asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the progress being made with the sale of council houses to sitting tenants in Scotland.

Our policy has been popular and successful. Since 1979 about 80,000 public sector tenants in Scotland have expressed an interest in purchasing their home and nearly 40,000 sales have been completed, with many more in the pipeline.

Will my right hon. Friend list those authorities that have been dragging their feet on the sale of council houses?

I should be glad to list those authorities for my hon. Friend or for any other hon. Member who would like to know them. The time has come for local authorities to realise that a popular policy, and one laid down by the House, should be fulfilled quickly and efficiently by every local authority.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer represents an outstanding achievement by the Government in carrying out of a policy that is bitterly opposed by the Labour party? When he has been travelling up and down Scotland, has he seen the houses that have been enhanced by private ownership and occupation, and will he do everything possible to encourage sales?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is interesting to note that all over Scotland a vast number of people are extremely pleased at having the chance to buy their own homes. That satisfaction is matched only by their amazement that the Labour party insists on opposing something that is so clearly in the interests of the people of Scotland.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the city of Aberdeen, since the inception of the legislation about 3,000 applications for homes have been lodged, of which only 800 have been processed? Can he confirm that Aberdeen is one of the district councils to which he has written?

I can confirm that Aberdeen is one of the councils to which I have written, and, as there is clearly a strong demand in that city, I hope that the council will acknowledge that and allow its constituents to buy their own homes.

Would the right hon. Gentleman care to come with me to look at some of the deprived areas, which are the other side of the coin, where people cannot afford to buy and the chance to transfer to another area is becoming more difficult? If he does, he will see the hopelessness of that aspect of the policy.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's genuine and well-informed concern over this issue, but has he reflected on whether the policy of council house sales really is unhelpful? It is positively helpful in two respects. First, it provides money which would not otherwise be available for the refurbishment of houses and means that those who wish to buy their own homes are able to do so. Secondly, those not wishing to buy will remain tenants, and it is they who will get the benefit of the advantages and improvements.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total increase in local authority employees in Scotland in the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and what are the latest available figures for 1983.

The joint manpower watch figures for June 1983—the latest available—are in the Library. They show that for the years from June 1979 to June 1983 annual changes as follows: an increase of 1·6 per cent. followed by decreases of 0·2 per cent., 1·8 per cent., and 1 per cent.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. They show that the last Conservative Government at least produced some results, but does my hon. Friend agree that the reductions should be far greater, particularly in education, where in even the smallest of schools the headmasters are provided with private secretaries? Will he take additional action to bring about further reductions?

I agree that the figures, while showing a minor trend in the right direction, leave much to be achieved. It is worth reminding the House that in spite of a reduction of 3,000 in the number of teachers, which has been brought about by the fall in the school population, local authorities employ 5,000 more people than they did in 1977.

Is the Minister aware that although the Government may pat themselves on the back over the reduction in the number of civil servants, this has resulted in a tremendous additional burden on local authorities—particularly in carrying out DHSS work— and that they no longer have the funds to carry even the employees they already have, let alone extra staff?

The right hon. Gentleman should understand that we are looking for manpower reductions in Scotland. As I have said, the figures for Scotland are still considerably greater than they were under the Labour Government in 1977. I hope that Scottish local authorities will look at the reductions that have been made in England, which have been considerably greater over the past four years, and follow that example.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in 1983 functions sponsored by his Department have taken place in the Crown Office building in Edinburgh, formerly the Royal high school.

Three functions sponsored by Government Departments have been held in the Crown Office buildings this year. One of these, the inaugural meeting of the Scottish Confederation of Tourism, was sponsored by my Department.

Will the Secretary of State take this building back under his complete control, introduce a Bill in the House to provide for a Scottish assembly, and establish it within the next 12 months?

In spite of what the hon. Gentleman may think, I detect no sign that anyone in Scotland is interested in having an extra layer of Government, with extra taxes on the Scots to pay for it.

Will the Secretary of State use the former Royal high school building to hold a special meeting of Scottish Members of Parliament to discuss the future government of Scotland? The Tory Government received no mandate from the Scottish people at the recent general election, when over 70 per cent. of Scots voted for candidates who campaigned on the basis of a manifesto containing a commitment to some measure of home rule for Scotland.

If it comes to that, the hon. Gentleman's party is miles away from having a mandate from the people of Scotland. At the last election it lost no fewer than 250,000 votes from people who previously supported it. A little decent reticence from the hon. Gentleman in the face of that record would not come amiss.

