Conservatives are just a little more hypocritical, in that they are in favour of public expenditure cuts in general but against them in particular?

I think that the body most in need of improvement is the SNP. The one thing that is certain is that SNP Members will have plenty of time to study the progress at Hampden Park after the next General Election. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, however, that we have had from the Conservative Party claims for £20 million for the super-stadium, or the maxi-plan. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is shaking his head. It is not generally known that he brought along the Queen's Park directors to ask for £20 million to be spent on Hampden Park, and he is very lucky that I did not tell the Press.

Is the Minister aware that there was, indeed, a full report of the meeting that took place? Will he ensure—and will he give me an assurance on the matter, as the Member of Parliament for the area—that, in any plan coming forward for Hampden Park, full account will be taken of the interests of the local residents, who have to adopt what are virtually siege conditions when we have a major game? Will the Minister also ensure that any new plan will make full provision for access to and from the game, and for increased toilet facilities?

The points relating to toilets and the other matters were certainly conveyed to the appropriate bodies. I am also concerned—I raised this matter personally—that any estimate of accommodation for a new Hampden should take account of the youngster who goes along with the parent—because, after all, the young people are the seed corn of tomorrow's football support. If the cost of a ticket at Hampden, be it for a seat or otherwise, is excessive, one deprives the youngster of the chance of going to the match. However, these points and the points that I have made will be considered by myself, on behalf of the Scottish Office, and certainly by the various authorities involved in the new stadium.

Does my hon. Friend recall that when the World Cup competition was held in England a considerable amount of Government money was spent on improving some stadiums in England? Therefore, will he give us today a statement in principle that if the football authorities in Scotland would make a contribution towards improving Hampden, the Government would make a major contribution as well?

I think that it is beyond doubt that my right hon. Friend is sympathetic and, indeed, fully supports, as I do, the concept of a proper football stadium at Hampden Park. I cannot speak with any great knowledge about the contribution made by Government in 1966 but, as I understand it, for Wembley it was rather minimal in terms of financial support.

rose—

Order. I gave a good run on that Question. The House will forgive me for commenting that I do not know what would have happened if Scotland had won the Grand Slam.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish an incomes test for applicants for legal aid in criminal cases; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has no plan to do so. The difficulties of devising any such test for our system of criminal legal aid are discussed in the 1960 Guthrie Report on criminal legal aid.

Is my hon. Friend aware that under the present provisions a salaried official can have all his legal expenses paid, even after conviction in the High Court, while he is earning a salary of £300 a week, yet one of my constituents earning £30 a week had to pay the court expenses arising from an action concerning a breakdown in his marriage? In view of the fact that we are pledged to eliminate such gross social inequalities, are we not, in this case, perpetuating one rather than terminating it?

I would not pretend to my hon. Friend that there are not some difficulties in the present legal aid system, and there appears to be some injustice when someone who is very wealthy and is earning a substantial amount of money can have legal aid. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself are very well aware of the difficulties that exist in the present legal aid system, and the seeming inequalities, but the complexities of sorting that out ought not to be underestimated. Nevertheless, we take account of what my hon. Friend has just said.

Is the Minister aware that in contrast with criminal legal aid, inflation has so restricted entitlement to civil legal aid over the last five years that legal aid in civil cases has in reality become the Cinderella of the welfare services? Does the Minister recognise this problem?

I am sure that the hon. Member recognises the difference in granting aid in civil cases, as distinct from criminal cases. My view is that there is a lot to be said for the way in which we consider applications for legal aid in civil cases. I shall note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that he or I should give the impression that the obtaining of legal aid in civil cases has become more difficult. It has not. It is anything but that.

Will the Minister take on board the fact that if the sheriffs were, for instance, given discretion to impose a contribution by an accused person towards the expenses of his defence, it might enable the eligibility range in the incomes test, as applied to such cases, to be extended and, therefore, more people to be given a chance of some help in these matters, which are of very great importance to them?

The variety of questions that we have had on this subject indicates the difficulty of devising a test of means. That is the point that I was seeking to highlight when answering my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). But all the points that have been made will certainly be considered—not now, but certainly at a later date.

I wonder whether the Minister will consider the fact that the civil legal aid system results in a person who has made savings from his income and, therefore, may have very modest capital being punished as compared with someone who has spent his income. Will the Minister also consider the new Act of Adjournal, which in summary cases forbids the solicitor to make a plea of guilty or not guilty because it is assumed that the solicitor does not put forward, for legal aid reasons, the plea that the client would genuinely wish to be put forward?

