Skip to main content


Volume 24: debated on Wednesday 26 May 1982

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Agricultural Development Plan


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet held discussions with the National Farmers Union of Scotland on an agricultural development plan; and if he will make a statement.

I have spoken informally with representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland on several occasions but I am not yet ready to institute formal consultations.

Is the Secretary of State aware that real farm incomes in Scotland have fallen by 84 per cent. in the past five years and now look set to fall by more? Will he treat this as a matter of urgency? Is he aware that the matter has been dragging on and that the farming community is badly in need not just of more money but of more confidence?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point about confidence. That is the most important factor. Two factors are involved. The first is income aid for farmers. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have done more than any previous Government to increase the amount of help for farmers, especially those in Highland areas. Secondly, there are structural changes. That is what will be involved here if the programme comes into being.

When my right hon. Friend has discussions with the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which does such a splendid job for agriculture, will he bear in mind that all of the less-favoured areas should be examined, rather than just one as against another? Bearing in mind the recent drop in farm incomes, will he do all that he can to help less-favoured areas, especially hill areas in Scotland?

I agree that the high-ground areas of livestock production have had the most difficult time recently. We shall try to help all farmers in those areas.

Health Service (Pay)


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the average pay increases for general practitioners, nurses, consultants and hospital porters in Scotland since May 1979.

Excluding current pay offers, those groups have, in round terms, had the following average increases: 75 per cent. for general medical practitioners, 67 per cent. for staff nurses, 73 per cent. for consultants and 33 per cent. for porters.

In present circumstances, how can the Government justify such miserable increases to low-paid Health Service workers while giving apparently huge increases to already high-paid people such as judges and top civil servants? Does he agree that nurses deserve better treatment than they are now receiving? What does he intend to do to remedy that?

It is not valid to compare ancillary staffs with medical and nursing staffs in the Health Service. The latter group must meet higher standards of training. We have taken special account of their position by making an additional offer. Ancillary staffs earnings and the offer that has been made to them compares favourably with settlements awarded to similar manual workers in other parts of the public sector and in the private sector.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a substantial increase in the number of medical personnel in the Health Service in Scotland in the past few years? In view of that and the figures that he has just given, does he agree that it is wholly unrealistic for the unions to pursue industrial action for an equally unrealistic pay claim of 12½ per cent?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that a pay claim of 12 per cent. now is quite unrealistic. I confirm that the number of people employed in the National Health Service has increased since 1979. Since then there has been an increase of nearly 7,000 in the number of nursing staff. There has also been an increase in the number of doctors and porters.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in a written answer to a question of mine on 7 May 1981, I was told that the average increase in pay for doctors in 1979–80 was 26 per cent. and that it was followed by an increase of 31 per cent. in 1980–81? How does he defend that type of increase for those people, who do an extremely good job, with the niggardly offer of 6·4 per cent. to the nurses and 4 per cent. or less to ancillary workers? Does he agree that, as a result, many of those people will be worse off when their lodging allowances and others are deducted? Does he believe that that offer is defensible in the present age?

When the hon. Gentleman asked about doctors' salaries for those two years, he singularly failed to mention the fact that nurses' salaries had also been increased by the Government in those two years. The principal reason why the independent review body announced the increases for doctors in 1979–80 and 1980–81 was that they reflected the amount by which doctors' pay had fallen behind under the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a supporter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a large number of people in the private sector have had no pay rise, far less have they had a 4 per cent. increase, and that a large number of self-employed people have suffered a decrease in income? Does he agree that it is wrong to use those people's taxes to give exorbitant pay rises in the public sector?

My hon. Friend is right. The Government must be seen to be fair to everyone, including those in the private sector who have had no wage increases and, indeed, those who have lost their jobs.

Is not the Minister thoroughly ashamed of the attack that he is launching on the nurses and hospital ancillary workers in Scotland? Does he realise that the Government's figures are grossly misleading and that the vast bulk of pay increases awarded to nurses in the past two years arose not from any generosity on the part of himself or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but from the Clegg commission, which was itself a catching-up exercise? Is he aware that, as a result of this legacy, the next Labour Government will once again have to bring nurses' pay up to parity due to its having fallen behind again as a result of this attack?

