SCOTLAND

HC Deb 27 July 1972 vol 841 cc2124-204

Question again proposed.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill)

It would not do, Mr. Speaker, if many speeches in the House were delivered in one breath, in the manner in which you so admirably discharged your duty then.

I was interested in what the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said. It was predictable that the subject of oil would feature largely in this debate. I hope that a feeling of euphoria will not be generated and that we shall not lose sight of our real problems in a welter of dreams. The importance of a fuel policy suddenly becomes apparent. The advice that many of us on these benches have tendered has been ignored for too long.

Earlier this afternoon we heard a disgraceful remark by the Minister for Transport Industries when he described the railways as a fiasco and said that that had always been his view. Yet he was making a public statement, I suppose on behalf of the Government. Presumably he will be challenged about his statement in the near future.

One thing which is certain in public affairs and in industry is that, if it had not been for the principle of public ownership and public interest, Scotland today would be nearer a desert than anything. Public money has been put into the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the National Coal Board, and forestry and fishing. This public money has sustained the jobs and the future of many of our people.

It is no use the Government making a virtue out of a pledge which they gave to UCS last year. We have all heard of the play "The Reluctant Bride". That was certainly the most reluctant pledge which had to be forced out of the Secretary of State. The Government yielded only after great industrial demonstrations and political pressures in the House. Government supporters talk in scathing terms about our nationalisation. What about Rolls-Royce?

I am in danger of devoting too much of my speech to replying to earlier speeches and, in consequence, not making my essential points. I want strongly to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said in his admirable speech in moving the Motion. The Government first commit the error of resisting our proposals. Then, when the Government are ultimately pressurised into accepting our proposals, the Secretary of State, like little Jack Horner, stands up and says, "Look what a good little boy am I".

I welcome this opportunity to focus attention on a feature of Scotland's unemployment problem. It relates to Glasgow where I have spent some time making a close examination of the nature of the prevailing unemployment. I urge the Government not to overlook Glasgow's problem in the overall general consideration of industry in Scotland.

I address my remarks to the direct effect of the Government's policies, not in a narrow parochial sense, but from the general premise that a high rate of industrial activity and commercial growth in the City of Glasgow is likely to reflect an improvement in contiguous areas.

Glasgow has been over spilling her population and smaller industries, but nothing new has been coming into Glasgow. This has hit Glasgow and the immediately surrounding area hard. We accept the principle of dispersal of industry, reduction of density, and the creation of new town development. However, as a result of this many of Glasgow's younger people are leaving the city. We should not be blind to the urgent necessity of replacing Glasgow's losses by new, lighter industry and activity for those who remain.

Scotland's overall unemployment figure is 138,544. The total unemployment in Glasgow is 8.2 per cent. compared with the Scottish average of 6.5 per cent. and the United Kingdom average of 3.6 per cent. We talk of Scotland's unemployment rate being twice the national average, but Glasgow's unemployment rate is more than twice the national average.

Male unemployment in Glasgow at 11.8 per cent. is higher than it was a year ago, and this figure is more than perturbing. This is after only two years of Tory Government, and there is every promise of the figure becoming higher. The major pledge given by the Tory Party in its Scottish manifesto was to the effect—"Scotland will get moving again. No part of Britain has more to gain from Tory policies." In June, 1970, the unemployment figure was 84,000.

On a closer analysis Glasgow's figures become even more startling. The figures I have mentioned pertain to the city and do not take into account Rutherglen, Clydebank and Kirkintilloch. Further, the total at 36,800 is 2,180 higher than it was a month ago and 3,387 higher than it was a year ago. Of the total of 5,520 wholly unemployed women in Glasgow, 1,279, more than a quarter, are under 18 years of age.

In short, unemployment among young people from 15 to 18 years of age, and especially among women, is extremely high. Similarly, out of the 31,000 wholly unemployed men in Glasgow, about 3,000, or 10 per cent., are under 18 years of age.

The Government must apply themselves to this problem of unemployment among the young. It is a criminal waste of youthful hopes and aspirations, and it is the worst condemnation one can make of the Government's failure.

The male unemployment rate is worse still, for whereas in January, 1971, it stood at 29,500, or 9 per cent. of the insured population of Glasgow, in July this year, according to the Press notice, it was 31,321, or 11.8 per cent.

It is the nature, persistence and duration of the unemployment which is most sinister. Analysis according to age shows that unemployment is hitting the youngest and, therefore, the most indefensible hardest. As I said before, Glasgow needs new industries and enterprises to replace those which have been displaced in the pursuit of a desirable aim, that is, redevelopment within the city. Glasgow has 29 redevelopment plans on foot. There is no city in Europe which is making such a Herculean effort to change its face. Despite the figures which I have to give, I do not wish to paint a depressing picture of the city. Its people are lively and, in spite of the unemployment, there is a vibrant feeling among them. But the Government must come across with something special to help.

In July, 1972, almost 50 per cent. of the unemployed men in Glasgow were aged up to 35; those aged 18 to 19 constituted 9 per cent., and those from 20 to 24 constituted 17 per cent. Of women in the same age groups, similar figures can be found; for example, those up to 35 years of age constituted 64 per cent. of the total.

There is something basically wrong in a society which permits unemployment to blight the lives of younger people as it does in Glasgow.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

As usual, my hon. Friend does his homework thoroughly, and he has given compelling reasons to show why something must be done in Glasgow. In preparing his figures, did he find evidence to show how many young people have left school and reached the age of 18 but have never worked?

Mr. Hannan

I am sorry, no. My figures did not go as far as that, and I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question.

The duration of unemployment in Glasgow shows two startling features. Sixty seven per cent. of the total male unemployed have been without work for nine weeks or more, and of the total female unemployed no fewer than 58 per cent. have been workless for a similar period.

The Government must examine these figures, conduct an inquiry, and produce a breakdown showing, for example, how many would be unemployable, and ascertaining the reasons for the nature of unemployment in the various groups to which I have referred.

he Secretary of State sought solace in the fact that the unemployment figures had come down in the last two months. He referred also to the number of houses built. It should be noted that the public sector construction figures achieved under the Labour Administration are now starting to fall. We see that in the annexe to the Scottish Development Department's Report. Moreover, the number of building workers unemployed within the figures I have given is 8,008. These are official figures supplied to me. There are 379 joiners unemployed, and there is unemployment similarly among bricklayers, plasterers and slaters. Yet when a storm disaster hits Glasgow, there is a shortage and slaters have to be brought up from the South.

Industry is not doing sufficient about day-release for our young people. The record of Scottish employers in this respect is much worse than that of employers in England and Wales.

I have taken up my time in dwelling on the problems of Glasgow. I feel keenly about them and, I confess, some of the matters which I have had to put to the House I came across quite by accident. I hope that the facts and figures which I have given will bear weight with the Government. In a debate of this kind, one usually tries to cover the wider picture, but on this occasion I thought it right, in the interests of the city of Glasgow and my constituency, to direct the Government's attention to the urgent need for action to help Glasgow in the huge problems which it faces. It is, after all, the hub of an important area. If new activity were generated in Glasgow—there must be much manpower and machinery lying idle and wasted—Glasgow's revival could be reflected in a new prosperity in the surrounding area, too.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aberdeenshire, East)

I was disappointed in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), and I suspect that he may well have been a bit disappointed in places as well. He made a point about the need for a State holding company. What sort of industries or factories would a State holding company direct, presumably by some form of legislation, to my constituency?

I cannot help thinking back to the major disaster on the employment and economic scene in Aberdeenshire under the Socialist Administration, namely, the closure of the British Railways locomotive works in Inverurie. Who was responsible for that?—some hard-faced men in private capitalist boardrooms? Not at all. They were hard-faced men in public nationalised industry boardrooms. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite ought to give up the pretence that they are any different, for otherwise they only raise false hopes.

The hon. Member for Craigton wants to know who will set the rate of oil production before we even know the amount of oil available. Inevitably, the amount that is there will be an important factor affecting the rate. The trouble is that everyone wants a share of the oil. If Robert Louis Stevenson were writing "Treasure Island" today, he would probably set the scene off the Scottish coast and put some of the speakers today among the cast of the pirates. Everybody will get as much out of Scottish oil as they put into it.

In terms of the participation of Scottish companies in the off-shore industry and the complaints which are made about them, the report of the Aviemore Conference is compulsive reading. Many sensible and interesting contributions were made. One such contribution was a comment by Mr. Adams of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. He said that people who think in terms of investing in the Scottish off-shore oil industry must realise that what they are undertaking is an investment not in the Scottish off-shore oil industry but in the world off-shore oil industry. The oil industry is a global industry. It is not a Scottish industry because it happens to have some oilfields off the Scottish coast.

We have a lot of leeway to make up in participating in the oil industry. Let us not expect to do in one year what the companies have done in 50 years in absorbing their various techniques.

My next general point relates to the position of the Petroleum Division of the Department of Trade and Industry and the effective regulation, examination and control of the industry. There has been a recent Government announcement, which all of us on this side of the House welcomed, to the effect that the White Fish Authority will move its headquarters from London to Edinburgh. The one major and central reason for that step is the fact that the balance of interest and involvement in the fishing industry is moving, and has been moving for some time, steadily north. Exactly the same is true of the oil industry off the Scottish coast. I hope that we shall apply the same considerations to its regulation as we now rightly apply to the British fishing industry.

There is one point which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in his excellent speech with which I should like to take issue. I and many people, particularly in Aberdeenshire, were appreciative of the consideration and the length of time given by the House to the Harbours Development (Scotland) Bill. It enable many facts to be clarified and discussed which would not necessarily have been so easy to put forward otherwise. It is undeniable that that Bill is on its way and will be in time to permit any possible development.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, I am fortunate in representing one of the most buoyant parts of the Scottish economy. I apologise for not following more closely the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. William Hannan). Although I have great sympathy with the points which the hon. Gentleman made, I want to concentrate mainly on my own part of the country, if for no other reason than that, in a scene which is in places depressing, there is a great deal of value in stressing the fact that there is great confidence and buoyancy in other parts.

Stability and dynamism have always been inherent in the North-East of Scotland. Even before oil reared its shining black head, once regional development was launched in the early 1960s diversification and expansion went ahead successfully, until the grim years of the Labour Government when hardly anything happened in the area except the Gaskin Report. Now oil has come along and the Tory Party has been reconverted to a regional policy.

I tremble for the riches about to fall on our defenceless heads; I do not altogether say that in jest. Affluence and success are not as easy companions as they look. The North-East will have to be careful in the defence of its heritage, as well as open-hearted to those who will come to the area. The Gaskin Report set a target of 8,000 new jobs in the North-East over six years starting on 1st January. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who was Minister of State, said that it would be remarkable if such a rate were achieved. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already saying that 7,500 new jobs have been created or will shortly be created directly from the North Sea oil discoveries since June. 1970.

The development authority in the North-East estimates that the oil industry has produced 1,300 new jobs in the area in 20 months, of which 60 per cent. have been filled by local people. That means in round figures 500 incomers. Firms are establishing themselves in the area at the rate of two a week. There are now 105 new firms, and 160 local firms are now participating directly in the oil industry. Of course, we are still only on the threshold, although to listen to some speeches one would think that it was all proved, that there is no trouble involved and that we simply have to decide what we shall do about it.

According to my latest information, 14 rigs will be working this summer, followed by 18 in 1973, 24 in 1974 and 25 in 1975. In addition, two fixed platforms are expected to be in operation in 1973 or early 1974. By 1975, on the basis of what is now known, there should be 5,000 jobs in oil exploration and a considerable amount more in back-up operations. That does not involve expansion in other directions and, of course, considerable expansion is going on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has on his desk exciting proposals for the further development of the fishing harbours at Fraserburgh and Peterhead. I hope that we can soon have positive decisions in principle on those harbours. We must back success, and the fishing industry which in the North East of Scotland is tremendously successful.

There are also other industries not connected with oil which are coming to the area as well as the actual or proposed expansion of existing plant. One immediate effect of all this can be seen at Dyce, which is growing to an enormous size. The airport at Dyce serves the whole of the North-East of Scotland. It is a tremendous asset to the region and we are extremely grateful for it, but we need to get on with it. Over a sample two-month period, April and May, BEA passengers between Aberdeen and London increased by 25 per cent. The number of transport aircraft movements in the first five months of the year was 30 per cent. more than the same period last year. The usual annual growth rate of 4 per cent. for freight is now showing a considerable expansion. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Col. Colin Mitchell), whose voice is unfortunately muffled by his distinguished position, has done a tremendous job in alerting the authorities to this situation, and the time has come for action in regard to the terminal buildings and the necessary strengthening of the runways for jet aircraft. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is pressing the same view.

I wish to make exactly the same point about roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), in an excellent speech, concentrated on the need to reduce transport costs if industry in Scotland is to be able to compete on fair terms with industries in the Common Market countries. One of the important matters involved in transport costs is speed of movement.

I wish to express gratitude for what has been done in our road system and. as usual for a politician, I wish to ask for some more. No doubt hon. Members saw the recent photograph in the newspapers showing lorries carrying the first consignment of steel pipes for the oilfields. Those enormous lorries were parked all the way down the street in Aberdeen. They were enormous. We have also had this week the authorisation of the motorway to be constructed between Glasgow and Stirling, and I welcome this decision very much indeed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue his praiseworthy endeavours to modernise to the highest possible standards the motorways to the North.

It is clear that our problems in the North-East are already beginning to be the problems of over-activity. Building contractors no longer are able to tender estimates for small building schemes because of the amount of work they already have on hand, and there is concern about the environment, and so on. I believe it should be possible to link all these developments with the greatest good of the greatest number, provided that we are careful and that the greed for gold does not overtake our judgment.

I am wholly for this development provided that the needs of people are put ahead of profit as the master motive. I believe that the Government and all concerned should make that their policy.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

I do not intend to take up all the points raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), though I always give him ten out of ten for courage. One of the most remarkable things I have ever seen was the manner in which the hon. Gentleman addressed the TUC Scottish Assembly at the beginning of the year. He is one Scottish Tory who has the guts to stand up and defend the indefensible. He mentioned the question of oil, and I shall have something to say on that topic later in my remarks.

I am speaking in this debate with a deep sense of depression. I am most concerned about the state of Scotland at present, and I am even more concerned about the state of Scotland as it will stand in mid-winter 1972–73. All reasonable, sensible people wish our country to be harmonious, safe, happy and free from civil strife. A fundamental pre-requisite to reaching that stage is a situation of full employment. Full employment allows us to fulfil the legitimate ambitions of work people to have a better standard of living for themselves and their children. Perhaps the most important function of full employment is that it satisfies a man's own need to feel useful in his own estimate of his personality. It is important for a man to be able to say to himself, "Whatever your shortcomings, you are a useful member of society", so that he can at least have his self-esteem.

If we do not have a situation of full employment we shall head for a very dangerous social situation. For in Scotland we are not missing full employment by a hair's breadth, or by one small decimal point on the unemployment scale; we are missing full employment by a massive figure indeed. I regard the Government's policy as a deliberate one not to reduce the high level of unemployment by a substantial figure. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I shall try to prove that in a moment.