As the building is unused and unnecessary, and as devolution is dead, will my right hon. Friend sell it and put it to proper use, because it is a good building and at present it is being put to no good use?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is a fine building. It is being made good use of by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Advocate and his staff. Moreover, it is appreciated by all Scottish Members as being available for sittings of the Scottish Select Committee and the Scottish Grand Committee from time to time.

Will the Secretary of State reconsider his rather blank response on this issue, because there is abundant evidence — it was apparent during the last election and is shown in public opinion polls—that there is a continuing interest in Scotland in devolution, and meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh, useful though they may be, cannot be a substitute for that devolution? Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that his Government are implacably and utterly opposed to any progress on this issue?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment. Let me put to him two points on this issue. First, I do not detect any great interest in Scotland for an extra layer of Government, an extra assembly, and extra costs on the people of Scotland to pay for it. He should reflect on that. I ask him, with respect, in his new responsibility, to reflect on the second of my two points, which is that everyone knows that there is a grave division of opinion in his party on the matter and that it is highly unlikely that any future Labour Government would be able to deliver any such thing.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to improve Scotland's industrial prospects.

The Government have initiated a wide range of proposals to improve Scotland's industrial prospects. Although a number of serious problems remain, the indications are that the measures are having considerable success.

I wish the Minister would say where these successes are. With his experience as director of the CBI in Scotland, will he tell us why Scotland continues to lag behind in terms of business confidence in the latest CBI trends? Bearing in mind the message from Aviemore about the inability of the new technology in Scotland to provide many jobs, where do the Government see future jobs for Scotland?

There has been a marked improvement in the underlying trend in unemployment. The number of vacancies has also improved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my experience before coming to the House taught me to read all the questions and answers in the CBI's industrial trend surveys. The most recent survey suggests that investment intentions are substantially up on last year. The results on prices and cost show that inflationary pressures are down, both of which are of the greatest importance for the prosperity of Scottish industry in the medium and long term.

In considering Government policy in this respect, will my hon. Friend give more emphasis to the part that service industries can play in job creation and place less emphasis on narrow geographical lines, because the accident of geography results in some firms getting more help than others?

My hon. Friend will know that the Government are reviewing regional policy. I assure him that we are fully aware of the importance of service industries, which, as he will know, account for more jobs in the Scottish economy than manufacturing industry.

May I direct the Minister's attention to Scottish indigenous traditional industries and ask when the Government will review their scandalous policy on the Forestry Commission in Scotland, which is being forced to sell more and more of its holdings, such as Glenelg and Glen Affric in recent weeks, because that can result only in increased unemployment and a loss of what should be a traditional concern and a basic reserve for the Scottish economy? When will the Government change that scandalous approach?

I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis on forestry. We are fully aware of the importance not only of forestry itself but of using the products of Scotland's forests for industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that yesterday's CBI survey showed that profitability in Scottish firms is increasing? Does he welcome that as a sign of future life blood for new investment?

My hon. Friend is right. The survey pointed to increased confidence among Scottish industrialists on the export and investment fronts, both of which are fundamental to recovery.

Will the Minister recognise that his statement is not in accord with those being made by industrialists in Lanarkshire, where there are massive redundancies every other week? Will he accept, for a change, the proposal in the booklet that was sent out by the Roman Catholic bishops of Scotland, entitled "Work and Employment", that we should embark on a programme of public expenditure? Is not the time ripe for the Secretary of State for Scotland to go to the Cabinet and for once fight for Scotland and jobs?

My right hon. Friend fights for Scotland and for Scottish jobs with immense effectiveness, if I may say so.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications of the Serpell report for Scotland.

The Serpell report gave rise to a wide public debate in Scotland, as elsewhere, about the future of the railways. Having listened carefully to that debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has given the chairman of the Railways Board a clear statement of the objectives the Government wish him to pursue. The chairman's guiding objective is to run an efficient railway providing good value for money. That is in the interests of Scotland as of the rest of the country.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to end the haemorrhage of job losses in the railway industry in Scotland as elsewhere? Does he agree that it is time for reinvestment and electrification, and, further, that it is time to make the railway services an essential part of an expanding Scottish industry?