I am surprised at the illogicality of the hon. Gentleman's question. He began by almost admitting that the large increases that we gave were the result of catching up. That catching-up was necessitated by the treatment meted out by the Labour Government.


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees of the National Health Service in Scotland receive wages which are below the level at which family income supplement becomes payable.

The income level at which family income supplement becomes payable varies in accordance with individual circumstances, but the minimum is £74 per week for a family with one child. It is not possible to identify the numbers of part-time and whole-time staff earning below £74 per week, but the average earnings of the lowest paid group of whole-time NHS staff are almost £14 per week above that figure.

That is a characteristically devious reply. Is the Minister aware that the people of Scotland set a very high value on the work and dedication of National Health Service workers? Is it not scandalous that a high proportion of skilled NHS workers are kept below the official poverty line? Does the Minister accept that he will be responsible for the consequences of the pay dispute that he has provoked?

It should not surprise me that the hon. Gentleman does not listen to the answers given from the Dispatch Box before putting his supplementary questions. As I said, the average earnings of the lowest paid paid group in the National Health Service are £14 per week above the £74 that I mentioned. Indeed, of those who earn less than £74 a week, more than half are part-timers. Among those who are not part-timers are nursing cadets and student and pupil nurses. I admit that they earn less than that figure, but clearly they are young and unmarried. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the young and unmarried should be considered for family income supplement.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is no less care and concern among Conservative Members for employees of the National Health Service, who give great devotion and skill to that service? Does he also agree that since 1979 the Government have provided an increase of 6 per cent. in real terms in expenditure on health, which shows not only that there has been no cut in the Health Service but that pay increases must come from within that 6 per cent. increase?

My hon. Friend is quite right. We have indeed increased expenditure on the Health Service. This has resulted in increases in staff and a decline in waiting lists. I hope that the people involved in industrial action in the NHS will take account of the effect of their action on patients. I am sure that they do not wish to damage patients' interests, and I hope that they will obey the guidelines set out between management and unions in industrial disputes.

Will the Minister tell us simply why it is all right to give hospital ancillary workers 4 per cent., nurses 6 per cent., higher civil servants 14 per cent. and judges 18·6 per cent.? Where is the justice in that?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained the special circumstances that led the Government to implement the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. Average earnings among ancillary staff in the NHS are about £104 per week, which is not out of line with earnings among manual workers in the rest of the public sector and the private sector.

Invergordon Aluminium Smelter


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the progress of the Government's quest for an alternative operator for the Invergordon aluminium smelter.

A number of companies have expressed interest in the smelter, subject to various conditions—in particular, the terms of a new power contract. Discussions on these matters are in progress between my Department, the electricity boards and the companies concerned.

First, has the Secretary of State had discussions with the British Aluminium Company about the plant and site, which may be dismantled at the end of June? What will happen if the discussions with other companies have not been completed by then?

We are keeping in close touch with the British Aluminium Company, which at present owns the smelter. We are aware that its undertaking to keep the plant in a usable condition runs until 30 June, and we have that very much in mind in the negotiations.

Does the Minister realise the degree of unrest in the area at the Government's failure to get a new power contract on the road in time? Is he aware that it is five months since the plant closed and about 10 months since the Government became involved in this in one way or another? What steps does he intend to take to get the plant open and in a fit state rather than leave the matter to drag on for another month, with all the worry that will be caused in the area?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not just leaving it for another month. We are negotiating with the companies that have expressed interest and with other companies. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that arranging a new power contract is an extremely difficult and complex matter. We are determined not to have a new contract that will fall flat on its face as the old one did.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, but for the heroic efforts of the Scottish Office staff and of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, and the exemplary efforts of the leader of the action group, there would have been no hope of reopening the plant?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the way in which those involved in the Invergordon area have done all in their power to keep open the prospects for the smelter is very much to be commended. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has, of course, been very much involved in that. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) that the Government have made every possible effort to find a means of reopening the smelter and will press on with this as hard as they can.