The Government are showing a combination of folly, stupidity and irresponsibility in their failure to understand what makes many ordinary men and women tick. We are heading for a winter of bitter discontent. I forecast that the Government in the months from December to March will be consulting the weatherman far more than some people have this week been consulting the Official Solicitor. We have been fortunate in Scotland in that we have had three winters in which not one worker had been laid off because of frost. This is unusual in the Scottish climate. Unless we experience that sort of winter this year, the Scottish unemployment figures will be appalling—they will be appalling enough in any event, but far worse than any we have ever seen before. Men will have to be laid off from a base which is already exceptionally high and the unemployment figure will climb higher before winter reaches its end.

The subject of oil has already been mentioned by more than one hon. Member in this debate. A fortnight ago I made a speech outside the House criticising the Government's regional policy which is based on persuasion, and I called for them to adopt a policy of certitude in taking real control of oil resources found in Scottish waters. I will not go over all the points I made in that speech, for I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) noted the eight points which were set out in the Press reports of that speech; the hon. Gentleman and I, for well-known reasons, have for a number of years developed the habit of reading each other's speeches.

I appreciate that the eight-point programme set out in my constituency speech poses political and policy difficulties. If such steps were taken by the Government they would involve an element of political risk-taking. They could lead to a reinforcement of nationalist feeling on the borders and it might provoke Treasury hatchet-men to take the view, "You have been given something on the one hand, and therefore something must be taken away on the other hand." However, I believe that the risks involved in my policy can be exaggerated. I strongly believe that risks must be taken because in Scotland we face a desperate situation, and only desperate policies will bring our country out of it.

I do not regard the present levels of unemployment merely as intolerable or unacceptable. These are adjectives which have been used by many people in this House over a number of years, and indeed in 1967 the present Secretary of State for the Social Services, who then led for the Conservative Opposition, in a debate on Scottish unemployment described a figure of 73,000 people totally unemployed as intolerable. Such levels of unemployment are not only intolerable and unacceptable: they are socially dangerous. People of my generation will not tolerate any denial of the right to work. If we are not given the right to work, we shall have to fight for it.

We believe that north of the border we face a national emergency. One of the most depressing features of the Secretary of State's speech today, and indeed of the speeches made by his hon. Friends, is that there has been no recognition of the emergency situation north of the border in terms of unemployment. The Secretary of State when leading for the Tory Opposition in a debate on 3rd February, 1970, said this, when going full tilt for the then Labour Government.

The figures recently released for Scotland are especially disturbing. They show a rise of more than 11,000, from 3.7 to 4.4 per cent."—[Official Report, 3rd February, 1970; Vol. 795, c. 274.] The right hon. Gentleman was talking about the figures released on 12th January, 1970, in the height of the winter. Unemployment at that time amounted in total to 96,000; in terms of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted, excluding school leavers, the figure was 82,800—a rate of 3.8 per cent. If they were disturbing to the right hon. Gentleman at that time—just over two years ago—we can only conclude that the present figures are an absolute national disaster, and constitute a national emergency.

I want to quote some other figures to illustrate the size of the present problem. The Secretary of State made some play of the fact that there is a difference between the July figure of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted—excluding the school leavers—and the figures given last month. They are not the relevant figures; the relevant figures are the July figures for the last three years. In July, 1970, total Scottish unemployment amounted to 93,400 and wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted, was 89,900—a rate of 4.2 per cent. By July, 1971, the number of totally unemployed was 134,600, and of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted, 125,000. In July of this year the number of totally unemployed was 138,500, and of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted, 128,700.

As each year goes by the figure of wholly unemployed rises substantially. That is the background to the present position. Figures released last week by the Government in answer to a parliamentary Question show that the number of wholly unemployed males in Scotland was over 100,000—a 40,000 increase in the last two years. At the same time, the Scottish Economic Bulletin, the official Scottish Office publication, informs us that the job loss—notified redundancies—in the first four months of 1972 is running at the rate of 600 a week which, if we take that as being constant throughout the year, means a job loss of 30,000 per year. That takes no account of jobs lost but not notified, because of early retirements, and so on.

If we are to make up a job loss of that magnitude, reduce unemployment and stem the flow of emigration—given the Government's adherence to the capitalist ethic—we shall need a growth rate far in excess of the 5 per cent. to which the Chancellor committed himself in the Budget and which the Prime Minister reaffirmed at Question time on Tuesday.

We are also told by the Scottish Economic Bulletin that this growth rate of 5 per cent. must also take account of an increase in productive potential in the economy, and in manufacturing last year the underlying productive potential was about 4 per cent. It does not leave much room in the growth rate for the generation of new jobs to take up the number of people who are unemployed.

We also have to face the fact that the Government have deliberately relaxed IDC control in the West Midlands—an area from which we normally would and could expect to see jobs emerging for the northern part of the country, especially Scotland.

I am aware that the picture that I have painted is a dismal one, but I believe that it is an objective picture against a background of facts, figures and situations that cannot be denied. This Government are the Government that promised us "A Better Tomorrow". That was the time scale picked by them in their election manifesto; indeed, that was the title of it. What we have had is an increasingly bitter tomorrow for the people in our part of the country.

A growth of jobs based on oil control is the Government's major hope substantially to reduce Scottish unemployment and to improve the position. Time is running out for the Government. Let them make no mistake about it; the situation is desperate. If they cannot concede to us the right to work we in Scotland will have to embark upon measures that enable us to take the right to work into our own hands. [Interruption.] I am asked what I mean by that. I do not know what will happen in Scotland in the next six months, but we cannot expect my generation to sit idly by and vote once very five years at the ballot box only to have their ambitions frustrated by the present Government's policies. I do not want to see demonstrations, marches and increasing bitterness and engendered venom in the streets of Scotland this winter. But that is the only thing that I can foresee if Scottish unemployment is not substantially reduced before the onset of winter, and if no definite hope is seen for the people of Scotland that at this time next year we shall be travelling very fast on the road to full employment.

It is said that the Government are having private and secret talks about a General Election, perhaps on the Northern Ireland issue. I can only say that nothing would please the people of Scotland more than if we had a General Election tomorrow, because then we would be on the Government benches and hon. Members opposite would be in opposition.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

Although I follow a member of the Opposition it must not be assumed that I do so as a Government supporter, or that I am associated with the Opposition Motion. I would have preferred to support the Liberal Motion, because I take the view that successive Governments are responsible for the state in which Scotland finds itself today. I take part in the debate with the feeling "A plague on both your houses".

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that we have the curious situation in which the Government pretend that they inherited a bankrupt country in 1970, and that everything in the garden has been lovely from then on, and the Opposition pretend that our prosperous and happy country in 1970 has degenerated into unemploy- ment and the rest. That is complete eyewash. The Scottish people are well aware of all this phoney talk about the state of the country.

Without excusing the Government in any way for the present appalling figure of unemployment, I must point out that it was growing before 1970. Between 1964 and 1970, no fewer than 85,000 male jobs disappeared from Scotland. Both sides of the House—Labour and Tory—are culpable. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), referring to fuel resources, said, "Is it not strange that although we possess these resources in Scotland they are no cheaper than anywhere else?" The answer is simple, namely, that the control of these resources is lacking in Scotland. We have to wait for the dictates of the London Government. The people of Scotland are sepoys, under the British Raj. We have to wait for their decision.

Sir J. Gilmour

The hon. Member misunderstands the nature of the oil industry. It is international. I was trying to point out to my right hon. Friend that we have power, through fiscal measures, to see that we get oil at a cheaper rate.

Mr. Stewart

I very much doubt whether we have power to do that. My point was well expressed in an editorial in the Scotsman last December, which said: So far M.P.s of both major parties seem blind to the chance of transforming the Scottish economy. They can usually be trusted to put the interests of party before those of Scotland. There are very few Members on either side of the House that I would excuse from that charge.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan) was talking in terms of the interests of the United Kingdom economy as a whole. When the interests of the United Kingdom economy as a whole are taken into account the Scottish economy is nowhere. We must face the fact that hon. Members think British. We must start thinking Scottish if we want to reverse the degenerating process in our country. The steel industry is dying the death of a thousand cuts. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is an intelligent man and I do not believe it came as a shock to him to discover the number of jobs which would be lost in Scotland.

When the Labour Government nationalised the steel industry they signed its death warrant. I am not against nationalisation in principle but when it was done on a British basis the industry was finished. There were plenty of warnings at the time. Profitable mills were closed in Scotland simply to bring work to English mills. It is inevitable. It did not happen because of evil on the part of the English, but it was a logical development with centralisation of that kind. Some hon. Members are alleged to have said that they could not press for the steel works to go to a particular area of Britain. If any Scottish hon. Member said that, it would be a deplorable sell-out to his constituency and an act of treachery to the Scottish economy. Sir Andrew McCance said that there would be the closure of Clyde Alloys number 3 rolling mill with 110 jobs lost. There would be another closure in Mother well, and all this was to give work to the English mills.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) wrote a letter to the Glasgow Herald about the Hunterston development saying that there would have been no problems for the project if it had been in England, and I agree. But the idea for the scheme was not conceived in June, 1970. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr.Ross) could have taken action about Hunterston when he was in office. He could have taken a decision in principle which would have bound the succeeding Government, and he is as guilty as the present Government for the absence of any development at Hunterston.

I tabled an Early Day Motion calling for a Scottish Steel Corporation and I would not quibble if it were nationalised. I would be happy with a nationalised steel industry on a Scottish basis. I am only sorry that the Motion did not commend itself to the Labour benches.

The discovery of oil off the Scottish coast destroyed the argument once and for all that Scotland could not hold her own. We have seen what Norway has been able to do with the oil discoveries off her coast. Even by capitalist standards the Government have made a bad bargain. They have been taken to the cleaners. What benefit will Scotland derive from the oil? In the House of Lords, Lord Balogh said So far as oil is concerned, the situation is worse. Sir David Barran, the retiring Chairman of Shell, estimated that as much as £2,500 million would be spent in a decade, of which £1,000 million will be in operating expenses, for the total of the oil field. This sounds formidable. If we take his more detailed break-down, things look different. The total investment for a decade for a field of 125 million tons per annum (250,000 barrels per day), a field much like Forties (but Forties might become very much bigger) represents £250 million, of which £100 million is in platforms and production facilities, £70 million in production wells, £65 million in off-shore trunk lines and £15 million in shore facilities—Scotland please note!"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7th June, 1972; Vol. 331, c. 370.] Peanuts. That is what Scotland will get out of all this tremendous wealth around her shores.

The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said in a debate over a year ago that the oilfields would bring tremendous wealth to this country. I commented afterwards that if his country were the same as mine—Scotland—I did not believe that what he said would be true, because Scotland would be robbed of these resources. It seems that this will happen unless we have a Government who will see to it that the resources are maintained for Scotland. The interests of Scotland and England are often diametrically opposed. English industry will want the oil as cheaply as possible. If Scotland were self-governed and controlled the oil, it could, after meeting all Scottish domestic requirements, arrange with the OPEC countries that the oil was sold for the highest price possible, and sold to any country in the world, including England. It is therefore in the interests of Scotland to have a Government who will see that these valuable resources are used to the greatest benefit of the Scottish people.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the problems of transport. In my constituency, as in his, this is a great problem. The Secretary of State for Scotland went to the Highlands and on to Orkney and Shetland on his geographical tour but he decided to go no further west. The Highlands may be booming but in my constituency we have the highest unemployment figures in the British Isles. They were the highest when the Government came into office and they are the highest now.

The fishing limits have been sold out. I have heard the Government's excuse that foreign countries have rights within the six to 12 mile band. But the same thing applies around almost all the British coasts. The fishermen in my constituency have lost these rights and their lobster fishing is disturbed when rockets are fired from the rocket range. I have little sympathy therefore with those concerned about the extension of Icelandic limits to 50 miles. This is fundamentally an English problem.

Mr. Iain Sproat (Aberdeen, South)

What about Aberdeen?

Mr. Stewart

The hon. Member knows how many boats go from Aberdeen to fish off the Icelandic coast. I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in what he said about an admiral being promoted to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. That is one of the best advertisements for joining the Navy that I have seen in recent years, but it does not do much for the confidence of the people in the Highlands.

Mr. Gordon Campbell

Only yesterday he came to see me about the whole problem of shipping services to the Western Isles.

Mr. Stewart

I am afraid I do not take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I do not see how that affects my argument in any way. I hope the admiral will have some influence in the matter but these are matters for the Secretary of State and for the Government generally.

The rundown in Scotland is continuing. Lord Polwarth said on television last night what is incorporated in the Government's Motion, that they are determined.— to set Scotland on course for a new period of industrial expansion including additional expenditure on harbours, roads and other infrastructure related to the opportunities opened up by the North Sea oil discoveries". It is only when they want to extract the oil that they are prepared to provide the infrastructure. Scottish Airways are disappearing from the BEA set up. They have been slipped into a subsidiary called British Air Services. The graduate outflow in 1969–70 was 36.4 per cent. of all graduates. I have had a letter from a Scots graduate today who had applied for a job with British Petroleum. He did not even reach the short list. They did not even interview him for the post. If, having been on the short list, he had not got the job, that would have been fair enough, for there might have been a better man, but he was not even considered. What is the point of Scottish universities turning out people with qualifications of this sort when they cannot even get a look in with firms such as British Petroleum?

I turn to another promise. Where is Oceanspan, about which we heard so much? If it is not a lame duck, it is probably a dead duck.

Mr. Gordon Campbell

It is still in the egg.

Mr. Stewart

It is like the Secretary of State keeping open his options at Hunterston, which means that it has not yet come to pass and probably never will.

This is no time for any nation to be a colony. What matters now is having resources. Libya and other oil countries see to it that they get a fair price for their oil. They have resources. Governments without them may huff and puff as much as they like, but it is the countries with resources that will dictate. In Scotland we have resources and we should see that they are used for the benefit of the Scottish people.

As a start, we should see that the Government carry out their election promise to set up a Scottish Assembly. This proposal was launched at Perth with a fanfare of trumpets—the Declaration of Perth. There was hardly a word about it when the Conservatives met in conference at Perth a few months ago. The Scottish people are waiting for that promise to be redeemed. That will be a start. It is the only way in which the economy of Scotland will be put on a sure footing, able to give a reasonable lead to the people of this country.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis (Galloway)

I agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. David Stewart) when he says that we sometimes get too political in our debates on Scottish affairs. We have listened to two of the gloomiest speeches that I have ever heard from hon. Members opposite. I wonder what an industrialist intending to come to Scotland would think of those speeches. Would he want to come to Scotland if he read the hints of agitation, demonstrations and disturbance made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and the unmitigated gloom of the hon. Member for Western Isles?

In his otherwise fairly constructive speech, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) gave the impression that unemployment in Scotland started with the Conservative Government coming to office. It so happens that in preparing my speech for this debate I read a brief sent to us in 1967, when there was a lengthy list of redundancies and when unemployment was rising. The roots of unemployment, which we all deplore, lie in the deflation of the Labour Government in the middle 1960s. Scotland does best when the British economy is expanding and we have taken massive measures in two Budgets to cut taxes and to regenerate British industry. One hopes that this year the gross domestic product will expand by about 5 per cent.

Although the present unemployment position is bad, at least one may say that there are brighter prospects, as was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) and by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who said that the Shetlands were booming. Also significant is the decision to float the pound, so that we are not adopting the Labour Government's policy of deflation.