I appreciate half of what the hon. Gentleman says, but the overriding objective of the chairman of the British Railways Board must be to run an efficient and effective railway for its customers. In that regard I am encouraged, first, by the progress that is being made, notably in electrification, which, as the House knows, is beginning on the Ayr to Glasgow line, and, secondly, by the new signalling techniques that are being introduced on Scottish lines.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of the Serpell report is that it has concentrated attention on the lines north of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and that that is a good thing, as it shows clearly that the line between Perth and Inverness is vital?

The Serpell report did us a service in drawing together many views on the railway system. However, as I have stressed before, the Serpell report does not represent Government policy. It is a useful starting point for considering what future policy should be.

What serious credence should we give to a report that solemnly suggests as an option that the passenger service should terminate at the great megalopolis of Crianlarich?

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows Crianlarich as well as I do. However, that is a complete distortion of the general purpose of the Serpell report—[Interruption.] Serpell deliberately tried to set out different options. The fact that the hon. Gentleman and I probably do not agree with many of them does not invalidate the exercise.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that absurdities such as the termination of the line at Crianlarich have arisen because we too often accept that restrictive practices and overmanning in British. Rail should be allowed to continue at the expense of passenger services?

I appreciate that point. I cannot stress too strongly—and I hope that all hon. Members agree— that the overriding objective of running a railway is to satisfy the customers.

Is that not exactly the point? Is it not true that in countries such as France there has been considerable investment in the railways and that that has shown a return in that more people are using them? Is it not time that the Scottish Office took a positive attitude towards rail investment?

The Scottish Office does take a positive view. There has been considerable investment in the railways in recent years and that investment is continuing. I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the most interesting improvements that are now being made in signalling techniques. They can save many jobs in the railway industry, by making it more effective and efficient and so keeping the services going.

Does the Secretary of State not accept that the whole Serpell exercise has done untold damage to the morale of the railway industry in Scotland, and that it is in the interests of Scotland—to use the Secretary of State's phrase—that the present railway network should be preserved? That should be stated in absolute terms by any Secretary of State. I believe that the burden of section 20 payments on Strathclyde region are projected in the coming year to amount to more than £30 million. That is putting an enormous strain on the ability to maintain the sort of railway network that the council wants and the travelling public need. Will the Secretary of State look seriously at that problem and see whether the Scottish Office or the rate support grant settlement can do anything to help?

I appreciate the problem outlined in the hon. Gentleman's latter point. Without being in any way unsympathetic to it, I should point out that Strathclyde faces a problem which the rest of us face all the time in trying to find enough money to do all the things that we would like to do. Of course I shall consider the problem and see what I can do to help. My right hon. Friend and I have made it clear on several occasions that, in the light of the Serpell report, it is not our intention that the board should embark on a programme of major route closures. That applies just as much to Scotland as to anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of youth unemployment in Scotland's new towns; and if he will make a statement.

On 14 July 1983, the latest date for which an analysis by age of unemployed claimants is available, a total of 3,838 young people under the age of 20 years were claiming unemployment benefit in the five jobcentre areas which most closely relate to Scotland's new towns. Our extensive programme of special employment and training measures, most notably the youth training scheme, will continue to help those who are not employed.

Does not that reply confirm that the Government's economic policies have blighted the lives of the young people of Scotland, particularly those in new towns? What policies will the Government introduce to alleviate unemployment and create real jobs, without resorting to the drivel published by the CBI?

The CBI will no doubt take due account of the hon. Gentleman's views. We recognise that rising unemployment has made it increasingly difficult for young people to obtain work. That is why we introduced a comprehensive new youth training scheme in September, which will bring valuable work experience and training opportunities to school leavers in Scotland, whether or not they are in work. In Cumbernauld, about 696 places have been approved under the youth training scheme. The hon. Gentleman would be better employed paying tribute to the employers and others in Cumbernauld who are trying to provide such opportunities for the young.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent news of a sizeable expansion in Motorola in the new town of East Kilbride confirms and enhances Scotland's position in electronics? Does my hon. Friend agree also that that is the story that we should be shouting from the rooftops, instead of the gloom and doom uttered by Opposition Members?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Motorola announcement is one among many, thus demonstrating the importance and expansion of the electronics industry in Scotland. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is sad that all that Opposition Members ever seem able to do is to belittle the real achievements of Scottish workers and managers.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to legislate for the reform of the rating system in Scotland.

I hope to introduce legislation before Christmas based on the proposals in the White Paper published on 31 August.

Can the Secretary of State explain why the Conservative party has ratted on its long-standing commitment to abolish domestic rates? Does he really believe that the chief reason is a lack of public support for radical change? If so, I must tell him that I suspect that not one ratepayer in Scotland shares that belief.