I shall certainly consider the hon, and learned Gentleman's second point. But the first point, about modest means, is precisely the point that I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. There is a difference between modest means and wealth. It is getting the balance right that is the difficulty in devising a test of means.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage of primary schools in Scotland which are using buildings constructed before the First World War.

On the basis of information obtained from local authorities last year, 47 per cent. of primary schools have pre-1918 main buildings.

Is it not absolutely intolerable that almost half of the primary schools in Scotland fall into this category, including schools in places such as Dunipace and Kilsyth, which are over 100 years old? In view of the Chancellor's announcement last October, of £400 million for the construction industry, plus the £40 million for education announced in last week's Budget, will the Government use some of this money to replace these antiquated Victorian buildings? This would improve the quality of education for the children, the working conditions for the teachers and the employment prospects of workers in the construction industry.

My hon. Friend would not expect the present Labour Government, in four years, to cure all the ills of educational buildings going back over half a century. I think that he would accept that whereas there was no specific provision for further school improvements and replacements last year, starting this year we are allocating £4·1 million. I should also say that work under construction for education at the end of 1977 totalled £22·6 million for primary schools, that the number of primary schools completed at the end of 1977 was 36, and that 29 primary schools had major alterations or extensions. Something is being done, but I am not complacent about the problems that my hon. Friend has explained this afternoon.

How much of the £40 million extra for education which the Chancellor announced in the Budget will be coming to Scotland?

I make two points on that question. Scotland's share of this sum is to cover a higher than expected level of capital expenditure on committed work and projects to provide extra places. The sum is about £3 million.

In the context of the £40 million for education announced last week by the Chancellor, does the Minister agree with the statement made by John Pollock, of the EIS, that this is a drop in the bucket compared with the cut-backs over the past several years? Over and beyond the primary school programme that has just been announced, will the Minister look very carefully at the question of nursery education, which is desperately needed in West-Central Scotland?

The hon. Lady must accept that since the Second World War both Governments have provided more school places than there are children in school. It must also be accepted that there are sharply declining rolls all over Scotland, posing grave problems for local authorities. A consultative document has gone out from my right hon. Friend to local authorities so that we may discuss the problem of spare accommodation, which is rapidly becoming available in schools all over the country.

Does the Minister agree that the decline in the birth rate is the biggest single problem facing education authorities in Scotland today? May we have his assurance that this will not lead to the wholesale closure of primary schools, particularly in rural areas?

The complaint from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is anxious to see the closure of schools with very small roles, is that I refused to close a school in the Tayside area because I felt that it had a purpose for the local community. That is an argument that I am having with the convention. But I realise its difficulties in trying to staff schools with very small rolls—often antiquated schools in rural areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent consultations he has had with the Scottish Development Agency concerning the high level of unemployment in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I frequently have consultations with the Scottish Development Agency on relevant aspects of Scottish economic development, including questions of employment.

Has the Minister of State seen the trenchant criticisms published yesterday by the Comptroller and Auditor General about the Agency's activities? Bearing in mind that in a number of cases—notably Scofisco—it has destroyed more jobs than it has created, will he now agree to our proposal to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to make a full investigation into its work, to enable it to do a better job in reducing the intolerable levels of unemployment created by this Government?

I read this morning what the Comptroller and Auditor General had to say. The sentence that I best remember is the one in which he said that he was now satisfied with the monitoring of the Agency's finances.

Is the Minister of State aware that most people in Scotland regard the Agency as a most useful weapon for economic development? But does he not agree that it would be even more effective if the Government reconsidered their decision not to establish a Scottish oil development fund? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that oil company directors and Treasury officials do not live in areas of multiple deprivation, but that that is the fate of at least one in 10 children in the West of Scotland? Are not the Scottish people entitled to their cut of the oil profit as well?

The matter of oil revenue is quite another question. We all recognise that much of the money we have received from the North Sea over the years has gone to the work of the Agency. It now has a good budget, which is now doing a great deal of useful work in Scotland.

Is the Minister aware of the great difficulties that arise when the Agency subsidises a profitable firm and it thereby comes into commercial conflict with a neighbouring firm, which results in the loss of jobs somewhere and not in the retention of employment? This is a very serious aspect, which has happened on more than one occasion in recent months in the West of Scotland.

For a start, I cannot think where it has happened recently. Secondly, it is well recognised that the whole purpose of setting up the Agency was for it to have an entrepreneurial role. That is precisely why it is an Agency and not just a department of the Government's activity. In any event, the guidelines that are laid down, which I am sure the right hon. Lady has studied, oblige the SDA to operate on normal commercial lines.