Successive Governments have underestimated the persistence of the regional development problem. I remember taking part in debates on the Local Employment Act, 1960. Speaking from memory, I think that the amount to be spent under that Act was about £14 million in a year. Under the Industry Bill we are contemplating an expenditure of £500 million by 1974.

Many of the most significant developments in Scotland have come as a result of Government intervention and have had nothing to do with the Local Employment Acts. I can think of the examples of the Ravenscraig strip mill, the motor car factories at Linwood and Bathgate, the pulp mill at Fort William, the aluminium smelter at Invergordon, and now Marathon at Clydebank. One hopes that all Government Departments are now conscious of the paramount importance of regional policy.

But there have been a number of instances in the past few years which have tended to shake one's confidence. The establishment of the Forestry Commission's headquarters at Basingstoke by the Labour Government was a complete nonsense, and I am glad that it has been rectified by the present Government. But there are other examples—the atomic energy research station at Culham in Berkshire, and the Cereal Authority's headquarters is now going to Reading.

Whenever there is a shift in defence policy, it always seems to be the out-stations at Perthor Arbroath which get shut down and their activities concentrated at Aldershot or Portsmouth. One would think that we were likely to be invaded by the French at any moment! Much military movement is now carried out by air, and in Prestwick we have an absolutely ideal airport for trooping operations if more of the Army's training were concentrated in Scotland. If the Prime Minister has not already done so, he should issue a directive that regional policy is to be considered in every departmental decision. The Minister for Industry should be in the Cabinet to bring regional problems even more to the forefront.

I do not think that we shall ever solve the regional imbalance by attracting branch factories from England. We must look on the Common Market as a fact and as offering Scotland a great opportunity. Already my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development has been to Germany, and so has a mission from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry under the leadership of Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I am certain that interest in investment in Scotland can be quickened. When the Scottish Select Committee visited Holland, we were most impressed by the knowledge of Scotland and the nascent oil industry shown by the Bredero Company of Utrecht.

We must also make our voice heard in Brussels in the formation of Community regional policy. It is greatly in our interests to cut down on investment in the central areas of Europe, and that is also the Commission's policy. We want increased grants available for the peripheral regions, even if they are standardised grants within the Community. In that quest we shall get a lot of support from Italy, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and other members of the Community.

While we were in Holland we were told that the image of Scotland was not too good among possible incoming industrialists. I am afraid that is true. The Scottish TUC did a service by recently calling a meeting in the Usher Hall, Edinburgh. Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East was not the only Conservative by any manner of means who spoke at that meeting. There were contributions from many people across party lines, and the result was a constructive conference, particularly because of the contributions from people as eminent as Cardinal Gray and Sir William McEwan Younger. The Scottish TUC could do a further service, through the working party which was set up as a result of that meeting, or by having talks with the CBI, by seeing how to get rid of Scotland's bad image as a place where to start a factory. The Welsh are much better at this than we are. The result can be seen in the lower position in the unemployment tables which Wales customarily occupies.

uch more could be done in Scotland by self-help and the encouragement of small industries. We have the Small Industries Council for Rural Areas of Scotland, which does a good job, but how often do we find as constituency Members that a small concern employing two or three people but with potential for expansion cannot get any Government assistance? Perhaps the factory is leased or the building is sub-standard. The number of occasions on which small entrepreneurs just starting can obtain no assistance is surprisingly high.

In this connection, I should like to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend. Innate in many people is the desire to be their own boss, to set up on their own, but usually they do not have the money. Many years ago the BBC ran a panel game in which each competitor had to propose to a panel of judges a viable proposition. The judges were highly competent people. One of them was an eminent industrialist, Sir Miles Thomas, and another was a trade unionist. The prize was about £5,000, which was enough to start an industry 10 or 15 years ago. Will my right hon. Friend consider running such a competition again in conjunction with, say, Scottish Television? Many of the unsuccessful applicants might well qualify for help through other Government channels if the idea were put into the public mind.

The debate has been concerned mainly with oil, steel and other industrial interests. May I make a plea for the more rural interests, which are often relatively more important in Scotland than in England? Fishing and agriculture are good examples. Forestry is actually more important in Scotland than in England. My right hon. Friend should struggle to maintain the existing Forestry Commission planting commitment in Scotland. On the private side, no one knows whether, having received a planting grant under the dedication scheme, he will qualify for another. If he decides to afforest a bit of land too, say, 20 acres, he does not know whether he will obtain a planting grant. Obviously, one man cannot be employed to look after only 20 acres of woodland, but if 10 people decide to plant 10 acres each the extra employment is provided. This uncertainty is preventing people from making the decisions which must be made for the planting programme this winter.

Will my right hon. Friend see whether he can clarify the position as soon as possible? At present the forestry industry is very depressed and muddled by the White Paper which the Government recently issued.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone (Glasgow, Gorbals)

I regret that the Minister for Industry has left the Chamber, because I intended at the outset to address my remarks to him. It is a matter of great regret to me personally, and I am sure to every hon. Member on this side, as this is the only debate on the Scottish economy that we have had in the whole of this Session, apart from the debate on a Private Member's Motion initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan). This debate is in Opposition Supply time. The Government, and particularly Scottish Ministers, are not seized of the dire position we face.

Mr. Gordon Campbell

My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry was here ever since the debate started, but left the Chamber at about 20 minutes past seven. However, I am here to listen to everything the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall pass on his points to my hon. Friend. This is the normal way the debate is operated between 3.30 p.m. and 10 o'clock.

Mr. McElhone

I am not complaining formally at the absence of the Minister. I just regret that when I am making this speech he is not present and that his education on Scottish industry and unemployment will be sadly lacking.

Mr. MacAthur: rose—

Mr. McElhone

I have had persistent interruptions from the hon. Gentleman in the past, and they are welcome, because he is always wrong, but I should like to continue addressing myself to the Secretary of State.

The right hon. Gentleman underestimates the position in Scotland. He painted a glowing picture today of the Scottish economy, but it was a false picture. Anyone reading his speech in Hansard or in the Press to-morrow will be misled if he does not know the truth of the matter. It is a credit to my hon. Friends, who could have made very emotional, angry speeches, that they contained themselves and made well-researched speeches of factual content. I refer in particular to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). I should like to continue in that vein.

I must refer to the situation in the United Kingdom as a whole, because it is acknowledged that that situation must be extremely healthy before we in Scotland can benefit in a small way. To counteract the false impression of Scotland today given by the Secretary of State, I should like to mention a few figures. If he has read the figures produced by the Central Statistical Office he is probably aware that, while productivity in the United Kingdom as a whole has risen by 7 per cent., investment, certainly in Scotland, is in a very poor way. The figures for overseas trade in the past quarter have taken a sharp down-turn, and public expenditure rose by just under 1 per cent in that period.

What I have to say next relates to Govan Shipbuilders and the position on the Upper Clyde. A distressing feature is that 495,000 gross tons of shipping had been laid up by the end of May. I understand that that is the worst figure since July, 1963. It must be a cause for serious concern, especially in view of the Government investment in Govan Shipbuilders and the position of Scottish shipbuilding as a whole.

The right hon. Gentleman will not be unaware that the position in Scotland is contrary to his glowing picture. This is shown by job availability in other parts of the United Kingdom compared with Scotland. In skilled engineering, of which we in Scotland have an abundance, there are five workers for every vacancy in the country as a whole, but I regret to say that in Scotland we have 28 workers for each vacancy. Whereas there are eight workers for every precision fitter vacancy in the United Kingdom as a whole, we have 56, and that job is the livelihood of many Scots. Where there is an average of 11 labourers for each vacancy in England, we have over 200 men chasing one labouring job in Scotland. I was told yesterday that there are 25 per cent. fewer engineering apprentices being taken on compared with 1969–70. This presents the honest picture which the Secretary of State should have given us today.

We would perhaps be mollified if the Scottish situation for 1973 gave reason for hope. We all recognise that the impact of Government legislation such as VAT, high rents through the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, which received the Royal Assent today, and the effect of food prices following our entry to the EEC will bear heavily upon the domestic purse. The average worker in Scotland still earns a great deal less than his counterpart in England. The Secretary of State has no doubt read the Finacial Times of 3rd June which carried out a survey of business concerns. We can accept that the Financial Times usually does a realistic type of survey. It said: On the basis of this survey no increase in the number of workers in the private sector can be expected over the next year. Even the situation in 1973 will be as dismal as at present.

I hope the Minister for Industry will not make the same mistake as his predecessor, who said that we had an enormous obsession with unemployment. We confess to that. That has been our predicament for all too long. We are told that the reason for the present situation is cost inflation and the fact that trade unions are pressing wage claim after wage claim. I will not go into all the facts and figures from the Stock Exchange which support my case but it is worth referring to two brief statements from The Times of 24th June when it said: In spite of record unemployment and stagnant or declining industrial production, share prices in the 1971–72 financial year shot ahead, spurred on by the property boom and the 1971 Budget concessions for the rich…The total market value of all securities quoted on the London Stock Exchange in the year ended 30th March, 1972 jumped by 24 per cent. to reach a total level of £149,531 million. For ordinary shares, the increase in the value was no less than 58 per cent. to reach a level of £57,500 million. Even the figures bear out that there has been a substantial increase in dividends and profits.

It is a nonsense to say that the legitimate claims of workers have been the cause of the inflation. In this month's issue of Scotland there is a comment on two years of Tory Government. It is not a very flattering report, and this is by no means a Socialist magazine. It speaks of: …a course of action which if followed fairly quickly, would have enabled the Government to use the strong balance of payments and fairly material goods and currency reserves to buoy up the level of demand. It also says that: The scope for manœuvre was unquestionably available. An opportunity was missed by the Government in 1970 and certainly in 1971. They were eager in the 1970 Budget to give away £350 million to the taxpayers, particularly the corporation tax and surtax payers who had supported them.

There is no point in criticising unless we are prepared to put forward sensible suggestions about what should be done. We do not claim to have the immediate panacea but we on this side have a genuine concern which is absent on the other side of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be present tomorrow when the Industry Bill is dealt with. I would like him to support a Clause which I have tried to insert into the Bill to give executive powers to the industrial regional boards, particularly in Scotland. Anyone reading the Select Committee report in the Glasgow Herald today can see that there is justification for this. The Glasgow Herald says that many millions were spent on regional aid without any real accountability or any knowledge of how the money was spent. The report says: There must be a few areas of Government expenditure in which so much is spent but so little is known about the success of the policy. This is one reason why we in Scotland should have some executive powers to deal with the way in which the money will be spent. The days when the man in Whitehall decided how the money was to be spent in Scotland have gone. I hope that the Secretary of State will be here tomorrow with his junior Ministers to support Opposition Amendments.

I will run through some suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman should be considering along with the Minister for Industry. First, there should be an urgent major investment programme dealing with a number of projects in the nationalised industries. That is a cardinal feature of any plan to deal with the agonising unemployment position in Scotland. There should be a massive injection of public money which would create private investment, because there is a crisis of confidence in the private sector in Scotland and the best way to correct this is for a massive injection of Government funds to give a boost to the private sector. When we consider the amount of money that has been invested in other parts of the world, sometimes Scottish money, we are deeply concerned about the loyalty of Scots to Scotland.

We must have a bold new initiative in the oil industry. We should pay attention to what Sir William McEwan Younger said. It is galling when the Chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland has to tell it what to do about the Scottish oil industry. Regard must be paid to the plan put forward by Lord Melchett for the Scottish steel industry, also mentioned in the Glasgow Herald today. A strong commitment must be made to the Oceanspan project.

We are deeply concerned about high unemployment among clerical workers in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman must fight and fight again in the Cabinet to get Government offices to come to Scotland. He should have the reputation of being the Lazarus of the Cabinet. He compares very badly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) when he was Secretary of State. He fought for every £ and every single job.

Perhaps I may make a novel and possibly worthwhile suggestion about the high unemployment among construction and building workers. In Germany there is a useful plan which gives 100 per cent. interest-free loans to enable families to purchase their own homes. That is a highly commendable scheme. We have always accepted the need for public housing but we have also accepted the desire of people to own their own homes. What prevents many people from taking part in this exercise is the difficulty of obtaining the initial deposit and the high interest charges which they must bear. We all know that there is little owner-occupation in Scotland because of the lack of continuity of employment. If the Government would seize the initiative and give 100 per cent. interest-free loans, particularly to people with families, it would encourage many building industry workers to come off the dole and obtain a job.

One could be very emotional and angry about this subject, but it is accepted on this side of the House that the Government are bankrupt of ideas and have an indifferent approach. It is not a question of dogma when we say that the only solution to the dreadful problem of unemployment in Scotland is for the stewardship of this country to be put back in the hands of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat (Aberdeen, South)

I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) on one point, and that is his very interesting suggestion about 100 per cent. mortgages. However, I should have been even more interested to hear what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) would have said about it had he been present.

There is growing agreement among sensible sections of Scottish opinion that the full potential of the Scottish economy is based on three main pillars—Hunterston, North Sea oil and Europe. I shall not deal with the question of Hunterston, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian)

Why not?

Mr. Sproat

Because I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have the chance of dealing with it later in the debate. I should like to deal with the question of North Sea oil, but before doing so I wish to mention something which is not only of local interest but which has a certain national significance, namely, Aberdeen Airport, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen-shire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) referred.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done a great deal for the infrastructure of North-East Scotland by way of roads, ports and the Bill on Peterhead Harbour which we discussed last night. However, although it is not his direct responsibility, I ask him to note the need to improve facilities at Aberdeen Airport. The 25.4 per cent. increase in the latest month for which we have figures this year over last year in passenger traffic on the Aberdeen to London run must be the fastest-growing increase in passenger traffic in the United Kingdom. Yet we are still having to make do with old-fashioned aircraft—Viscounts.

During the Rhodesia debate, an hon. Member opposite—I think it was the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon)—in trying to show what an appalling state the Rhodesian economy was in, said, "Rhodesian Airways even have to make do with clapped out Viscounts". That is what we in Aberdeen are having to do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State coined the phrase when he said that Aberdeen was the Texas of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is the Texas of Europe. In Texas, in America, these planes would probably be found only in a museum.

The runway at Aberdeen Airport needs to be lengthened and strengthened to take jets and we need a big improvement in the terminal facilities. The total cost would be about £1½ million to £2 million. I ask my right hon. Friend to urge his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and those at the Civil Aviation Authority to consider this matter with the utmost urgency.

I should like to say a few words about the effect of the discovery of North Sea oil on the city of Aberdeen. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what has happened. There are perhaps two extremities of myth. One myth which one often hears even in Aberdeen is talk about there being no boom, that there is no boom apart from that in land and house prices. At the other end of the scale, there are grotesque television programmes from which one would think that every second man walking down Union Street had a stetson on his head and a cigar in his teeth. Both those beliefs are nonsense, but possibly the latter, although a ludicrous caricature is nearer to the truth.

There is no doubt that Aberdeen is already a boom city and is well on the way to becoming the oil capital of Europe. The true picture was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East who referred to some of the statistics about Aberdeen. There are 1,300 new jobs, 60 per cent. of them locally. We have about 1,200 Americans in Aberdeen—enough to start their own school. I wish that they would play more of a part in the community. This illustrates some of the social changes which oil exploitation is bringing to Aberdeen.