During the last election we made it very plain, in the clearest print possible, that we did not propose to abolish the rating system. I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that we made that perfectly clear to the electorate. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know that, in response to the White Paper, extremely strong objections were raised to all the alternatives to rating. It would be rather foolish to embark on a new system that would be highly unpopular.

Does my right hon. Friend know that many professional and amateur sports clubs, racecourse and caravan owners are delighted with his enlightened approach to rating reform? Will he press on with legislation as soon as possible?

The anomalies in the rating, for example, of sports grounds, racecourses and caravan sites have been drawn to my attention by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We propose to put those anomalies right in the Bill. I hope that most hon. Members will agree that that is very much to be welcomed.

I note the Secretary of State's retreat from the commitment to reform the domestic rating system. Does he agree that the computerisation of PAYE in Scotland makes the implementation of domestic local income tax a much more feasible option? A local income tax would enhance local democracy rather than desecrating it, as was implicit in the White Paper.

I have already made clear what we undertook at the last elections as opposed to the mythology expounded by Opposition Members. I appreciate that some people think that a local income tax would be a good idea, but it has been made clear to me that many people think that it would be extraordinarily dangerous to put the right to raise income tax locally, at whatever level was thought fit, into the hands of some of the councils that have irresponsible spending policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to deal with overcrowding in Scottish prisons.

Significant overcrowding in Scottish prisons is currently confined to Edinburgh and Barlinnie prisons and to Longriggend remand unit. We are undertaking a substantial capital building programme to provide additional inmate places.

Will the Minister accept my congratulations on the fact that he has faced a problem which his predecessor denied ever existed? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in February 1983 Edinburgh prison housed 795 prisoners, although it has a registered capacity for 550 prisoners? It meant that 156 prisoners had to be housed three to a cell. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is scandalous? Does he accept that the building programme alone will not reduce such overcrowding and that something must be done in the immediate future to alleviate the problem?

I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my predecessor rather surprising, because when he took office the capital programme for prisons was under £1 million. It is now £5·8 million and will increase to £10 million over the next three years. In Edinburgh the overcrowding is in part due, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, to the closure of a hall with 80 places while it is being reroofed. Once the work and the other capital programmes of phase 2 in Greenock and Shotts are completed, a large amount of the overcrowding will have been dealt with.

Instead of sending to prison, including Saughton prison, those who fail to pay fines, would it not be wiser to introduce alternative methods of sentence or service for the short-term and not serious prisoners who represent approximately 50 per cent. of the daily prison population, to avoid the pointlessness and expense of sending them to prison at all?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that we must continually look for alternatives to imprisonment, particularly for minor crimes. The use of community service has increased greatly over the past few years, from fewer than 500 in 1980 to about 1,900 last year. With regard to fine defaulters, we have been conducting an experiment in improved fines enforcement at two Scottish courts.

Will the Minister make a detailed statement on the use of Her Majesty's prison, Greenock and say when is it likely to be reopened?

The redevelopment of Greenock prison is programmed for completion by the end of 1984 and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, will provide 180 additional places.

When will the £1 million development at Peterhead prison be completed? In view of the recent incidents at the prison, does my hon. Friend intend to give further money for development for easier segregation of inmates?

The development at Peterhead is continuing and will move ahead as fast as it can. Once it has been completed it will not only serve Peterhead prison better but will reduce some of the overcrowding at Barlinnie, which has been caused by one hall at Peterhead being out of Commission.

Will the Minister give an assurance that when these additional places are ready he will not use that as an opportunity to sustain overcrowding by adopting the sentencing policy which his colleague the Home Secretary appears to think is necessary to appease the vultures at the Tory conference?

That question is typical of the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's announcement was to create a deterrent that would keep people out of prison. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself to pursue the fight against crime as much by preventing people from indulging in criminal activities as by punishing them for doing so.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received with regard to possible disposals of those airports in Scotland at present owned or managed by the British Airports Authority or the Civil Aviation Authority.