Is the Secretary of State aware that some of us are suspicious of the way in which the Government's mood changes from great optimism a couple of days before an election to great caution immediately thereafter? Will he say something more precise about keeping the opportunities open beyond the 30 June deadline? Is he aware that, although we wish the negotiations well, even at best there seems to be not the slightest chance of everything being completed by that date? Does he agree that there is no reason why the Government should not take on some additional commitment beyond that date?

The British Aluminium Company has accepted responsibility for keeping the plant in a reasonable condition until 30 June. Thereafter, we should have to consider the situation in the light of the circumstances then prevailing. If by that time a new operator is directly interested in the plant, it would be up to the new operator to take over that responsibility. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are very much aware of this and are bearing it carefully in mind in the negotiations.

Health Service (Pay)


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of pay negotiations for National Health Service employees in Scotland.

Offers ranging from 6·4 per cent. to 4 per cent. have been made to most groups of staff. Some have been rejected by the Whitley council staff sides. Others are being considered by the negotiators or have been referred to union members for decision. NHS electricians and plumbers have accepted the management offer.

Does the Minister agree that the Government are operating an incomes policy that blatantly discriminates against all who work in the healing services? Will he urge upon the Government a policy that will result in proper pay levels for employees in the National Health Service, which should be a priority for the Government as well as for the community as a whole?

The present pay factors in the National Health Service are simply the result of a decision by the Government on what the country and the taxpayer can afford in the present circumstances. They are also part of our continuing battle against inflation, in which we have been successful, which will be to the benefit of everyone working in the National Health Service and everyone else.

Has there been any drop in recruitment of nurses and ancillary workers because of the present wage levels?

There has been no sign of any such drop. The increased number of nursing and ancillary staff employed in the National Health Service over the last three years shows that there is no shortage of recruits.

On what intellectual or ethical basis does the Minister justify those small, controlled increases to the lowest paid in the public sector while allegedly not believing in an incomes policy?

The Government and, through them, the employers' side of the Whitley council, are responsible for considering the effects of increases in the public sector on the taxpayer. We have that direct responsibility to the taxpayer and the community in our general fight against inflation. One of the factors in that fight against inflation is the need to get down wage settlements in the public sector. Our decision on pay in the NHS is part of our continuing determination to achieve that.

As the Government's policy on increases in salaries, according to the Prime Minister and others, seems to be a policy where increases are related to recruitment into the professions, and as there are at least three times as many applicants for entry into the medical profession as there are places for them, how does the Minister square the increases for doctors and consultants with the pittances that are offered to other workers in the National Health Service?

I have no doubt that if the doctors had not been offered such an increase, the hon. Gentleman would have turned his question round the other way. I invite him to read the recommendations of the TSRB and see how it came to that conclusion. The Government did not accept all the conclusions that it put forward this year or last year, because we are mindful of the other problems. We have to bear in mind the need to keep the salaries of those professional groups at such a level as to enable us to recruit and keep suitable staff in those responsible positions.

Football Authorities (Discussions)


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the football authorities.

I have no plans for an early meeting with the football authorities, but I will be glad to meet them at any time if they suggest it.

Will the Secretary of State give an absolute assurance that under no circumstances will any Government pressure be exerted on the Scottish football team to withdraw from the World Cup, because it would be a deplorable case of double standards if the Government were to try to impose a boycott against the Argentine football team when they refuse to apply an absolute economic boycott against the Argentine junta because they are afraid of losing the support of some of their Tory friends in the City? Does the Secretary of State realise—

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's question is not only a little long but muddled. The Government have made it clear that it is for the football authorities to decide whether Scotland will take part in the World Cup. I understand that they are content with that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) asked a helpful and constructive question on Scottish football? Surely it is the wish of all hon. Members that the Scottish team will go to Spain full of hope and confidence. If there is anything that can be done on the administrative side to remove the Argentines, that will be a step in the right direction.