The North-East of Scotland Development Authority, which is doing a wonderful job, has estimated that there will be as many as 10,000 jobs—5,000 in oil and 5,000 allied to oil. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the figure of 7,500, which was perhaps more realistic. Figures can be only approximate at this stage, but plainly a tremendous number of new jobs are involved. There are 105 new companies, coming in at the rate of two a week. In addition, 106 concerns are partially involved in oil. Local people in Aberdeen have seen the opportunties and are jumping in to take advantage of them.

The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), whose speech I enjoyed, said that Scotland would get no advantage from this development. What he did not mention was that injected into the economy of North-East Scotland will be, and indeed is, £10,000 per day per rig every year. That is a tremendous capital injection into the economy. We already have a dozen rigs there. We shall have 30 by the end of the year. That means that over £10 million a year will be injected into the economy of the area. Not even the hon. Member for the Western Isles can regard that as peanuts.

here have been tremendous advantages in terms of growth as a result of oil development, but there has been growth not simply because of oil. Other companies attracted by the spirit of confidence in the area are corning in. One of the most heartening things in Aberdeen is the growth of business confidence which, alas, the rest of Scotland has not experienced. I would advise anyone who had money to invest and who wanted to get into a growth area to come to Aberdeen where there are excellent prospects for the investor.

Mr. Baxter

Many people talk as if the oil boom in Aberdeen is the be-all and end-all of development in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman said that there were now 1,200 Americans in Aberdeen. There is plenty of oil in America which they could exploit, but they have a policy not only of exploitation but of conservation. Will the hon. Gentleman direct his attention not simply to the present but to the future of Scotland and encourage the development of a policy which not only exploits oil but conserves some for future generations?

Mr. Sproat

That is a fair point, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees with it. But it is a bit early to talk about the conservation of oil when we have not yet taken any out.

Two further ways by which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could encourage confidence in Aberdeen are these. First, he could taken the initiative and have a word with Aberdeen University about setting up an oil research unit there. He could perhaps give the university a grant to set up such a unit. The university would greatly appreciate that. Secondly, I agree with the suggestion about moving the Petroleum Division of the Department of Trade and Industry to Aberdeen, and not just as a public relations exercise. It would be an additional sign of confidence in the area and it would also help in the dispersal of civil servants from London which we all want to see. But, with a fast-expanding industry where the technology is so little understood it is vital to have the people contributing to the decisions on the spot so that they know just what is happening as it develops and as industrial decisions are taken.

Last night we went through the remaining stages of the Harbours Development (Scotland) Bill, concerned largely with the Peterhead harbour development. I supported it because it appeared to provide some indication of the approach, the method and the pattern that this Government are adopting with regard to the exploitation of North Sea oil. It showed that the Government are on their toes ready to respond to each individual situation with regard to North Sea oil as it arises and to seize the maximum benefit from it for Scotland.

In this approach, I discern a number of welcome ingredients. The first is perhaps not of great importance to some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite but it is very important to my constituents. It seems that my right hon. and hon. Friends have appreciated to the full the necessity to protect the fishing industry. We were extremely heartened by the assurances that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture was able to give. There was considerable doubt in fishing quarters in Aberdeen that they were to be adequately protected when the first euphoria of oil spread over the community. Now we can give them the assurance that the industry will be protected and that their doubts can be set at rest.

The second ingredient that I am pleased to see is that we appear to be appreciating the vital importance of preserving the amenities in our development of North Sea oil. It is clear that we do not intend to leave behind modern industrial development the environmental scars which were the result of the first Industrial Revolution in central Scotland. The third ingredient that I discern is that my right hon. Friend has shown a readiness to consult locally, a willingness to be influenced by that consultation, and a realisation that we are discussing not just industrial development but the development of a whole community.

Leaving aside those more general points, the fourth ingredient that I discern is that my right hon. Friend seems to be saying—and I am glad if he is—that the main job of the Government is not to develop North Sea oil. It is not even to partake, by putting public risk money into the creation of some quasi-nationalised industry such as that which certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite advocate. It is not to tie too tightly the hands of development companies so that development is delayed. Perhaps in this regard I might ask my hon. Friend whether he can say a little more about the discretionary conditions which are applied to development companies.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) referred to Sir William McEwan Younger. We all know that he wished the Government to go very much further in applying conditions. I am glad that he did. It is extremely healthy that in the Tory Party we can have conflicting ideas which do not have the murderous results that we see among right hon. and hon. Members opposite—[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is laughing. If that were not the case in the Labour Party, the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) would be sitting on the Opposition Front Bench today.

Mr. Gavin Strong (Edinburgh, East)

It may be that there is no contrast between the two main parties when a split occurs. It may be simply that the Press reacts differently.

Mr. Sproat

These are not matters over which the Press has any control. I will not list all the right hon. and hon. Members opposite whose faces we no longer see on the Opposition Front Bench. These are not matters for the Press. It is the way in which the Labour Party deals with a political split—

Mr. Ross

Where is Teddy?

Mr. Sproat

The real difference between the two parties is that when an hon. Member opposite disagrees with his party he is sacked. Hon. Members on this side of the House have a sense of honour, and they resign. That is the difference.

Mr. James Hamilton indicated dissent.

Mr. Sproat

Apparently the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) does not agree. Would he attempt to suggest that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) wanted to resign from the Shadow Cabinet? We all know that he was pushed out by the knives thrown into his back from the benches below the Gangway.

Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken me away from my main theme. I was about to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he could quantify and exemplify the fifth discretionary condition, namely, …the extent of the actual or planned contribution to the United Kingdom economy including influence on the balance of payments, and efforts to assist the growth of industry and employment. I agree with that. I think that it should be a discretionary condition. However its value relies on the stringency with which it is applied. I should like one or two examples of that.

The fifth ingredient which I discern in the Government's policy is that it is agreed that the main job of the Government with regard to North Sea oil is to create the conditions which will allow and encourage others to maximise the benefits of the oil for the whole community. These conditions will be created by improving the infrastructure, the ports, the roads and I hope the airports, too. It will be done if Scottish business is encouraged to take advantage of these great opportunities. It will be done by means of regional and financial incentives, by exhortation, by pointing out the opportunities and the profit prospects, by helping the universities to set up oil research units, and by encouraging bodies like the Scottish Council to help and encourage others. I congratulate my right hon. Friends on what they have done already in this respect, especially to encourage Scottish business.

I enter one caveat. I am concerned about the extent of American dominance in certain stages of the oil exploration business. I welcome their investment. But we ought to be aware of the almost total dominance that American industry exercises in the drilling phase and in the pipe-laying phase of oil development.

Perhaps I might give some facts that I collected in Aberdeen the other weekend. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think about them. The exploration and drilling companies are predominantly American. Of 12 rigs, six are drilling for American companies. Another three are drilling for companies which are half American. Of all the drilling companies doing this, only one is not American. Rigs are built in many country but mostly in America, and not one is currently built in the United Kingdom. On the service and supply side the Americans are equally dominant. Of three cement supply companies active in Aberdeen, two are American and one is half American. The drilling mud companies are said to be all American. Of eight diving companies which bid recently for a job from North Sea Sun, four were American. Platform gear, off-shore treatment plants, bits, blow-out prevention equipment and so on are almost exclusively American made.

It is not the business of the Government to tell the industry to run its business. Some right hon. and hon. Members opposite say that it is, but it is not. However I hope that this Government will always be alert to point out the opportunities to Scottish business and to create the necessary framework for British and Scottish industry to take maximum advantage of the opportunities of North Sea oil. It is because I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends are pursuing a policy which is alert, vigorous and far seeing that I intend to support their proposed Amendment to the Motion.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs)

I have sat through the debate since it began early this afternoon and listened to speeches from both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and other hon. Gentlemen opposite have been seeking to show that the concern expressed by my hon. Friends was not needed—indeed, that everything in the garden is lovely—that our worries are unfounded, and that tomorrow will be a much better day than today or yesterday.

I find it incredible that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment, should project the view that all we need to do is to disguise the truth, to project the image that Scotland is a thriving nation, and that industry will go there as a direct result. I do not think this occasion should be allowed to pass without taking the opportunity of projecting the picture as it really is in order that the concern of the Opposition and of the people of Scotland may be properly expressed.

On 9th September, 1969, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said: We refuse to condemn large parts of the Kingdom to slow decline and decay, to dereliction and to persistent unemployment, in pursuit of old-fangled nineteenth century doctrine of laissez-faire. We shall act to bring new life to these areas suffering from high unemployment or depopulation. The Prime Minister and the Conservative Government have acted. Unemployment now is higher than for 30 years and the population are departing in larger numbers than in recent years.

I want to deal with three specific aspects. The first is the dimensions of the problem which we are debating. The second concerns the problem of youth employment brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. William Hannan). I think it would be on our heads if we did not make reference to the despairing plight of school leavers in Scotland. The third aspect concerns the development and exploration of North Sea oil.

First, the dimensions of the problem. I should like to quote from an article by Chris Baur, the industrial correspondent of the Scotsman, in which he brings together comments by various people concerned with the economic and unemployment problems in Scotland. In the first paragraph, Chris Baur quotes a statement by Dr. Gavin McCrone, speaking in Glasgow at the Scottish National Conference of the Society for Long Range Planning. Dr. Gavin McCrone, who at that time was chief economic adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland, was talking about the cost of full employment in Scotland: A full employment policy for Scotland would require additional investment of about £200 million per year to a total of £1,000 million over a decade. This would be the scale of expenditure needed to correct the shortfall of at least 200,000 jobs left by the last ten years of regional development measures. The calculation—the first attempt to cost a programme for balancing migration flows and reducing Scottish unemployment to about 2.5 per cent.—has been made by Dr. Gavin McCrone…Dr. McCrone told the two day Scottish national conference in Glasgow of the Society for Long Range Planning that to undertake the task implied raising the proportion of the Scottish gross domestic product from 18.8 per cent. To…25 per cent. This is the size of the problem with which we are faced. Measures announced in the Industry Bill, which will be debated further tomorrow, are welcomed by the Opposition. But this great about-face, known as the Industry Bill, will go only some way to helping the problem. Even at this stage, before we are members of the Common Market—to use the language of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday, either first- or second-class members—there is a question mark regarding the permissibility of certain measures contained within the proposals which will be debated tomorrow when we join the Common Market on 1st January, 1973. Therefore, I enter a note of reservation here. No one can say with any degree of certainty what the lasting effect of the measures to be debated tomorrow will be on the Scottish economy.

What can be said, and what the Government certainly cannot deny, is that because of political dogma on their part, because of a stubbornness that is almost beyond belief, irreparable damage has been done to the Scottish economy by removing the measures which were brought in by the Labour Government. In the two years we have had to suffer a Conservative Government irreparable damage has been done to the Scottish economy. Indeed, the Government have been brought to their senses by pressures and force of events because they have had to do this about-face, known now as the Industry Bill.

I turn now to the second aspect of this rather tragic situation, namely, unemployment among school leavers. This situation can best be highlighted by quoting the experience of the South-East Scotland Electricity Board in the early part of this month. The Board advertised 18 apprenticeships for which it received, from all over Central Scotland, 207 applications. There is now a school of thought in Scotland that considers it to be much easier to be selected as a competitor in the Olympic Games than to obtain a job on leaving school. In one area which I represent, which is covered by the youth employment service in Stirling, the number of school leavers registered as unemployed on10th July this year was 185.

Mr. Dempsey

My hon. Friend has put forward an interesting argument about apprentices. I was hoping he might develop it and indicate the tragedy of apprentices in North Lanarkshire in their fourth year who are now being paid off with little hope, if any, of completing their apprenticeships—reminiscent of the blind alley employment of the hungry 1930s.

Mr. Ewing

I am grateful for that intervention. It allows me to bring out the point that I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Employment only last week asking him to set up an inquiry into the problem which my hon. Friend highlights. The right hon. Gentleman, in a rather complacent reply, indicated that he did not think the problem was of such dimensions that it required an inquiry. I have experience of this problem in my constituency. Fourth and fifth-year apprentices are being paid off—some of them certainly on the termination of their apprenticeships but others with still a year to go. The tragedy is that many of these apprentices are day-release students. As a result of their employment being terminated they are finding it impossible to continue their studies. Another result is that the certificates which they were aiming to gain are now beyond their reach. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will convey to the Secretary of State for Employment the deep concern that is felt over the problem.

The figures for Stirling show that 185 school leavers were registered as unemployed at 10th July compared with 122 in July, 1971, and very much lower figures—indeed, going back to none at all—in the middle 'sixties. The figures portray a picture of utter despair. Only today I was speaking to the youth employment officer in Stirling, and he told me—and this is common finding by youth employment officers—that more school leavers will return to schools when they reopen, not because they want to go back—which means they will be unwilling students—but because they have been unable to find jobs.

Earlier today reference was made to the graduate who was not invited to take part in the short list. Scotland is fast rearing the best-educated unemployed people in the world, and one of the greatest tragedies of the situation is the amount of unemployment amongst school leavers and the youth of this country. Vandalism and the increase in the crime figures among young people cannot possibly be divorced from the fact that they are finding it so difficult to get a job.

I want to complete the youth unemployment picture by giving the figures which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) brought out in a written answer on 25th July. I shall be fair to the Government and go back to 1963, their last year of office under the present regime. In that year, the number of unemployed boys under 18 was 4,106, and the number of unemployed girls under 18 was 2,126. In June, 1972, after variations of depths, humps and other distortions, the Government succeeded in raising the figure for boys under 18 to the disgraceful total of 5,673, and for girls, to 2,993. I could go on all night on the subject of youth unemployment, but I content myself with saying that those figures present a despairing picture.

Mention has been made of Oceanspan. One feature of this which has never been mentioned is that in the introduction to Oceanspan 2 the Scottish Council made it clear that Oceanspan could be introduced whether or not Great Britain joined the Common Market, and here I want to enter the reservation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which said that as a prerequisite to its support for Britain's entry into the Common Market there ought to be the introduction of one Oceanspan and, secondly, the development of Hunterston. Over the years there has been a demand for far-reaching projects such as Oceanspan and Hunterston to be introduced.

North Sea oil is of interest both to my constituents and to me. I have in my constituency the centre of the oil industry in Scotland through the BP refinery at Grangemouth. A great deal has been said about the need to secure the maximum advantage to the Scottish economy of the discovery of North Sea oil. I warn the House—andI include in this warning some who may be on my side of the House—that the people of Scotland—and I am no narrow nationalist—are in no mood to see the advantages which can be gained from the discovery of North Sea oil slip through their fingers. Anyone who kids himself that the people of Scotland will stand idly by and see the economic advantages go to other countries before they get their full share of the benefits to help repair the economy should think again.

There is an unanswerable case for the establishment of a second oil refinery in Scotland. Production figures show that it could be worked to more than capacity. BP has announced that by the early 1980s it will be exporting nearly 20 million tons of oil per year. The capacity of the plant at Grangemouth is 12 million tons, and even if BP increases its capacity to 20 million tons, it will still export 20 million tons, and nothing has been said about the other oil strikes in the North Sea.