I have received no representations about disposal of the BAA airports, and two about disposal of the CAA airports. Disposal of these airports is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport, with whom I am, of course, fully in touch.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be best if commercial or municipal bodies, or a combination of both, were found to take over the airports, particularly those in the Highlands and Islands? If these airports, or some of them, are required for social purposes, surely they should become the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend's Department? In view of the Government's commitment to consider the introduction of private capital into the British Airports Authority and to look again at the responsibilities of the Civil Aviation Authority, what representations has he made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this matter. He is correct about the social considerations. There are good social reasons for the use of these airports. We recognise that by supplying from my Department a considerable subsidy to help to reduce the costs for those who use the airports. On the possibility of privatisation, I can assure my hon. Friend that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport feels able to proceed towards privatisation in any form he will take into account the social aspect in the conditions of any sale.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to change the tourist-related road signs in Tayside.

My Department is assessing the effectiveness of the experimental road signs for bypassed communities erected near Blackford, Brechin and Dunkeld earlier this year. The future of these signs, and the provision of similar signs for other bypassed communities, will depend on the outcome of the assessment.

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. The signs that are in use in Tayside at the moment are welcomed by the people but there is still a strong feeling that the Scottish Development Department and others do not understand that tourist-related industry means just that. This means not only large mansions but other facilities that are made available to encourage people to make use of the lovely area that I represent, and other areas. This can be done only if the public are told about them. Is it not time that some of the hard-nosed people recognised the facts of life and the need for new signs?

As my hon. Friend knows, three out of the four trial experimental sites are within Tayside. One of the points of having an experiment is to assess the results of the experiment. The results of the interviews that were carried out in August relating to the signs, which should be available towards the end of this year, will be considered not only by my Department but by the Scottish Tourist Board to ensure that hon. Friend's concerns are met.

As the Forth road bridge has a major influence on tourism in Tayside, is the Minister aware of the disturbing report on the Severn road bridge that was revealed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) last Friday—

Order. We dealt with that yesterday.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the administrative and financial demarcation between central and local government in Scotland provides adequately for the care of the frail elderly.

My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the present demarcation line between the responsibilities of central and local government is appropriate. We encourage health boards and local authorities to co-operate closely through joint liaison committees and other means, and we are reviewing the effectiveness of these arrangements.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there appears to be a failure on the part of some joint liaison committees of local authorities and health boards in Scotland to come to properly agreed classifications of the elderly? Is he aware that, when they do not come to properly agreed classifications of the elderly, particularly the frail, confused elderly, the proper provision of low key accommodation for them is hindered?

There are difficulties in the interface between local authorities and health boards, which is why we have encouraged liaison committees and why we encourage co-operation. We are always looking at the areas where co-operation is not quite what it should be. We are encouraging the health boards as much as we can and when I meet the social work people I encourage them. The problems of geriatric care are complex because people can be geriatric either through physical frailty or senile dementia or a combination of both. It is almost impossible to draw hard and fast definitions that would satisfy every case.

Regardless of the difficulties of drawing up hard and fast definitions, the Minister could do one thing, which he is obliged to do under the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1983. He is capable of spending money and exercising his discretion to put financial backing behind the social work departments and the housing departments to ensure that this need is adequately met. So far he has not done so.

In each rate support grant settlement since 1979 provision for social work has been increased. I think the hon. Gentleman was asking about the support financing scheme. This year we are spending £2·9 million on the scheme and, as he knows, we are undertaking a review of the scheme to see whether we can make it more attractive to local authorities so that we can make progress in the difficult area of care for the elderly.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received returns from Stirling district council relating to its progress with council house sales.

Yes. The returns suggest that on 30 June there were about 60 cases in which Stirling district council had failed to meet its statutory duty to issue an offer to sell within two months of receiving an application; and that the council takes on average over 20 months to process sales from application to completion. These figures are clearly unacceptable and my Department wrote to the council on 24 October drawing its attention to the serious consequences of its failure to meet the requirements of the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, and asking for urgent information on the steps which it proposes taking to process sales more speedily.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the returns submitted were inaccurate? In the light of the clear evidence that Stirling is failing to meet its statutory obligations, will he now take action against the council, instead of just sending it letters, so that, particularly the elderly and others who are vulnerable and who are being victimised for ideological reasons, can realise their statutory rights to home ownership?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. The returns from Stirling were inaccurate in that it was reporting sales as completed as soon as the contract had been concluded. The statistics have now been rectified and they are as I pointed them out in my original answer. I take the matter seriously and I am waiting to hear from Stirling district council about what action it proposes to rectify the situation.

Question No. 13.

Unlucky for some.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total of housing improvement grants disbursed in Scotland in the year ended 31 March 1983; what is the estimate of such grants in the year ending 31 March 1984; and if he will make a statement.