My hon. Friend is an incurable optimist if he thinks that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) will ever ask a helpful and constructive question on anything. With regard to World Cup participation, I should like to add my best wishes—and I am sure those of the whole House—to the Scottish team. I hope that it plays successfully in Spain in the World Cup.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he and his Ministers, through their decision on Hampden Park, have done more damage to Scottish football than Iran did in the last World Cup? Is the Secretary of State further aware that St. Mirren has not won a game since the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), visited it recently? If the Secretary of State receives an invitation from the Scottish Football Association, will he kindly refuse it in case he damages our prospects in the World Cup?

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I attended the Scottish cup final at Hampden Park on Saturday. It was an extremely successful and happy event, but I do not think that that was in any way connected with the absence of the hon. Gentleman.

Road Equivalent Tariff (Scottish Islands)


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further progress he is able to report on the introduction of a road equivalent tariff for the Scottish Islands.

My right hon. Friend has further increased assistance to Scottish shipping services in this financial year to £10·6 million. This increased support continues the move towards road equivalent tariff.

With respect to the Minister, that is not a reply. I should like to know whether the idea of road equivalent tariff, which was strongly backed by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and espoused by the Conservatives when they were in Opposition, before the general election, will be introduced. Have the Government abandoned their attempt to introduce that rational system?

Certainly not. I hope to announce decisions on changes in time for implementation in the financial year 1983–84. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that such a radical change needs careful consideration. I think that most people attach the greatest importance to overall financial assistance to sea transport. That has increased from £5·1 million in 1979–80 to 10·6 million in 1982–83.

I acknowledge the assistance that the Government have given to shipping on the West Coast of Scotland, but does the Minister recall that the Conservative Party made a firm election commitment to move towards a system of road equivalent tariff? As three years have passed, is it not about time that the scheme was introduced?

The Conservative Party said in its Scottish manifesto:

"We will re-examine the structure of the subsidies and are prepared to increase them in real terms as part of the process of moving closer to Broad Equivalent Tariffs".
That is precisely what we have done and are doing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that people who choose to live on the islands should not be disadvantaged because of that choice? When RET is introduced, it should be in respect of freight, people who live on the islands and tourists.

Police Strength


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police officers there were in Scotland in May 1979; and what is the latest total number.

At the end of March 1979 there were 12,675 police officers in Scotland and at the end of March 1982 there were 13,221.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, but is he aware that many police officers are unable to attend to other duties because they must spend long periods at the sheriff court, where often they are not called to give evidence? Will my hon. Friend look at the matter and discuss it with the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland in case a solution can be proposed?

My hon. Friend has raised a genuine problem. It is a matter of concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Law Officers. There are no obvious solutions. We hope that section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, which provides for intermediate diets, will be helpful. That provision is not widely used at present. We shall monitor its use.

Does the Minister agree that the increase in the police force is infinitesimal compared with what the Conservatives were proposing during the general election and with what they said in their manifesto? Is he aware that the Scottish clubs, including those in the Scottish League, have been complaining about the ratio of police that they must pay to attend Saturday matches? Does he realise that while the police are in the grounds there is a high rate of vandalism outside?

The behaviour at Scottish football matches has improved considerably as a result of the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act. The hon. Gentleman is an influential figure in Strathclyde. He might wish to take up with Strathclyde region its decision to keep police numbers at 150 below the authorised figure.

Will the Minister explain clearly how much of the rate support grant settlement this year is for police pay, and how much that will be up to 1984–85? If this year it is only 4 per cent., rather than the 10 or 11 per cent. that would be required to honour the principles in the Edmund-Davies settlement, will he accept that his right hon. Friend's acceptance of those principles would be no more than glib hypocrisy?

That precise point was answered fully by my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland in his excellent speech to the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday. The Government have a record second to none on police pay. Discussions within the police negotiating board have not yet started.

Island Of Rockall Act 1972


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to amend or extend the Island of Rockall Act 1972.

In view of renewed interest by certain politicians in the Irish Republic, will my right hon. Friend affirm, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that though it be uninhabited, and notwithstanding any negotiations on the law of the sea, Rockall is sovereign territory of the United Kingdom and will so remain?