On the question of jobs arising from the discovery of North Sea oil, I recently received a complaint from a constituent—and I shall be careful what I say, because my secretary may well have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland, to the Secretary of State for Employment and to various other people—about the American firm referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South recruiting untrained labour at the expense of available trained labour. I am not suspicious, but I wonder whether behind all this there is a move by that company to try to obtain cheap labour by recruiting untrained labour and carrying out its own training, at the expense of trained labour which cannot get jobs. I shall say no more about that, because I have written a lengthy document to the Ministers I have mentioned and no doubt they will refer to it.

The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) referred to the fact that finds of North Sea oil would be greater than the domestic needs of Scotland. Although the hon. Member is not now present, I am sure that he was conveying the impression that all we ought to seek to do was to refine in Scotland only the oil needed to meet domestic demands. I ask hon. Members to look at oil history. I say this advisedly and in no derogatory fashion. In the history of the Middle East oil-producing nations there is ample evidence to show that those nations insist on the oil companies establishing in the producing country refining processes which go beyond the domestic needs of that country.

There is ample evidence to support the view that all the finds of North Sea oil ought to be refined in the country off whose shores those finds were made. I say that only to emphasise the claim that there is a need for a second oil refinery in Scotland.

Mr. Sproat

Following up that argument, would the hon. Gentleman agree that if it should turn out that oil discovered in the Norwegian sector could be more cheaply piped to Scotland, he would recommend that we should not accept that that oil be refined in Scotland?

Mr. Ewing

That was a pathetic intervention. If Norwegian oil strikes were to be piped into Scotland, Scotland and the whole of Britain, and all concerned, would welcome the additional work with open arms.

Mr. Sproat

What about the Norwegians?

Mr. Ewing

What the Norwegians do is a matter for the Norwegian Government. If the Norwegian Government decided that their oil would be cheaper if piped to and refined in Scotland, I see no objection. I am surprised at the hon. Member raising such a frivolous point.

There is a price for gaining access to a country's resources. For Scotland, part of that price should be the insistence that the oil companies refine the oil in Scotland. The choice before us is one of priorities—of deciding whether the oil finds in the North Sea are to be merely a replacement for the Middle East oil for European markets, or whether these off-shore resources are to be a means of financing the economic recovery of Scotland. It is the latter choice that we should make.

The present Government must further change their outlook and thinking. Many men producing many ideas—I am tempted to say "from many minds"—will not solve Scotland's problems. The appointment of rear-admirals—this has been referred to twice in the House today—to positions as important as deputy chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board will not solve the unemployment problems of Scotland. The Secretary of State may say that that is a cheap remark, but when we see a man who, on his own admission, as reported in the Daily Record, a rear-admiral—

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)

He has never been a rear-admiral.

Mr. Ewing

The individual concerned has stated that he was looking around for something to do. The fairy godmother, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has appointed him to a £7,500 per year job, a very important job which will decide the economic future of that part of the country. Perhaps we shall be debating that matter next week.

There is a feeling abroad now that the Secretary of State's voice in the Cabinet is much weaker than it has ever been. I have heard it said, after deputations and interviews, that it is noticeable that the new Minister appointed in the Department of Trade and Industry plays a more prominent part in Scottish affairs than does the Secretary of State. If that is true, the Secretary of State had better take a thought to himself because, whatever else happens, he will be held responsible for the present condition of Scotland.

I am happy to support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Motion.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)

One aspect of this serious debate on which all right hon. and hon. Members can agree is that the rate of unemployment in Scotland is intolerable and represents the greatest waste of our largest national resource that is imaginable.

It is all very well to point to trends, but the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) would do well to remember that a trend does not set in until it begins. The hon. Gentleman was ready to rebuke my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Government colleagues for the present high rates of unemployment, but it is not unreasonable for me to remind the hon. Gentleman that the bad trend set in under the Labour Government and then worsened. The better trend began under the Conservative Government. I applaud the action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues have taken to improve the trend and to improve the outlook for the Scottish people.

Mr. Ewing

I should like to console the hon. Gentleman by saying that the reason I did not go further back on the question of youth unemployment was that the figures under the Tory Government from 1951 onwards were just as bad as the figures under the present Tory Government. The hon. Gentleman should study the trends closely.

Mr. MacArthur

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make historical excursions, I suggest that he consults the textbooks. The best textbook of all is that published by the Secretary of State in the Labour Government which demonstrates clearly that the largest increase in employment in Scotland took place in the last years under the previous Conservative Government. We increased employment. We provided more jobs. More jobs were created in Scotland proportionally than in the United Kingdom as a whole. The hon. Gentleman should not try to get away with that deceit, because it was untrue. The trend improved under the Tories then, as it is improving now. It does not do Scotland any service for an hon. Member to paint a picture which is distorted and gives a false impression of what is happening.

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to study the facts, let him turn to the White Paper published by his right hon. Friend whose sepulchre he sought to whiten. It is the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) who stands accused, with his bogus forecasts, his false assertions, and his missing of his own target by 142,000 jobs, which is more than the present number of unemployed in Scotland.

Mr. Ross

What is the hon. Gentleman talking about?

Mr. MacArthur

In the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper published in January, 1966, he promised the people of Scotland 60,000 extra jobs by 1970. By 1970 there had been not the creation of one extra job but the loss of 82,000 jobs. That is the fact. Let the right hon. Gentleman, who ignores figures he does not care to look at, study those figures. He will see that when he was Secretary of State he lost 82,000 jobs. On top of that, he failed to create the 60,000 extra jobs that he promised. Let him add the two figures and he will find that it makes 142,000 lost job opportunities, more than the present unemployment figure in Scotland.

Mr. Donald Stewart

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is using inaccurate information. The figure I received the other day for the number of jobs that had disappeared was 85,000.

Mr. MacArthur

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The figure that I got was up-to-date on the last day of a month. Perhaps his figure was later by a few days, because the position got worse every day under the Labour Government.

One point on which I can agree with the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs is as to the relationship between education and employment prospects, in which regard Scotland has much to offer. It is not immodest for any Scot to claim that our standards in education are very high, and we produce every year a growing proportion of highly educated secondary school leavers—and, happily, even more soon, now that the school leaving age is to be raised. The great tragedy in Scotland has been that there have not always been enough jobs to satisfy the young people leaving our schools.

One should not necessarily try to block all emigration from Scotland, although, of course, we should all deplore the high figures under the Labour Government. There is in Scotland a great questing spirit which encourages people to make their careers abroad. This has helped to create a new richness in the world which would not otherwise have been there, and it is something which we should always expect and not necessarily resist. But what we should all try to create is a state of things in which there is a job for every talented Scot who wishes to make his life and career in his native country.

Not only do we have a standard of excellence in education, but part of that excellence springs from the variety of education and educational opportunity which we provide in Scotland. This has not only been recognised by all of us on this side but it is known throughout Scotland and far beyond. Some years ago, I remember, the Scottish Council in one of its splendid publications called attention to the great variety of education in Scotland and its excellence, pointing to the availability of this variety for incoming people from the South.

I think it a great pity, to put it no higher, that right hon. and hon. Members opposite, carried away by their dogmatic approach to education, should have made such a great and damaging assault on the very variety of education which has contributed to the excellence in our educational fabric.

The great argument which has raged over the years about local authority fee-paying schools was only the beginning. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite attacked the local authority fee-paying schools in the cause of a bogus egalitarianism, and in that attack they were removing freedom of choice from parents who could not find their choice in any other way. It is clear that the next stage in their attack will be a campaign against the grant-aided schools. That is clear from the speeches made the other day. This, in turn, will pave the way for an attack on independent schools. Hon. Members opposite believe in one single system; they deny one of the main reasons for the excellence of Scottish education, the variety which we have produced over the years, a variety applauded and respected throughout the world.

Mr. Eadie

The hon. Gentleman should have a talk with his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), who was a member of the Fife County Council at the same time as I was, jointly and co-operatively, we abolished fee-paying schools in the Cupar and St. Andrews area. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is insulting the people who live in that area by what he is saying—and involving his hon. Friend in it, too—because they would never go back to fee-paying schools in their area.

Mr. MacArthur

That is a shaky point. In Edinburgh and Glasgow, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the local authority fee-paying schools hold a position in education never equalled elsewhere, and the abolition of those schools, which the Opposition intend, would remove from our two great cities a range and quality of education which has been the envy of Britain. It is a great pity that they are now extending their attack on variety in education to the grant-aided schools and in the independent sector.

It has often been said, and rightly, that today's unemployment is rather different in nature from the unemployment of the past. It has been said, I believe, that in Britain last year we produced rather more than in the previous year but with 400,000 fewer people at work—

Mr. Sillars

In manufacturing industry.

Mr. MacArthur

In manufacturing industry, I agree. This presents a new problem to which we must set our minds; namely the consequences of the technological revolution, which itself has produced a squeeze on manufacturing industry and shaken out a lot of surplus labour. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), who is well experienced in these matters, will agree that there is still a large layer of underused capacity in manufacturing industry. It will take us a long time to break through that capacity barrier. It is not until we do so that we shall see unemployment fall significantly. That poses many questions which we must consider; for example, the way in which we should think about leisure and the working week, holidays, and so on, in a new concept of employment thinking. However, that is not a matter for this debate.

Scotland may have been susceptible to certain trends. My hon. Friend the Mem- ber for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) was right to point to the predominance of the branch factory syndrome in the run-down in Scottish employment. I have experience of that in my constituency. Perhaps it is reasonable to suggest that in Scotland a much larger proportion of employment is provided by the private family firm than in the United Kingdom as a whole. We may be susceptible, because of our tax structure, to the blandishments and attractions of the takeover bid and the merger offer. It may follow from that that the family firm which is often one of the best employers, can disappear in the maw of diversification and spread of interest from the South, and suddenly find itself converted from a local employer into the branch factory of an English factory. I think with regret of the developments which have caused the run-down of the Smedley factories in my constituency.

I shall make one other constituency point which arises from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway. My hon. Friend made some reference to the run-down of defence establishments in the periphery of Britain. Although I do not go all the way with his argument, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to bear in mind that just outside Perth, by the end of 1973, there will be a substantial loss of jobs in the Royal Navy store depot at Almond bank. The decision to close that depot was taken by the previous Labour Administration. That decision was confirmed by the present Government. I shall make no party point about that. The decision was not based on party politics, but was a reflection of the changing defence requirements. Nobody would argue that one should artificially continue employment where there is no defence need for that employment.

What is much more important is that when we have several years' notice of a run-down, as we had with Almondbank, every arm of Government should be turned to finding alternative employment for the people concerned. It is no use Ministers saying, as one or two have said to me, that the impact of the closure will not be as large as I fear because jobs elsewhere in the defence structure will be found for many people employed at Almondbank. It is no good turning to my constituents who are employed at Almondbank and saying, "Do not worry. There is nothing to worry about. Leave home, go down to England, and jobs will be provided. Some may want to do that, but it is a complete disruption of their lives. From the point of view of the local economy, every person who moves out to make his job or career elsewhere is a lost job opportunity to an area which needs more job opportunities, not fewer. I hope that my right hon. Friend will respond to this appeal. I know that attempts are being made to find other employment for the workers at Almondbank.

Scotland looks to the Secretary of State as the co-ordinating Minister in matters of this kind. I hope that he and the Under-Secretary of State for Development will devote all their energies to trying to find alternative Government employment or to encouraging the development of private employment in Perth between now and the end of next year so that there will be no loss of job opportunities.

I turn to another area of employment in Scotland, and that is to the service industries. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in opening the debate, and it was curious to hear him lecturing the House about the importance of the service industries in Scotland. However, I agree with him that the service industries are of the utmost importance in Scotland. I recall that his colleagues expressed similar regard for the service industries in the discredited White Paper on the Scottish economy issued in January, 1966. In that document the Labour Government, which was then led in Scotland by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, rightly called attention to the important rôle of the service industries in the Scottish economy. They are important because they provide over half the jobs in Scotland and also because they generate growth in other areas of employment.

I remember reading the 1966 White Paper and saying to myself "Thank goodness! At last the Labour Party recognises the critical rôle of the service industries in the employment pattern of the United Kingdom." But what did the Labour Government do to recognise the import- ance of the service industries and to provide the encouragement which they promised in their 1966 White Paper? What they did three months later was to slap on SET—a tax which cost Scotland so much. Just before the General Election they promised to encourage the service industries; just after the election, with the vote safely out of the way, they imposed this vicious tax.

I well remember the impact of the tax in the Highland counties and the complaints which were made.

Mr. Hamish Gray (Ross and Cromarty)

Indeed there were.

Mr. MacArthur

My hon. Friend says "Indeed there were". What was the Government's reaction? The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, turned on the Highlands and snapped at them that they were whining. It was little wonder that they complained. The SET, introduced by the Labour Government and increased twice by them, took more out of the Highland counties than the total amount put in by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in all its splendid work.

I listened to what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton about the service industries, and I thought that perhaps there had been a change of heart. But what are Labour Members proposing now for the service industries? Many of the service industries apparently are to be nationalised as a sop to the Left-wing paymasters of the Labour Party. The insurance companies of Scotland are to be seized. Does the Scottish Labour Party seriously propose to nationalise the General Accident Company in Perth, the Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society, the Scottish Provident Institution and all the other great Scottish insurance companies? Of course they propose to take such action. We see it set out in their own official document.

Do they intend to stifle the enterprise of these great companies which have made such a large contribution to the balance of payments and have such a large rôle to play in our invisible exports? If this is what they intend to do, then they should spell it out clearly to the thousands of people who are employed by these insurance companies. Those in my constituency who are employed by the General Accident Company want to know the truth about Labour policy. They do not want to hear any shilly-shallying evasion, such as that which we heard from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) in an intervention earlier today.

My constituents want to know whether they will be trapped in the net of Socialist dogma. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith said that this new Socialist horror comic was merely a document for discussion. What on earth does that mean? Is the Labour Party serious about it, or is it not? Are hon. Members opposite having fun? Is he slender hon. and learned Member for Leith putting himself in the guise of the Fat Boy and saying "I will tell you stories that will make your flesh creep"? Is the policy document serious, or is it not? Is it fact, or fiction?

It is not enough for hon. Members opposite to say that this is a document for discussion—that they are going to have fun and games at the Labour Party conference. It is not enough for them to say that the leaders of the Labour Party in the House decide these matters, and that there is no question of policy being laid down by the faceless men at the party conference. We want to know whether these great companies are to be nationalised. Will the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who preaches support for the service industries when in Government, support them or nationalise them? If he is going to nationalise them, let him stand up and say so—and let him tell my constituents in Perth, who want to know, because they work for these great insurance companies which are now under threat by the Labour Party.

Let us have none of this equivocating nonsense. Let us have the truth. Let us know what the Labour Party really proposes. Let us know who will decide—right hon Gentlemen opposite or the faceless men at Blackpool, or whoever it may be. Whichever group it is, I shudder just the same. It is of great concern what the Labour Party means to do about the service industries. It is of critical economic significance to Scotland, because the service industries employ over half our people.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone), in an interesting speech, rightly said that what matters most in Scotland is the state of the total economy of the United Kingdom. Scotland cannot prosper in isolation—nor can we believe that regional inducements are decisive by themselves; all that they can do is to tilt the balance in favour of Scotland when the economy is growing. They cannot achieve much more.