Returns by local authorities show that grants paid by them under the homes improvement grant scheme in 1982–83 provisionally totalled £64 million. The latest returns available from local authorities indicate that they are likely to pay grants to a total value of about £125 million in the current financial year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, which confirms the considerable assistance that the Government have given to home owners, particularly during the period when the rate of grant was temporarily increased to 90 per cent. Does my hon. Friend believe that there may be an inflexibility in the current rules for eligibility in that people who live in a house the rateable value of which is in excess of the threshold do not qualify, albeit that they may be in considerable need? As I understand that a working party is at present reviewing the rules of eligibility, will he give urgent consideration to a relaxation of the rateable value threshold rule, but insist that the income qualification— [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]

Order. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is getting a bit long.

—but insist that the income qualification directs grants to those most in need?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks at the beginning of that supplementary question. The working group's report is now in the hands of my Department. It remains for us to formulate specific proposals for legislation to deal with some of the aspects of it, once we have had a chance to consider them fully, and of course before doing so we shall carry out consultation on them.

Does the Minister realise that the Government's precipitate and unheralded reduction in the rate of improvement grant has thrown local authorities into utter confusion and has lead to cross-party criticism of the Government's action? Is he aware that it has created an impossible situation for the building industry in Scotland in that it will lead to contracts entered into being incapable of completion? How does he propose to sort out this mess of his own creation?

I completely refute the accusation that there is any mess and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to comment on the tremendous achievement in his constituency, among others, that has resulted from the enhanced scheme. I remind him that the enhancement to 90 per cent was introduced originally for a period of nine months. That was extended to two years, and in his last Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the closing date for the scheme would be 31 March. That was the date that we confirmed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the enhanced scheme was extremely valuable in improving the quality of the Scottish housing stock? Now that it has ended, will he say whether the percentage grant now available for improvements is more or less than when Labour was last in office?

The percentage grants now available have returned, in the case of the two grants that have been enhanced, to their original levels. I repeat that the Scottish building industry, and those who live in the houses that have been improved, have done very well out of the scheme, a factor that hon. Members in all parts of the House should be prepared to recognise.

Is the Minister aware that, while three weeks may be a long time in politics, it is an extremely short time in relation to a housing improvement scheme? Will he explain why he authorised the publication of a report apparently extending the improvement grants scheme at the beginning of October and then decided to cut it back three weeks later? Will he also let us into a secret? Was that decision taken in Edinburgh or London?

I always listen carefully to what the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has to say about improvement schemes as I know that he is a great believer in them so far as his own personal housing is concerned.— [Interruption.]

Order. We must hear what the Minister has to say.

I must repeat to the hon. Gentleman that in the Budget this year the extent of the scheme was made clear—that the closing date would be 31 March 1984— and that remains the case. We simply confirmed that the scheme would not be extended.

Is the Minister aware that the scheme is repeatedly abused by speculators, particularly by a consortium of Miller, Barratt and Wimpey, which intends to take over a large part of the West Pilton area— agreed to of course by his cohorts on Edinburgh district council? Will he take action to stop this abuse of the scheme, an abuse that has been a scandal in Scotland for some time?

At least I am grateful for the frankness of the hon. Gentleman in that he confirmed that he did not welcome the scheme in the first place, which is more than some of his hon. Friends do. The most important impact of the scheme during the period for which it ran was the benefit it provided to those whose houses were improved. In view of the large amounts of money that have been committed as a result of the scheme during the two years to which I referred in my original answer, we in Scotland have a lot to be grateful for in that the enhancement took place at all.

While I acknowledge the benefit that many people in Scotland have received from the scheme, may I ask the Minister to confirm that the sudden decision to cut it off, after many local authorities have made considerable efforts to promote it, is a breach of faith with the local authorities—which are acting as Government agents — and the many people who have applied for grant? Will he make it clear to the constituents with whom we shall have to deal that the responsibility lies with the Scottish Office and not with the local authorities?

It appears that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. The closing date was known to local authorities and, I presume, to himself. We appreciate that certain commitments have been made by local authorities for expenditure next year. As I made clear in the House recently, commitments to expenditure that has been legally incurred by the date of the announcement that the scheme would not continue will be taken fully into account in the allocations that we make.

Is the Minister aware that the rather unfortunate innuendo in his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) are something that I would like to think he will regret when he has time to consider them, because they were unworthy of someone in his position and will reflect no discredit on my hon. Friend but quite a lot on the Minister?