I am not aware that a claim has been made by the Irish Government, but if it were it would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The position has not changed since the Island of Rockall Act 1972. That position stands so far as the British Government are concerned.

To what extent is the Scottish Office involved in any overtures for negotiations with the Faroe Islands and the Republic of Ireland over the median line settlement for the allocation of oil development licences in those areas?

To no particular extent, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to ask a particular question on that matter I shall be glad to answer it.

Common Fisheries Policy


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made towards a common fisheries policy.

Agreement has been reached on a revised marketing regime and on important aspects of the external regime. There has also been agreement in principle on a comprehensive range of conservation measures. Useful progress has been made in certain other areas, including control and structure. The important issues of access and quotas, however, remain to be resolved. We are continuing our bilateral discussions on access in an effort to reach agreement on acceptable arrangements. On quotas, we are maintaining our position that any settlement must fully reflect the special needs of our fishing industry.

Will my right hon. Friend give a categoric assurance that if our European partners try to push through by a majority vote a common fisheries package that is detrimental to the British fishing industry, the Government will take every step possible to protect our fish and our waters?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Given the major importance of the national interests involved for many of the member States, a CFP settlement should be, and can only be, achieved by consensus. That is what my right hon. Friend and I will try to achieve.

Will the Secretary of State set a time limit to the discussions on access? Until a settlement is reached it is impossible to go ahead with any regional schemes either for protection of local interests or for conservation. Will he set a time limit on these apparently endless negotiations?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the time that this is taking, but perhaps he would agree that it might be counter-productive to set a time limit on the discussions. We could have had an agreement long before now if we had been prepared to accept one that was not acceptable to our fishing industry. Therefore, we do have to be patient and ensure that we fight on until we reach an agreement that is acceptable to our fishing industry.

Now that the Council of Ministers has ruthlessly set aside the British veto on the common agricultural policy, how can the Secretary of State possibly hope again to resist the Council of Ministers, which has been equally ruthless over the common fisheries policy, where there is already agreement and where we have no effective veto?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already discussed with our Community partners what lay behind the strange decision taken last week. That will have to be pursued collectively with the other member States. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the Government's view, and that of most of the other States as well, that a common fisheries policy is a matter of major national interest.

Can my right hon. Friend explain why the Liberal Party and the Labour Party have blocked the Salmon Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill on recent Fridays, when it would do a great deal for the conservation of fish stocks in Scotland?

That is an extremely puzzling development. I can throw no more light on it than my hon. Friend. Fortunately, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are not included as part of my responsibilities in Scotland.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the statement of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last Wednesday that we were twice within sight of a fisheries agreement that would have been broadly acceptable to the industry had it not been vetoed by other countries?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that could have been so, but at that time we were doing everything possible to arrange the agreement by consensus. That is exactly what we shall try to do from now on.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, as we get nearer 31 December, when the 10-year period for the negotiation of the common fisheries policy runs out, we shall not have a repeat of what happened last week, and that the Government will resolutely oppose any attempt to set aside the Luxembourg compromise, as happened last week?

Tayside Health Board


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will revise the Scottish health authorities' revenue equalisation arrangement governing the funding of Tayside health board.

No, Sir. I consider that the arrangements for determining the annual revenue expenditure allocations to Tayside and to other health boards are operating in a satisfactory manner.

Will the Minister therefore consult Tayside health board? Does he realise that when this agreement came into effect, Tayside entered into it on the basis that there would be increasing funding? On the no-growth basis that now exists, Tayside health board faces cuts in services as a result of making allowance for demographic changes in the region and to meet the pay awards that were not borne by direct Government funding.

Tayside health board is the most generously-funded board in Scotland. In furtherance of the SHARE arrangements, its financial allocations must, therefore, be held steady to allow less well-funded boards to catch up. That has been allowed for in all the years up to date by growth money in the service. We hope to continue that SHARE arrangement until there is greater parity between the amounts of money given to the different boards in Scotland.

Does the Minister accept that if he and his colleagues accede to the demand from the Police Federation for the arming of police forces with plastic bullets, funds will have to be increased for Tayside and other health boards in Scotland because of the casualties that may arise?