What matters much more than the pattern of regional inducements is the need for a general growth in the economy—and that, thank goodness, is happening now, because of the measures of this Government. Hon. Members opposite who paint such a gloomy picture and pretend that there is no growth should be reminded that this Government reduced the burden of taxation by more than £3,000 million in three years. There is an interesting little sum, showing that for every day that the Conservative Government have been in office tax rates have fallen, on average, at a rate of over £4 million, compared with an increase of £2,000 million and more when the Labour Party was in power.

There has been a tremendous injection of purchasing power and growth into the economy, and on top of that a large increase in central Government investment in Scotland, the special measures that my right hon. Friend has introduced, and the great action—unparalleled in our history—taken by the Government to generate employment and growth in Scotland. Against that background I become rather depressed when I hear hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite paint such a dismal picture of the situation in Scotland.

Let them read an industrial trends survey, issued by the CBI, to whose words I listen more readily than I do to those of hon. Members opposite. That document shows that there is a restoration of growth in the economy at last. Let them reflect on the fact that Scotland will be not only a part of the United Kingdom but a part of Europe, with all the prospect of growth that that entails. The discovery of oil is not only the greatest economic advance in Scotland this century, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, but probably the most important economic advance for the country for all time. We have hardly begun to grasp the potential of it for our people.

Let us remember that we have, thanks to the efforts of all Governments, a much broader base of employment in Scotland, a much wider variety than ever before and one which gives us a springboard for the period of growth that we are about to enter. We should not talk about depression and gloom in Scotland. We must have a spirit of confidence and optimism, because that will attract new industry and it will keep our young people in Scotland and encourage them to make their careers there. Confidence and optimism are totally justified by the better economic outlook for Scotland today.

9.02 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)

It is tragic that speeches of a filibustering nature, such as we have just heard, full of complacency and smugness about the Scottish economy, should be made when hon. Members on the Opposion side have genuine points to make. To hear the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) speak one would not think that 138,500 people were unemployed in Scotland. I like listening to the hon. Member's robustness usually, but on this occasion it was deplorable and we should not have to listen to time-wasting speeches of that nature when there are more important matters to be discussed. It is regrettable that the situation in Scotland is so bleak and so dismal and that because of the actions of the Conservatives we have to discuss a Motion such as that which we are discussing tonight.

Of course, they can produce figures in mitigation of their dismal performance over the last couple of years, but it cannot be denied that the position in Scotland is worse today than at any time since the Industrial Revolution began. The Government seem to have no coherent and constructive policy of their own. They are minions of Whitehall. Whitehall calls the tune and they dance to it. Now it will be the oil barons who will play on their pipes, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and his colleagues will have to do a macabre dance to it.

In Scotland male unemployment is nearly 8½ per cent. In Glasgow, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan) pointed out, it is almost 12 per cent. A glance at the statistical tables industry by industry gives a clear indication of the picture. In the manufacturing and construction sectors, in the gas, electricity, water, mining and quarrying, metal manufacturers, shipbuilding and marine engineering, vehicles, textiles, bricks, pottery, glass and cement industries fewer people are employed year by year. The figures show a reduction in the employment level in Glasgow, and all over Scotland, and hon. Members know how difficult it is for young people leaving school to get jobs. Only in industry associated with insurance, banking, finance and business, the professional and scientific services and public administration and defence is there an increase in employment. That is not surprising in view of the kind of Government we have had for the last two years and it is part of the sorry story of the run-down of our basic industries—coal, shipbuilding, textiles and the steel industry.

Terrible and tragic as the unemployment situation is and as the rundown of Scottish industry is, there is another aspect of the Scottish scene that alarms me and fills me with considerable foreboding and that is the loss of Scotland's population. Once again the floodgates are open and Scotland is being denuded of people whom she can ill-afford to lose. I estimate that we have suffered a net loss of more than 1 million people from Scotland in the past 30 years or so. It is worth taking a moment to compare Scotland with other European countries which had a pre-war population of between 5 million and 7,500,000.

In 1939, Scotland's population was just under 5 million, and it is now 5.22 million, an increase of 4.6 per cent. In that time the population of Austria has increased from 6.75 million to 7.5 million, an increase of more than 10 per cent. Switzerland, which had fewer people than Scotland in 1939, 4.2 million, now has a population of 6.3 million, an increase of almost 50 per cent. I do not want to go through the complete list, but only the Irish Republic has had a smaller increase of population.

The difference is not related to birth rates and death rates. Although the mortality rate in Scotland is slightly higher than in England and Wales, it is cancelled out by the slightly higher birth rate. It must therefore be calculated that the natural increase should have produced a population of more than 6 million in Scotland today.

North Sea oil has been mentioned: I call it Scottish oil. It certainly could bring about a marked improvement in the Scottish economy. It is calculated that there are 50 billion barrels in the area—more than 8 per cent. of the world's known total. But I have figures which give an alarming picture of the way in which the industry is in the hands of companies that are neither British nor Scottish based and are financed mainly by American capital.

We do not want to be fobbed off with explanations about the oil industry being capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) alluded to this in his speech. In any case the technological revolution makes it imperative that all industrial nations embark upon a policy of teaching new skills and reverting to many old crafts and skills. We must harness this technological revolution to our own needs, current needs, needs of the near future and of the not-too-distant future. I see nothing wrong with recreating and redeveloping old hand skills that we once had for working in wood, brass, wool, and so on. The riches produced by a smaller work force must in some way redound to the benefit of all and not be hogged by a small number. There is a considerable artificiality in any case in the mass production of goods for waste instead of use.

Reverting again to the oil industry, I do not think that we have been told the whole truth about oil finds off the coast of Scotland. We seem to have handed this industry on a plate to private enterprise which, as I have said, is almost completely United States-dominated.

The Government have lost their way in a maze of Tory political doctrine and they stand condemned as much for their inaction in many respects as for some of the actions which have brought about the present position in Scotland. I am led to the conclusion that, hell-bent on getting us into the Common Market at any cost, the Government are standing meekly by while Scotland becomes an industrial backwater. It is time that they produced a policy which is Scotland-oriented and designed to benefit the Scottish people, or went out of office and allowed another Government to do that job.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

We have had a very full debate, although it is a pity we lost so much time earlier. I sometimes think it is rather unfair that those who have the debate on a Thursday afternoon lose so much time over business and other statements. Quite a number of hon. Members who would have liked to speak in the debate have been kept out.

I welcome the Minister for Industry to our debate. We always relish a change of brew. We thought that we might have had the Under-Secretary of State for Development, but we look for ward to hearing what I believe is the hon. Gentleman's second speech in his new capacity. I hope that he appreciates his task, because, despite the effort of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perth shire (Mr. MacArthur) to pour some light and brightness on the economic scene, and the similar effort of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat)), by concentrating upon Aberdeen and talking about the boom town and the influx of Americans, anyone who looks objectively upon the Scottish scene must express concern. There has been an increase of production, but we are still losing jobs. If anyone is still interested in the numbers game, when the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire spoke about how many jobs we lost when I was Secretary of State, the last figure he gave was about 85,000—

Mr. MacArthur

It was 145,000.

Mr. Ross

I am talking about loss of jobs, not what the hon. Gentleman talked about—adding targets and so on to the figure. I took a note of the time the hon. Gentleman came in. It was a quarter to eight.

Mr. MacArthur

That is untrue.

Mr. Ross

Most of the time thereafter he has been away.

Mr. MacArthur rose

Mr. Ross

The fact is that from July, 1970, to December. 1971

Mr. MacArthur

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If a right hon. Gentleman makes a totally false statement about an hon. Member, is there no procedure whereby the hon. Member can explain that he has been present throughout the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. MaMalieu)

The hon. Gentleman apparently knows his way round the procedure.

Mr. Ross

Between July, 1970, and the end of last December we lost 62,000 jobs. More jobs than that have been lost in total under the present Government. The latest figures projecting the average given in the Economic Bulletin show that the number of redundancies in Scotland since the present Government took over, a period of just under two years, is over 80,000. That is a pretty sombre picture.

If everyone available for employment were employed, there would be reason for optimism. It is no use talking about confidence unless the basis for confidence exists. We are asking the Government to be realistic. Only by recognising the facts will they be able to introduce the right policies.

The unemployment figure of 138,000 is the highest we have ever had in the month of July since the end of the war. I have a chart in my room—I have kept it for years, month by month—showing the unemployment figures. We try to take a certain amount of confidence and cheer from the fact that if we take away the school leavers and adult students—that is a new one that has crept in—things look better. We should appreciate that going back over the last 12 years the average increase between June and July has been 4,000, yet this year it was 9,000. There were school leavers in those years, too. Taking the movement of the figures from now until January of next year, the average increase is 17,000. We can see the sort of picture that emerges and why my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) spoke as he did.

I know that the Government are to be saved by the school bell because in December of this year there will be no 15-year-olds able to leave school. As from 1st September the school leaving age goes up. But let us not get overjoyed. If there are not so many people unemployed it is not because of a pick up in employment; it is because the children who should have been coming on to the employment market are at school. This is one of the reasons why fewer people are unemployed—the fact that more youngsters have been staying on at school. That is why I object to the silly numbers game that has been played over the years.

Mr. MacArthur

The right hon. Gentleman was playing it in his bogus promises.

Mr. Ross

This chart I have relates to unemployment and that is a figure from which we cannot get away, like the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan) in a good speech about the Glasgow position. We can take particular areas such as Glasgow and Lanarkshire where the position is much worse, where the figures for male unemployment are 10 per cent. and in some cases 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. We have also to consider the duration of unemployment and the number of men who have been made unemployed and who know that they will not get another job.

There are youngsters who have not had a job since they left school. I was on Clydebank the other night, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and a man who once was employed in John Brown's was telling me that his son had just left school aged 16½. He went to the youth employment officer and asked him what was available. He was one of 600. There was one apprentice engineer place available, there was one apprentice hair-dressing vacancy, there was one job available as a tea-boy in a building unit and a similar vacancy in a shop. That was all.

Translate that into the life of a family and of a community and there is justification for our concern. It does not end with the unemployment figures. The Secretary of State did not give us any reason for hope with industrial development certificates, new projects coming forward and the number of jobs which would be produced by then. There was a good reason why he did not do so— because it is not very helpful. When he listed the causes of unemployment and the difficulties, he might have quoted his own Scottish Economic Bulletin published by the Scottish Office, issue No. 3 for this summer. While it does its best to be fairly factual it says: The current low level of investment is indicated by the statistics for industrial development certificates in Scotland. When the speculative factory building, the advance factory building, was taken out one discovered how disappointing—and it must have been disappointing for Ministers after all their effort—the position was.

The CB1 surveys have been quoted. I well recall what used to be said in the Scottish Office about them. I was advised that they had never been right. I wonder whether the same can be said about the advice given in the Scottish Office. I wish that something a little more substantial than the CBI surveys had been quoted. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry must know the low level of investment in the private sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) called it a crisis in confidence—a very good phrase. What is the reason for that crisis? In October, 1970, the Government said "We shall cut public expenditure. We shall hammer the local authorities"—and the cheers of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) were louder than anybody's. The hon. Gentleman is no longer PPS to the Secretary of State for Scotland for a very good reason—because he is concerned about the change in policies.

That change in policies followed after two disastrous years. Tonight we have seen newspapers for the first time for some days, and they did not make very good reading. Other policies were announced at the time, and the Industrial Relations Bill was one of them. I hope that the Government will not take two years to change their mind about that. They changed their mind about their industrial incentives policy after the disasters it caused. The latest shipping bulletin from the information office of the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association states: …the intake of new orders during the second quarter of the year continued at a very low level. Basic reasons for this situation are the continuing low level of freight rates, coupled more recently with the uncertainties over currencies. In addition, however, it is known that some owners are refraining from placing contracts until there is a Government decision on whether financial incentives should be made available to ship owners placing orders for new tonnage. No joy is to be gained from the drop in new orders. This does not simply apply to the Clyde.

I was surprised that the Secretary of State had the temerity to mention Govan Shipbuilders. The comprehending of three yards within Govan Shipbuilders was not initially the desire of the Government. It was the fight of the workers which changed the situation at the John Brown yards. We remember the scathing remarks which were made about the cost—£34 million in respect of Govan Shipbuilders and, according to the figures I received at Clydebank the other night, a likely £12 million in respect of Marathon. The Minister has had his education in industrial matters. It was a crash course. I hope that he has learned his lesson. But the people who suffered most as a result of that education were the people of Scotland, with redundancies month after month. But what will they do about shipbuilding? When shall we get a decision from the Government on long-term help for the shipbuilding industry? These are the people in the industry themselves telling us. They are waiting. They do not want to wait much longer.

Another aspect of this crisis of confidence is that, having heard so much about the opportunities for expansion within the EEC, one would have thought that this dynamism that we were to import would have begun to show some indication in Scotland. It has not. Many people are beginning to be concerned that the initial effect will be very much worse than the Government have been prepared to admit—

Mr. MacArthur

Nonsense.

Mr. Ross

These are the facts. It is no use running away from them. This is why the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is so wrong in his approach to Scottish politics. That is why he can make the kind of speech that he did tonight, forgetting that behind all these figures is the future prosperity of Scotland.

Steel was another one today—

Mr. James Hamilton

No one mentioned it.

Mr. Ross

Not a single hon. Member opposite mentioned it. The Secretary of State told us only what we knew already. However, I have the feeling that the Secretary of State is convinced that whatever the British Steel Corporation says that it intends to do in Scotland is right. But he is terrified that Lord Melchett has made another speech, about which he has not been told. Lord Melchett made another speech yesterday. He said that it was vital that we got 33 million tons and that if we did not there was no prospect of a green field site development. Are we to be told anything about it tonight? Do the Government know about that speech and do they agree with it?

Are we to get the Hunterston development? The Marco Polo of politics, the Secretary of State for Scotland, discovered Hunterston. He keeps telling us so. In the same year he discovered oil in the North Sea. But it is three years ago that he was telling us about Hunterston and saying that we must avoid unnecessary, long delays. He followed that up later by talking about development not just at Hunterston but about a steel complex. He told us that it had been proved in other parts of the world, notably in Japan, that if steelworks are sited near to an oil terminal transport, other costs are reduced. He told us we must get on with it. That was three years ago. He did not talk about a steel complex today. He talked just about other developments. Clearly he is already in retreat.

Now we have a new Minister in the Scottish Office, Lord Polwarth. He was the head of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. That body has never been slow in putting forward its demands in respect of steel and Hunterston. It has said: …while the future of the industry and its customers in Scotland would be seriously affected if the new plant was built elsewhere (than at Hunterston) the main conclusion is that the future of the British steel industry is, in fact, similarly tied to the exploitation of the advantages offered by a Scottish location". Can we look forward to the announcement tonight? I hope so sincerely. Or are we to look forward merely to these 7,500 redundancies and the cutting-down of the Scottish steel industry? Youngsters are queueing up to get jobs. They will not get them in the steel industry. The work force is reduced by 7,500.

We want modernisation. We realise that it will mean fewer jobs. But we want an expanded steel industry to take up some of the slack, and we want a green field development at Hunterston. If there have to be jobs lost and, in the phasing-out, redundancies, we want new jobs phased in. But there is no indication in the Government's plans that that is possible.