The hon. Gentleman knows that when I spoke on this matter in the House recently I made it clear that any commitments to expenditure under these schemes legally entered into—that is, applications approved by 20 October—would be taken fully into account in the allocations made by my Department.

What about an apology?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health boards are now using prison laundries to process Health Service laundry; and what plans he has to extend this practice.

Only Forth Valley health board uses a prison laundry, but my Department has recently asked two health boards which are at the point of deciding about replacement laundry facilities to consider the possible use of Shotts prison laundry as one way of meeting their needs.

Have the trade unions been consulted upon this matter and have they agreed to accept the proposal? Can he name the health boards, other than the Fife health board, that have had their laundry investment programmes stopped so that the operations may be transferred to prisons and other private enterprise establishments?

I did not know that prisons were private enterprise establishments, but perhaps they are. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be interested in that. The Fife, Ayrshire and Arran health boards have been asked to consider the possibility of using prison laundry facilities at Shotts as one of the ways of meeting their need for new laundries. Unless the hon. Gentleman thinks that prisoners should be given work that amounts to the treadmill, he should welcome the proper use of the laundry facility, which was made available by the Labour Government.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Instead of talking in fairly amorphous terms—perhaps confidentiality decrees that—perhaps the Minister could tell the House the size and the number of fields surveyed. It is extremely important for the House to have an idea of the range of reserves.

I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. Without breaching confidentiality, one cannot be precise because one does not know what specific companies' proposals are. I can best answer the hon. Gentleman's question in a slightly oblique way. Some developments that will be covered by the Bill had already been approved before it came to the House. When I took over my responsibilities in June a further 10 developments were under appraisal. Looking ahead over the next two years, there is probably a further figure in the mid-teens. One cannot be precise because it is up to the companies to make the proposals. We have identified the likely proposals over the next two years or so.

We asked the Minister about this matter in Committee. Things have been pushed along for a few weeks. Will the Minister give us the broadest idea of the value of the legislation to the two fields that have been legislated for retrospectively? The right hon. Gentleman rested his case on the decrease in payments from 89·5 per cent. to 88 per cent. Even the Secretary of State said on Second Reading that he was willing to give an illustration of a field with 55 million tonnes of reserves. There was a benefit there of 3 per cent., which on a £4·5 billion or £5 billion field would be worth £120 million of relief.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was helpful to the hon. Gentleman and the House on that matter. My right hon. Friend was giving a hypothetical example of a field. I am interested that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the matter. I am not surprised, because it was a major point in Committee. I thought that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) would refer to it too, but he made a more interesting point, which was more relevant to the developments in the North sea. I dealt with the matter in Committee. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members tried to press me on it. There is no way that I can answer his question, even in relation to those two fields. I repeat this for the benefit of the House, as it was said in Committee. It is nothing new. There is a great deal of confidential matter in the annexe B proposals that I have to approve, covering the profile of the fields. The moment that I give estimates one does not need to be clever to work out, with the use of a calculator, the profile that the operators of the fields have given to me, and the basis on which I have approved the proposals. If I did that, I should be breaking the confidentiality of the relationship between my Department and the relevant operators and the companies. I shall therefore not give way to the pressing fashion in which the hon. Gentleman puts his case.

Will the Minister bear in mind what the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry said yesterday about the Britoil order for Scott Lithgow? I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to ensure that the order remains with a British yard. Will the Minister give his views about Britoil's need for this piece of hardware, which is a sophisticated rig capable of drilling in 4,500 ft. of water? We are assured that Britoil requires a rig of the specified design and I hope that the order will remain with a British yard.

The hon. Gentleman has rasied a matter of genuine concern. I am extremely interested and concerned about what will happen, but I cannot comment on or directly intervene as it is a matter for negotiation between Britoil and the yard. The negotiations must go through the formal stages, as the hon. Gentleman realises and understands. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am watching the position carefully and I am in close touch not only with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but also with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Scottish Office. I emphasise that the matter is one for negotiation between the two companies. The position, design and capability of the rig is a matter for the commercial discretion of the company involved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will watch this matter very carefully. I am sure that he understands why I cannot say anything further at present.

I understand and appreciate the hon. Gentleman's caution. The Government have a 51 per cent. majority shareholding in Britoil. Additionally, they have a golden share, so they have effective control over the company and can exercise that control at any time. I trust that the Government will exercise their influence in the proper manner.