Rolls-Royce Spey Engine (East Kilbride)


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has had any consultation with Rolls-Royce Ltd. concerning future development of the Spey engine at East Kilbride; and if he will make a statement.

I am concerned to hear that reduced demand is causing difficulties. However, future developments are a matter for the commercial judgment of the company.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he not accept that my constituents and Opposition Members are astonished that the Government have adopted such a complacent attitude to an industry that is vital not only to East Kilbride but to the whole of the Scottish economy? Should he not do something about the problem faced by Rolls-Royce over the development of the Spey engine, which was promised by the Government and is not taking place in the way that it should?

The Government stand ready to assist any project that involves new capital investment. We would be prepared to consider any such project that turned up. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the aircraft industry is having a difficult time. If the commercial problems that Rolls-Royce faces lead it to experience difficulties, that is a matter for the company to solve.

Surely the Secretary of State realises that orders for Spey engines do not just "turn up". They are the result of the Government's policy and the making available of resources to the Services and the airlines, the financial limits of which the Government strictly control. The Government have a direct responsibility to act.

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. The Government cannot be accused of being ungenerous in the funds given either to the airlines or to the Ministry of Defence.

Information Technology


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to ensure that Scotland benefits fully from the liberalisation of the telecommunications monopoly and from other Government measures designed to stimulate growth of the information technology industry.

My Department will do all it can to ensure that Scottish companies seize the market opportunities presented by our liberalisation policy and take advantage of the measures we have introduced to support development of new information technology products.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite those efforts, a great many firms that could still enhance their products or improve their production processes by the use of the most advanced technology still do not know how to get the kind of information that would be helpful? Will he therefore publish in the Official Report addresses and telephone numbers where firms can get that kind of assistance? Will he also bear in mind that, with advances in telecommunications cabling, priorities as perceived in Scotland may be rather different from those perceived in London? Will he therefore ensure that his Department keeps in close touch with these developments?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. It is necessary to encourage all those involved in this industry to get the maximum information. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is now preparing a major publicity campaign to advertise the implications of the new legislation and the opportunities that it presents. Officials in my Department will play their part in spreading that message throughout Scotland.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is another aspect, which is that the Post Office—now British Telecommunications—has provided an excellent service for a very long time in both the urban and rural parts of Scotland? If the Secretary of State for Industry chooses to use the massive powers of direction that he took unto himself in the British Telecommunications Act, and hives off the most profitable parts of British Telecommunications to private enterprise, that could leave the British Telecommunications set-up with a very poor profit. That could prove extremely damaging for the rural parts of Scotland and could increase telephone charges throughout the country.

I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he will realise that much of what he has said is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I assure him that there are already encouraging signs that British Telecommunications is now looking to new opportunities and is positively stimulated by the new competition that it will have to face.

South Church Site, Stirling


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his decision on the planning application in respect of the South Church site, Stirling.

The decision as regards planning permission rests with the planning authority. My right hon. Friend's decision on the called-in application for listed building consent in part to demolish the church will be issued shortly.

I am grateful to the Minister for the information that the decision will be delivered shortly. Is he aware that this application has been with the historic buildings division of the Scottish Development Department since October and that there were no objections to it? Is he also aware that another application has been with the historic buildings division of the SDD for nearly two years, yet Stirling district council has still had no response? Will he awaken the civil servants in the historic buildings division and have them make some decisions for a change?

There were objections from the Scottish Civic Trust and the Scottish Georgian Society to the application for listed building consent. A procedure of written submissions was agreed with the applicant and the planning authority to expedite a decision. A decision within 14 weeks of advertising the procedure was suggested to a developer, and we hope that that target will be achieved.

In view of the difficulty of breaking through the red tape and bureaucracy of the Tory administration in the Scottish Office, might not an answer be forthcoming good and quick—this week—if Denis Thatcher were to write a "Dear George" letter in support of the application?

As on many other occasions, the burden of the hon. Gentleman's question is beneath contempt. We must bear in mind the rules of natural justice for applicants, planning authorities and objectors.