Why do the Government persistently set their face against a Scottish oil fund, which has been called for by the STUC, the Scottish Council and many other responsible bodies of opinion in Scotland? Why are the Government taking up this stance?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question about the White Paper, we shall be very happy to answer it, but the matter does not arise on a Question about the Scottish Development Agency.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Agency should be encouraged to take a greater initiative than it is taking, and that if it does not occasionally have a failure it is not doing its job properly?

The Agency has invested or lent money to the extent of about £17 million. Out of about 30 companies in which it has made investments there have been only three failures. What must worry anyone who is genuinely anxious about the Agency's work is that while it is constantly being sniped at, as it is, about the kind of investments it makes we shall never get any progress at all.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have so often told us, you have no responsibility for the answers that Ministers give. But can you help us with regard to the misrepresentation of reports made to this House? A few minutes ago the Minister of State indicated that the Comptroller and Auditor General had expressed the opinion that he was now satisfied with the procedures of the Scottish Development Agency. I have here the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on that subject and I find that there is no such statement, or anything like it, in that report. Can you protect the House against such misrepresentations?

The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I deprecate the use of points of order to answer other statements that have been made. Other opportunities must be sought—not points of order.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to alleviate some of the difficulties currently facing the paper-making industry in West Aberdeenshire.

The Paper and Board Sector Working Party has, in its latest report, referred to difficulties which companies in the Aberdeen area have experienced in recruiting and holding labour in competition with the oil-related industries. I shall be pursuing this matter through my own Department and the Manpower Services Commission.

Does the Minister appreciate that, apart from the problem of the wages being paid to incoming oil-related industries, which he mentioned in his reply, the industry has been doubly hit by the reduction of the Aberdeen travel-to-work area to a lower grade? Will he consider restoring that status or taking other measures?

I understand the difficulties of the paper-making companies in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He may recall that I lost two paper mills in my own area in the early 1970s, so I am conscious of the problem. I can assure him that the Government will do everything they can to help. Although companies in the area are no longer eligible for regional development grant, they can still receive selective financial assistance under the Industry Act. My officials will be only too happy to discuss the question with any company. One company in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has already had assistance in this way, and we are in discussion with one or two others about this matter.

Will the Minister now admit that the removal of development area status from Aberdeen has been an absolute disaster, and that many companies, such as paper-making companies and textile companies, are suffering permanent damage? Where there definitely is a case for removing oil-related industries from eligibility for grants, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the grants should be allocated or withdrawn on an industry basis and not on an area basis?

I am not prepared to accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In the nature of things, regional policy means that after it has been in operation for some time some areas must be upgraded and some downgraded. We all recognise that there has been success in the North-East of Scotland—something that I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would appreciate. There are still many benefits to the North-East in remaining an intermediate area. It can still benefit from selective financial assistance under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's intentions further to reform the law on land tenure.

It remains the Government's intention to make further progress with reform of the law on land tenure, but I cannot at present be specific about the timing of any legislation.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that there is considerable concern that proper legislation has not come forward, not least in my constituency, where tenants at will had been hoping that they would be able to get a valid title? That would have enabled them to get mortgages for their houses, which they cannot obtain at present. Is it for technical reasons that this legislation is being held up, or is it for some other reason, which the hon. Gentleman can now explain to us?

It is our hope to proceed to a system of registration of title to land. With regard to the aspect that the hon. Gentleman raises, that of tenants at will, we certainly hope to ensure that reform of this particular tenure is included in the general land tenure proposals. But I must be honest with the House and say that during this Session there has been pressure on parliamentary time, which I am sure the Scottish National Party has not been unappreciative of, and which we are working under at present.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to deal with some of the abuses of land tenure, in view of recent reports that the Tory-controlled Grampian Regional Authority has been giving several acres of land rent-free over the past seven years to one of its rich farming friends, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt)?

I had noticed that story in the Press. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares with me the wish that we should not be unkind to the hon. Gentleman. I have a feeling that the regional council has been looking for the hon. Gentleman since October 1974 to send him the account, and that it will find him much more easily after the next election.

I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about legislation on the registration of land. Will he acknowledge that in the long term this could lower the level of costs of transfer of houses and of house purchase, and therefore would be very much welcomed in encouraging home ownership in Scotland? Therefore, can he give us a more specific assurance about the introduction of this legislation?

I could not be more specific than I have already been. This Parliament has about 18 months to run. All I can say is that if we find time between now and November 1979, the possibility is that we would introduce the legislation.