The Government take pride in their Amendment to the Industry Bill; but that Bill, which has not yet been passed, has grave weaknesses. Indeed, we have already pointed to shipbuilding. There is also the question of REP and labour-intensive industry which requires far more help than it will get, strangely enough, from a Government including an hon. Gentleman who used to complain about the subsidies and help we gave to capital-intensive industry. Now the Government are giving more help to capital-intensive industry within the Industry Bill and at the same time threatening to cut down the help given to labour-intensive industry.

There is no doubt that oil will be a tremendously big factor in Scottish industry in future.

Mr. MacArthur

Oh!

Mr. Ross

I wish the hon. Gentleman would not behave like a child. I have always considered that we have not yet fully realised the potential of oil around our coast. I have said publicly that we were right, concerning the original licences for exploration, to take the course we did to try to maximise the exploration No one knows what is there until something happens one day and a strike is made. Even then we do not know whether oil is there in commercial quantities until further developments take place. But we now know that there is oil in commercial quantities in the North Sea and probably in other seas around our coast. As soon as that happens I consider the position is utterly and absolutely changed.

Earlier one of my hon. Friends asked about co-ordination regarding the rate of exploitation. Some people seem to think it does not matter to this country. It surely matters how we can properly phase in our ability to plan for and get our industries to benefit to the maximum point and avoid some of the social difficulties about which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) spoke. It is vital that the Government take control of the rate of exploitation. They would be crazy not to do so. I hope we shall hear something about that from the Minister.

The Government must maximise the benefit to be derived from oil for this country. We have had other great industries. We had a mining industry. We see the scars in Scotland. Ask the miners what Scotland got from the mining industry. We must ensure that some great part of the benefits from this new potential goes to the people of Scotland. It can be done by way of royalties, licensing, and State participation. It can be done by putting into the licensing conditions provisions about the landing and refining of the oil. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) made the point that we could have more refining capacity in Scotland. I think that this is very likely.

We should have State participation. It is done in Norway. It was done in Britain a long time ago through BP. We have already nationalised the oil, because anything that is discovered here, according to our legislation, belongs to this country—to the nation. Surely we are entitled, in the exploitation of the oil, to a considerable share. I recall a phrase used by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart)—somebody else gets the cash and we get the pollution and the problems. We must avoid that at all times.

The Norwegians have said that there must be State participation on a carried interest basis, which means that the investment starts when the oil is discovered in commercial quantities. It is on that basis that they are signing agreements with companies and there is no reason why we should not do the same.

The Government will be culpable if, having made the mistakes which they have made in the last two years because of their dogmatic policies, they do not deal properly with this new prospect for Britain. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have taken this matter rather lightly will appreciate how deeply we feel about it in Scotland. I hope that the Government will try to appreciate the reactions of people in Scotland to their appointments.

The Secretary of State carped about the time that we took on the Harbours Bill. Does he realise that the interval between his writing to me on 25th May—in reply to which I tried to be helpful—and the Second Reading of the Bill was longer than the time it took the Bill to get a Second Reading and be passed through the House?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose—

Mr. Ross

I am sorry, but I want to conclude my speech shortly.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today the right hon. Gentleman gave the House a solemn assurance that he would deal with the Labour Party's document—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is not a question of order.

Mr. Ross

It is this kind of carping attitude—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?

Mr. Ross

—which makes me feel that the Scottish Office is merely floundering on the fringes instead of giving us the quality of leadership that is needed to deal with our problems, and I hope that the House will support our Motion.

9.37 p.m.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman)

Like the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I am sorry that we have not had more time for this debate, if for no other reason than that it would have given the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to deal with the matter put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne).

I am sorry, too, that the theme of so many speeches from the benches opposite has been a lack of confidence in the ability of Scotland to compete with the rest of the United Kingdom. I am proud to say that I am 50 per cent. Scottish, and I cannot condone that attitude. I support the clarion call of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) who, in my view. is more representative of the feelings of the people of Scotland.

I understand the concern of hon. Gentlemen opposite about the unemployment figures, but the Opposition have no monopoly of the concern over this matter. I make no criticism of hon. Gentlemen for raising these issues, but in doing so they have in large measure been condemning themselves for their ineptitude whilst in Government. Few jobs—certainly in manufacturing industries—can be created overnight. They require years of preparatory planning, anticipating the changing pattern of employment and getting the right infrastructure, and my hon. Friends the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) were right to point that out.

Steel, which figure so largely in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, is a good area to illustrate the contract between this Administration and the previous one in tackling such problems. It should have been obvious to the Labour Government that new technology and processes in this industry would demand massive investment and that there would be a streamlining of the numbers of those employed. Yet what did they do about that? They left the industry in a state of suspended animation for years while they prepared to nationalise it. As a result, they inhibited investment. When they carried out the act of nationalisation, the resulting massive rationalisation that followed prevented major investment decisions being made.

As a consequence, the levels of investment in steel during the last three years of the Labour Government were only about one-third of the level that has been made or authorised for the comparable period from 1970–71. In 1969–70 the investment made by the British Steel Corporation was £80 million, and in the current financial year the investment will be £265 million.

Applying those figures to Scotland, over the four years from 1970–71 to 1973–74 the British Steel Corporation's investment in Scotland is likely to be more than three times the annual rate over the years from vesting date to March, 1970. Scotland has had its full share of the total investment commen- surate with its crude steel production, and this will be maintained over the years immediately ahead. Yet the terms of the Opposition Motion seem to seek to condemn the Government for failure to ensure a modernised and expanding Scottish steel industry. The allocation of resources to an industry is not an unfair measure of the importance that we on the Government side of the House attach to modernising and expanding it and providing the best opportunities to employ the skills and facilities which the Motion describes as being "uniquely available in Scotland". I contrast the Opposition's words today with the smallness of the resources that were deployed by them to support the steel industry when they were in office, and this exposes the sham. They had achieved their political aim of nationalisation. They accepted that this also meant nationalisation. Indeed, they justified their action on these grounds. Yet they were able neither to provide the necessary capital investment to be made nor to prepare for the inevitable consequences on employment that would follow.

I shall not go through the list of all that is being done now prior to the major strategic decision that will come forward from the British Steel Corporation later this year. But I remind the House of the proposal to build the £26 million terminal to supply iron ore to BSC plants in Scotland, and of the vast investment being made at Ravenscraig, the first phase of which is already proceeding and has cost £28 million, and the second phase, costing £32 million, which has been finally approved today by the BSC with my full agreement. This is within the £265 million for 1972–73. This is in addition to the £9 million which is being spent at Clydeside for electric are steel tube production.

It is intended to keep a viable steel industry in Scotland to meet the major needs of its national geographical market, including highly specialised steel for the North Sea oil developments and for export, especially for trans-Atlantic markets.

Mr. Millan

What about Hunterston?

Mr. Boardman

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be patient.

The British Steel Corporation has given assurances that the steel making and finishing capacity in Scotland will be kept in balance, though Ravenscraig will also have the capacity to feed other strip mill plants with coil. The British Steel Corporation has announced that there is no provision in its planning for any regular importation of ingots or slabs to Scotland on any scale.

The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) asked whether we would let the British Steel Corporation make 36 million tons of steel. The right hon. Gentleman referred to letting them make 33 million tons by 1980. But they should know that this is not the question. The question is whether the corporation can sell that quantity of steel. If it cannot, the green field site might lead only to overcapacity, to closure of many plants elsewhere and to serious redundancies. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman to direct their minds to the right question and not to ask whether the Government are prepared to let the corporation make the steel.

Mr. Millan

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the specific question I put? Is it or is it not a fact, as Lord Melchett said yesterday, that unless capacity is increased to at least 33 million tons by 1980 there will be no green field site anywhere either at Hunterston or anywhere else? If it is so, is it not a fact that by keeping capacity down to 28 million tons, as the Government obviously intend to do, Hunterston is out?

Mr. Boardman

The hon. Gentleman is adding to his ignorance. It is not a case of keeping the capacity down. Steel is not a commodity that the Government consume. I do not think that the Opposition consume it either. It is not a question of letting the corporation produce it. It is a question of the corporation making an assessment of the amount of steel it can sell and then adjusting its capacity. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman know that the strategic evaluation is at a well-advanced stage and it will be coming to the Government so that a decision can be made upon it, and it will be coming before the House later in the year.

Mr. Ross

If the corporation comes forward with a plan for 33 million tons to 36 million tons, will the Government accept it?

Mr. Boardman

The right hon. Gentleman must not ask me to speculate on what may happen if certain things eventuate. The Government have the responsibility for the assessment of the corporation's overall investment plan. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate decisions or to commit myself about the way in which the duty will be discharged by my right hon. Friend.

To put the loss of job opportunities in Scotland in perspective, it is worth noting that in the period since nationalisation the job opportunities lost in Scotland have been the lowest in any region in the country. The hon. Member for Craigton referred, as indeed did the right hon. Gentleman, to what they call the redundancies, which they again put at the top figure of 7,500 which has been forecast. Redundancies and loss of job opportunities are not the same thing, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. It should be realised, too, that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman were talking about a five-year cycle. It should be remembered that there are plans coming forward about which I have been talking and which will follow from the further investment at Ravenscraig and the like. There are also such plans as may come from any further strategic study.

Hon. Members may consider that 19,000 jobs in a prosperous, modern and efficient industry are more secure and better for the health of the Scottish economy than 26,500 jobs in out-dated plants unable to compete in world markets. Steel, like oil, is a world commodity, and our standards must be measured by world standards, otherwise we are unable to compete and the whole of our industry which uses steel will suffer a penalty that can destroy it.

I recognise that modern methods make it more difficult to replace jobs in manufacturing industry with jobs in similar industries. The hon. Member for Craigton, when he was criticising our regional policy, made the remarkable assertion that too much regional assistance was directed to the manufacturing industries —[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must read the report of what he said. That was a strange remark coming from the spokesman of a party whose Government imposed selective employment tax and who consistently showed bias against the service industries. The clear message in what the hon. Gentleman said was that not enough was being done for the service industries. I remind the House that we have already abolished half the SET, the rest is to be abolished, and free depreciation on plant and machinery for service industries may be considered for selective assistance when the Industry Bill is on the Statute Book.

I turn—all too briefly, I fear—to the question of North Sea oil. The hon. Member for Craigton asked why there was no White Paper. I am not convinced that a White Paper is necessarily appropriate. However, I think that the House is entitled to a better presentation of the information available than has so far been given, and I am considering how this can more effectively, more clearly, and, I hope, more attractively, be presented. It is a matter of considerable interest both in the House and outside, and I think it right that that should be done.

The criticism has been made that the oil companies have been allowed to get away with too much, and greater Government participation was called for. Also, it has been argued that exploitation has been left to the oil companies, and that it should be directed by the Government. I hope that I have correctly summarised the criticisms presented by the hon. Member for Craigton, which were repeated in several forms by his hon. Friends.

Such criticisms are not well founded. It must be recognised—it has been recognised both by this Government and by the Labour Government in their licensing rounds—that the objective was to achieve a rapid exploration and development, to establish what was there, to enable the industry to equip itself and, if oil were found, to achieve the maximum benefit to our balance of payments at the earliest possible moment.

This process has been successful. The first commercial oil finds in the United Kingdom shelf were in only 1970. I hope that the hon Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) will forgive me for referring to the United Kingdom shelf and not to the Scottish shelf. I am sure that he would not wish to refer to some of the gas fields as being in the English shelf or the Celtic shelf.

This is a high risk industry. There is high risk in going out and drilling. So far, investment in North Sea oil by the oil companies has been £300 million, and it is estimated that by the end of the decade a further £1,500 million to £2,000 million will have to be spent. As my right hon. Friend said, each well costs about £1 million to drill. Some hon. Members said that only one well in 20 strikes oil in commercial quantities. In fact, for the record, the proportion should be noted as one in 27.

It is possible to assess the size of the risk taken, therefore, but, after the first commercial finds in 1970, the Government tried as an experiment a system of auction, and out of the 421 blocks which were available and going out for allocation 15 were selected for auction. They fetched prices between, at the one extreme, £21 million, and, at the other. £3,000.

I do not wish—time would not allow it anyway—to go into the merits of one course or the other, or to come to a firm conclusion whether either is necessarily the best to adopt for the future. We should keep an open mind as to the methods to be used in the future.

The problem with an auction is that it entails an inability to ensure that British-owned companies necessarily have a fair share. I emphasise that under the present system, over 40 per cent. of the total area is owned by British-owned companies. The public sector, directly or indirectly, has 20 per cent. This is a significant stake, and I imagine that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will have that in mind when he makes comparisons with what is done elsewhere. Moreover, under the present discretionary allocation system, it is possible to negotiate a satisfactory working programme, and this cannot be done at an auction.

The next criticism of the hon. Member for Craigton was of the method of exploitation, saying that too much was left to the oil companies and not enough to the Government. The discretionary allocation system enables work programmes to be gone through in some detail—

Mr. Dick Douglas (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

rose—

Mr. Boardman

The third point is that one of the criteria used in deciding the allocation of discretionary licences is to take account of the applicant's actual or potential contribution to the United Kingdom economy. This is an important factor which must not be overlooked. Comparisons with other countries are not appropriate. I am sure the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock will have looked at the matter in a wider sense.

Mr. Douglas

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boardman

No. I remind the House that under the system which has been used, half of each block has to be surrendered after six years. I remind the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock that our position is very different from that of Norway. We have a real demand for oil, we also have many oil companies and many world interests in oil exploration and exploitation.

I should like to have dealt with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) in a constructive speech. My hon. Friend referred to getting energy supplies more cheaply, but that is a matter which I cannot condense in the few moments which are left—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) rightly pointed out the benefits accruing to the Aberdeen area from the oil industry. It is right that 7,500 jobs have resulted from the present projects and that there are many to add to that figure. The BP pipeline will multiply the number of jobs which will become available. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East spoke about the moving of various headquarters out of London. BEA helicopters headquarters has moved to Aberdeen, which is a start. My right hon. Friend has written to the chairmen of the various nationalised industries on that point.

References were made by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock to Govan Shipbuilders and to the Expenditure Committee report. The great contrast can be made that while the Labour Government tinkered with the problem, we have examined the whole question. Adequate and sufficient help must be given to ensure that we achieve our objectives.

It would be wrong for me to suggest that we have found the solution to all the problems of the region; they are problems which have concerned successive Governments. The problem which we have to tackle is one which was increased by a combination of the savage deflationary measures introduced by the previous Government, the deterrents that they imposed on service industries, the Labour Government's failure to secure a high level of investment in modernising industries such as steel and shipbuilding, and their complete failure to prepare for the new employment which would be needed under the changing conditions which they should have anticipated. We are tackling these problems by new means and with new determination, with large resources and with competence. We intend to succeed.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. George Lawson(seated and covered) (Motherwell)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At least two Opposition Members were not counted in the Division. Before the order "Lock the doors" had been given, and before the doors had been closed, we were informed that our vote would not be counted. There was no proper sweeping-up, and, therefore, we contend that the counting of Opposition Members was inaccurate, that the result is not accurate and that the Division should be taken again.

Mr. Speaker

In these circumstances the Chair has no option but to direct the Division to be taken again.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 264.