Primary School Expenditure


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available.

Local authority current expenditure on primary schools, at outturn prices, excluding items such as meals and milk, was £636 per pupil in 1980–81. This represents an increase per pupil in real terms by comparison with the two previous years.

As this is a record figure, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to publicise it and to show the people of Scotland the success of the Government's education policy?

I take every opportunity that I can to mention this, because it counteracts the alarmist stories put about by some Labour Members, which suggest that there are even schools without books for pupils to do their lessons, when the amount of money that has been set aside per pupil is greater than it has ever been before.

Is the reference on page 60 of the public expenditure White Paper another alarmist story? It states that money will be made available for redundancy pay to primary school teachers. Is that figure included in the sums that have already been mentioned?

Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that if any primary school teachers need such assistance, they should get it. There is now a better pupil-teacher ratio than there has ever been, and provision per pupil is increasing. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

Has there been any progress in matching the drop in student numbers with reductions in the administration of education departments?

We are stressing to education authorities that this is an opportunity to reduce administrative costs when there is a smaller number of pupils in the schools. I am sure that many of them are taking that seriously.

Following the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question on Scottish teachers' salaries tabled by the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), will he explain how Scottish local authorities will find the money to fund the difference between the 6 per cent. pay settlement and the Government's initial 4 per cent. offer?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish education authorities were parties to the reference of this matter to arbitration. Indeed, one of the main reasons that the arbitration board gave for its award was that it had to have regard to what local authorities could afford to spend. Like everyone else, the local authorities must ensure that when making their decisions they do not commit themselves to things that they cannot afford.

Renfrew District Council (Lead Pollution Control)


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has received from Renfrew district council as to actual or proposed expenditure by it on dealing with the problem of lead in the domestic water supply in its area which may be eligible for rate support grant.

I have received no information of this kind from Renfrew district council.

Is the Minister aware that specific legislation limits the content of lead in paint and toys? In view of the serious effect that lead in water has on women, particularly pregnant women, and young children, is it not time that the Government, and the Minister in particular, considered the introduction of legislation specifically to limit the lead content in water in view of the EEC guidelines on lead in water? Having introduced that legislation, will he then give the House an undertaking to will the means to local authorities to implement the law?

We are willing the means. The net allocation of £2·2 million to Renfrew in 1982–83 includes £400,000 for lead plumbing grants. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have increased relevant rate support grant expenditure for house-to-house surveys on the lead problem by £1 million in recognition of the need for additional expenditure.

Will the hon. Gentleman also take on board the wider implications of excess lead in water? Not only is lead involved in the conditions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Adams); it is also implicated in diseases that cause mental illness in children, in heart conditions and in various forms of cancer. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore look at the whole problem of lead in water, both in my hon. Friend's area and in other areas of Scotland?

As I have indicated, we take this problem seriously in terms of resources. I understand that Strathclyde regional council, as water authority, is taking action in the light of the Renfrew reports.

Unemployment (Glasgow)


asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central on 6 May, he will undertake a review of the factors that have led to the increase in unemployment in Glasgow from 15,440 in June 1966 to 95,587 in April 1982.

No, Sir. Unemployment has been rising in Glasgow as elsewhere over a number of years, reflecting a long-term decline in industrial competitiveness and more recently the impact of the world-wide recession. Our policies are directed to reversing this trend and improving employment prospects generally; we have also acted to encourage new and existing companies to develop in Glasgow and we are offering positive help to those worst affected by unemployment, through the programme of special employment measures.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the unemployment figures in Glasgow today are nearly double those for the whole of Scotland in 1966? Is he also aware that his Government are guilty of spending more money on keeping nearly 96,000 on the dole in Glasgow than they are spending on the whole of the National Health Service in the Greater Glasgow health board area?

I am not sure about that, but no one can accuse the Government of being reluctant to spend money in Glasgow. As part of the West Central Scotland development area, Glasgow has the highest rate of grant and since January 1981 we have made 49 offers of selective financial assistance to firms in the Glasgow travel-to-work area, involving more than 5,800 jobs. The total associated investment was about £192 million.