Division No. 328.]	AYES	[10.15 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Fidler, Michael	Longden, Sir Gilbert
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Loveridge, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Luce, R. N.
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	McAdden, Sir Stephen
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Fookes, Miss Janet	MacArthur, Ian
Astor, John	Fortescue, Tim	McCrindle, R. A.
Atkins, Humphrey	Fowler, Norman	McLaren, Martin
Awdry, Daniel	Fox, Marcus	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	McNair-Wilson, Michael
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord	Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Gardner, Edward	Maddan, Martin
Batsford, Brian	Gibson-Watt, David	Madel, David
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife. E.)	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Bell, Ronald	Glyn, Dr. Alan	Marten, Neil
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Mather, Carol
Benyon, W.	Goodhew, Victor	Maude, Angus
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Gorst, John	Mawby, Ray
Biffen, John	Gower, Raymond	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Biggs-Davison, John	Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Blaker, Peter	Gray, Hamish	Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Boardman. Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Green, Alan	Miscampbell, Norman
Body, Richard	Grieve, Percy	Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire.W)
Boscawen, Robert	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Grylls, Michael	Moate, Roger
Bowden, Andrew	Gummer, J. Selwyn	Money, Ernle
Braine, Sir Bernard	Gurden, Harold	Monks, Mrs. Connie
Bray, Ronald	Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Monro, Hector
Brewis, John	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Montgomery, Fergus
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	More, Jasper
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Morrison, Charles
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Mudd, David
Bryan, Sir Paul	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Murton, Oscar
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	Haselhurst, Alan	Neave, Airey
Buck, Antony	Hastings, Stephen	Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Bullus, Sir Eric	Havers, Michael	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Burden, F. A.	Hawkins, Paul	Normanton, Tom
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Hayhoe, Barney	Nott, John
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Onslow, Cranley
Carlisle, Mark	Heseltine, Michael	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Hicks, Robert	Osborn, John
Channon, Paul	Higgins, Terence L.	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Chapman, Sydney	Hiley, Joseph	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Parkinson, Cecil
Churchill, W. S.	Holland, Philip	Peel, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Hordern, Peter	Percival, Ian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hornby, Richard	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Cockeram, Eric	Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Cooke, Robert	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Pink, R. Bonner
Cooper, A. E.	Hunt, John	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Cordle, John	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick	Iremonger, T. L.	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Cormack, Patrick	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Costain, A. P.	James, David	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Critchley, Julian	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Raison, Timothy
Crouch, David	Jessel, Toby	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Crowder, F. P.	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Redmond, Robert
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Jopling, Michael	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Rees, Peter (Dover)
d'Aivgdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Dean, Paul	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Kershaw, Anthony	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Kimball, Marcus	Ridsdale, Julian
Dixon, Piers	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Kinsey, J. R.	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Drayson, G. B.	Kirk, Peter	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Kitson, Timothy	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Dykes, Hugh	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Rost, Peter
Eden, Sir John	Knox, David	Royle, Anthony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Lambton, Lord	Russell, Sir Ronald
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Lamont, Norman	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Elliot, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Lane, David	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Emery, Peter	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Scott, Nicholas
Eyre, Reginald	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Scott-Hopkins, James
Farr, John	Le Marchant, Spencer	Sharples, Sir Richard
Fell, Anthony	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Shelton, William (Clapham)

Simeons, Charles	Tebbit, Norman	Ward, Dame Irene
Sinclair, Sir George	Temple, John M.	Warren, Kenneth
Skeet, T. H. H.	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Soref, Harold	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Speed, Keith	Tilney, John	Wiggin, Jerry
Spence, John	Trafford, Dr. Anthony	Wilkinson, John
Sproat, Iain	Trew, Peter	Winterton, Nicholas
Stainton, Keith	Tugendhat, Christopher	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)	van Straubenzee, W. R.	Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard	Woodnutt, Mark
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom	Vickers, Dame Joan	Worsley, Marcus
Sutcliffe, John	Waddington, David	Younger, Hn. George
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Tapsell, Peter	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek	Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Walter Glegg.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)	Wall, Patrick
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)	Walters, Dennis
NOES
Abse, Leo	Dormand, J. D.	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Albu, Austen	Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Allen, Scholefield	Driberg, Tom	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Dunnett, Jack	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Armstrong, Ernest	Eadie, Alex	Judd, Frank
Ashley, Jack	Edelman, Maurice	Kaufman, Gerald
Ashton, Joe	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Kelley, Richard
Atkinson, Norman	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Kerr, Russell
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Ellis, Tom	Kinnock, Neil
Barnes, Michael	English, Michael	Lambie, David
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Evans, Fred	Lamond, James
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Ewing, Harry	Latham, Arthur
Baxter, William	Faulds, Andrew	Lawson, George
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Leadbitter, Ted
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Fletcher. Raymond (Ilkeston)	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Bidwell, Sydney	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Leonard, Dick
Bishop, E. S.	Foley, Maurice	Lestor, Miss Joan
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Foot, Michael	Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Ford, Ben	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Forrester, John	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Lipton, Marcus
Bradley, Tom	Freeson, Reginald	Lomas, Kenneth
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Galpern, Sir Myer	Loughlin, Charles
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)	Garrett, W. E.	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Gilbert, Dr. John	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Buchan, Norman	Golding, John	McBride, Neil
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	McElhone, Frank
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Gourlay, Harry	McGuire, Michael
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mackenzie, Gregor
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Mackie, John
Cant, R. B.	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Mackintosh, John P.
Carmichael, Neil	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Maclennan, Robert
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eecles)	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	McNamara, J. Kevin
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Hamling, William	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol. S.)	Hardy, Peter	Marks, Kenneth
Cohen, Stanley	Harper, Joseph	Marquand, David
Coleman, Donald	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Marsden, F.
Concannon, J. D.	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Conlan, Bernard	Heffer, Eric S.	Mayhew, Christopher
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hilton, W. S.	Meacher, Michael
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Horam, John	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Crawshaw, Richard	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Mendelson, John
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Huckfield, Leslie	Mikardo, Ian
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Millan, Bruce
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Milne, Edward
Dalyell, Tam	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Hunter, Adam	Molloy, William
Davidson, Arthur	Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Janner, Groville	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Deakins, Eric	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Murray, Ronald King
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	John, Brynmor	Oakes, Gordon
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Ogden, Eric
Dempsey, James	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	O'Halloran, Michael
Doig, Peter	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Oram, Bert

Orbach, Maurice	Rose, Paul B.	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Orme, Stanley	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)	Tinn, James
Oswald, Thomas	Rowlands, Ted	Tomney, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)	Sandelson, Neville	Torney, Tom
Paget, R. T.	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Urwin, T. W.
Palmer, Arthur	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)	Varley, Eric G.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Short,Rt.Hn.Edward( N'ctle-u-Tyne)	Wainwright, Edwin
Parker, John (Dagenham)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Walden, Brian (B'mham, All Saints)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Pavitt, Laurie	Sillars, James	Wallace, George
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Silverman, Julius	Watkins, David
Pendry, Tom	Skinner, Dennis	Weitzman, David
Pentland, Norman	Small, William	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Perry, Ernest G.	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.	Spriggs, Leslie	Whitehead, Phillip
Prescott, John	Stallard, A. W.	Whitlock, William
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Steel, David	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Probert, Arthur	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, E.)	Stoddart, David (Swindon)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Richard, Ivor	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Strang, Gavin	Woof, Robert
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Robertson, John (Paisley)	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)	Taverne, Dick	Mr. James A. Dunn and Mr. James Hamilton.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)
Roper, John	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 255.

Division No. 329.]	AYES	[10.27 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Cooper, A. E.	Gray, Hamish
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Cordle, John	Green, Alan
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Corfield, Rt. Hn Sir Frederick	Grieve, Percy
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Cormack, Patrick	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Costain, A. P.	Grylls, Michael
Astor, John	Critchley, Julian	Gummer, J. Selwyn
Atkins, Humphrey	Crouch, David	Gurden, Harold
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Crowder, F. P.	Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Batsford, Brian	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen. James	Hannam, John (Exeter)
Bell, Ronald	Dean, Paul	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Benyon, W.	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Haselhurst, Alan
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Dixon, Piers	Hastings, Stephen
Biffen, John	Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Havers, Michael
Biggs-Davison, John	Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn Sir Alec	Hawkins, Paul
Blaker, Peter	Drayson, G. B.	Hayhoe, Barney
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Body, Richard	Dykes, Hugh	Heseltine, Michael
Boscawen, Robert	Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Hicks, Robert
Bossom, Sir Clive	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Higgins, Terence L.
Bowden, Andrew	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Hiley, Joseph
Braine, Sir Bernard	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Bray, Ronald	Emery, Peter	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Brewis, John	Eyre, Reginald	Holland, Philip
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Farr, John	Hordern, Peter
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Fell, Anthony	Hornby, Richard
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Fidler, Michael	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Bryan, Sir Paul	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Hunt, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Buck, Antony	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Iremonger, T. L.
Bullus, Sir Eric	Fookes, Miss Janet	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Burden, F. A.	Fortescue. Tim	James, David
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Fowler, Norman	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray & Nairn)	Fox, Marcus	Jessel, Toby
Carlisle, Mark	Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Channon, Paul	Gardner, Edward	Jopling, Michael
Chapman, Sydney	Gibson-Watt, David	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Chichester-Clark, R.	Glyn, Dr. Alan	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Churchill, W. S.	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Kershaw, Anthony
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Goodhew, Victor	Kimball, Marcus
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Gorst, John	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Cockeram, Eric	Gower, Raymond	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Cooke, Robert	Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kinsey, J. R.	Normanton, Tom	Spence, John
Kirk, Peter	Nott, John	Sproat, Iain
Kitson, Timothy	Onslow, Cranley	Stainton, Keith
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Stanbrook, Ivor
Knox, David	Osborn, John	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Lambton, Lord	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Lamont, Norman	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Lane, David	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Sutcliffe, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Parkinson, Cecil	Tapsell, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Peel, John	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Le Marchant, Spencer	Percival, Ian	Taylor.Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Tebbit, Norman
Longden, Sir Gilbert	Pink, R. Bonner	Temple, John M.
Loveridge, John	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Luce, R. N.	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
MacArthur, Ian	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Tilney, John
McCrindle, R. A.	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
McLaren, Martin	Raison, Timothy	Trew, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Tugendhat, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Michael	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)	Redmond, Robert	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Maddan, Martin	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Madel, David	Rees, Peter (Dover)	Vickers, Dame Joan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Waddington, David
Marten, Neil	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Mather, Carol	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Maude, Angus	Ridsdale, Julian	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Mawby, Ray	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey	Wall, Patrick
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)	Walters, Dennis
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Ward, Dame Irene
Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Warren, Kenneth
Miscampbell, Norman	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)	Rost, Peter	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Royle, Anthony	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Moate, Roger	Russell, Sir Ronald	Wiggin, Jerry
Money, Ernle	St. John-Stevas, Norman	Wilkinson, John
Monks, Mrs. Connie	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.	Winterton, Nicholas
Monro, Hector	Scott, Nicholas	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Montgomery, Fergus	Scott-Hopkins, James	Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
More, Jasper	Sharples, Sir Richard	Woodnutt, Mark
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Worsley, Marcus
Morrison, Charles	Shelton, William (Clapham)	Younger, Hn. George
Mudd, David	Simeons, Charles
Murton, Oscar	Sinclair, Sir George	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Neave, Airey	Skeet, T. H. H.	Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Walter Clegg.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Noble. Rt. Hn. Michael	Soref, Harold
	Speed. Keith
NOES
Albu, Austen	Carmichael, Neil	Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Driberg, Tom
Alien, Scholefield	Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Dunnett, Jack
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Eadie, Alex
Armstrong, Ernest	Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Edelman, Maurice
Ashley, Jack	Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Atkinson, Norman	Cohen, Stanley	Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Coleman, Donald	Ellis, Tom
Barnes, Michael	Concannon, J. D.	English, Michael
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Conlan, Bernard	Evans, Fred
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Ewing, Harry
Baxter, William	Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Faulds, Andrew
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Crawshaw, Richard	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Bidwell, Sydney	Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Bishop, E. S.	Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Foley, Maurice
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Foot, Michael
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Dalyell, Tarn	Ford, Ben
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Forrester, John
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Davidson, Arthur	Fraser, John (Norwood)
Bradley, Tom	Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Freeson, Reginald
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Garrett, W. E.
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)	Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Gilbert, Dr. John
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Deakins, Eric	Golding, John
Buchan, Norman	de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Gourlay, Harry
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Dempsey, James	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Doig, Peter	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Dormand, J. D.	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Cant, R. B.	Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J	McElhone, Frank	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	McGuire, Michael	Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Hamling, William	Mackenzie, Gregor	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Mackie, John	Roper, John
Hardy, Peter	Mackintosh, John P.	Rose, Paul B.
Harper, Joseph	Maclennan, Robert	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Rowlands, Ted
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	McNamara, J. Kevin	Sandelson, Neville
Heffer, Eric S.	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Horam, John	Mallalieu, J. p. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Marks, Kenneth	Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Huckfield, Leslie	Marquand, David	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Marsden, F.	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	Sillars, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Mayhew, Christopher	Silverman, Julius
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Meacher, Michael	Skinner, Dennis
Hunter, Adam	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Small, William
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)	Mendelson, John	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Janner, Greville	Mikardo, Ian	Spriggs, Leslie
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Millan, Bruce	Stallard, A. W.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Steel, David
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Milne, Edward	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Molloy, William	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
John, Brynmor	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Strang, Gavin
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Murray, Ronald King	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)	Oakes, Gordon	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Ogden, Eric	Thomson, Rt. Hn.G. (Dundee, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	O'Halloran, Michael	Tinn, James
Judd, Frank	Oram, Bert	Tomney, Frank
Kaufman, Gerald	Orbach, Maurice	Torney, Tom
Kelley, Richard	Orme, Stanley	Urwin, T. W.
Kerr, Russell	Oswald, Thomas	Varley, Eric G.
Kinnock, Neil	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)	Wainwright, Edwin
Lambie, David	Paget, R. T.	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Lamond, James	Palmer, Arthur	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Latham, Arthur	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Wallace, George
Lawson, George	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Watkins, David
Leadbitter, Ted	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)	Weitzman, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Pavitt, Laurie	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Leonard, Dick	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	White, James (Glasgow. Pollok)
Lestor, Miss Joan	Pendry, Tom	Whitehead, Phillip
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold	Pentland, Norman	Whitlock, William
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Perry, Ernest G.	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Lipton, Marcus	Prescott, John	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Lomas, Kenneth	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Loughlin, Charles	Probert, Arthur	Woof, Robert
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Richard, Ivor	Mr. James A. Dunn and Mr. James Hamilton.
McBride, Neil	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
	Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That this House welcomes the huge public works programme authorised by Her Majesty's Government to stimulate employment in Scotland; endorses the decision to increase investment incentives to encourage new industry and to expand existing industry, the commitment to the British Steel Corporation scheme

for a £26 million ore terminal at Hunterston, the British Steel Corporation's intention to maintain a strong and viable steel industry in Scotland and the provision of £35 million to launch Govan Shipbuilders Limited; and recognises Her Majesty's Government's determination to set Scotland on course for a new period of industrial expansion including additional expenditure on harbours, roads and other infrastructure related to the opportunities opened up by the North Sea oil discoveries.