asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the date of the referendum on Scottish devolution; and if he will make a statement.

No representations have been made to me. The referendum will be held as soon as reasonably practicable after the Bill has received Royal Assent.

I assume that the Secretary of State agrees that the referendum should take place as soon as possible. If it is at all possible, will he give serious consideration to holding it in early September of this year?

I do not think that I can go beyond what I have said in my original answer. I certainly do not want to see unnecessary delay, and we shall hold the referendum as soon as practical after we get the Bill on to the statute book.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the crucial point of the referendum was never put in our discussions? That was the second question, whether Scotland should go independent. Has he noticed that Lord Home of the Hirsel called for precisely such a question yesterday in the other place.

It is a very unusual alliance. I have heard the argument from my hon. Friend on numerous occasions. He also knows the Government's view on this matter, which has not changed.

If there is an overwhelming "Yes" by 39 per cent. of the electorate at the poll, will that not lead to a serious political confrontation? Will the Minister make it clear that there is no such thing as a mandatory referendum in the United Kingdom? There can only be a consultative referendum. No matter how the Scots people decide, the final decision remains with the House.

The 40 per cent. rule places an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay a certain order before the House, but, of course, the ultimate decision is for the House to take.

Given that the Bill receives Royal Assent in July, what practical problems will there be which will prevent a referendum being held in September?

It obviously depends on a number of considerations, which I do not think I have to spell out to the House. The important thing to do at the moment is to get the Bill on the statute book. We are very confident of doing that, and I hope that we shall do so before the Summer Recess.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to the Argyll islands.

My right hon. Friend has no plans for a visit at present.

Bearing in mind the Minister's reply, is he aware that in the islands of my constituency there is much feeling about the closure of Scofisco, upon which not only the people who work in them depend but also, to some extent, the fishermen? Is there any chance of action being taken to alleviate the situation?

I am aware of the general concern about the jobs of the people who work for the processing plants and of the fishermen both in Argyll and Tarbert. I am given to understand now that the Scottish Development Agency is having discussions with the receiver and with the Highlands and Islands Board on the possibility of maintaining these operations.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will pay a visit to Springburn.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.

I am sorry to hear that that is the case. Will my right hon. Friend change his mind? As he will be aware, his Department approved the Springburn plan in 1963. Is is not about time we were having a report on how that plan was developing, particularly with regard to the health service, as many surgeries of medical practitioners are disappearing from the area and the health centre has become of urgent necessity?

I do not want to comment on the details of the Springburn plan, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Greater Glasgow Health Board is likely to make a final cost submission to my Department in the next few weeks in relation to the health centre. All being well, it is expected that it will be able to make a start on building in January 1979, with the building being completed early in 1981.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of the number of children in Scotland receiving school meals; and how this compares with the corresponding figure for last year.

The provisional January census figure is 427,359, This was 47·4 per cent. of the pupils present, which compares with 51·2 per cent. in January 1977.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason for this decrease has been the 67 per cent. increase in the price of school meals and the fact that many parents do not realise that their children are now eligible for free school meals under the new regulations? Will he see to it, therefore, that parents are made aware of their eligibility for free school meals for their children? Will he also tell my good friend the Chancellor that he had better make an announcement in next month's Budget speech of a reversal of the Government's previous decision to withdraw the school meals subsidy, otherwise it will have disastrous consequences for the living standards of people, especially the children of working-class parents?

I am aware that the Chancellor always listens to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that that message will be getting across. I know that my hon. Friend has a deep interest in the problem. Recovery is taking place, as is shown by the fact that the January percentage of 47·4 is an increase from the 45·6 level reached in October 1977.

Will the Minister also bear in mind that average family income in Scotland is substantially lower than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom? [Hon. Members: "Not true."] Will he also take steps to ensure that, when people apply for their youngsters to have free school meals, there is no discriminatory process which means that the children are subjected to pressures within the schools?

The hon. Lady has developed a remarkable consistency for providing inaccurate figures. She has continued with that theme today. What she said is untrue. The uptake of free meals rose to 17·3 per cent. in January 1978, and this is the highest level that it has ever reached. This is due mainly to the recommendation from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to schoolmasters to publicise the facts of the matter, and every child will get a note about the potential availability of free meals. That is to the credit not only of COSLA but of the headmasters and staff of our schools.

Will my hon. Friend accept, however, from an Englishman, I think—one can never be sure about these matters—that discrimination takes place and that there is no device or plan yet implemented in any school which is foolproof and which prevents the separation of the sheep from the goats? There is only one answer to this problem. Means tests have to be tolerated by many adults in this country and in Scotland, but, in my view, for children they are horrifying and should be abolished. Let us get rid of school meals charges completely and have a transfer of resources, as we said in the manifesto in 1974.

As my hon. Friend says, he thinks that he is an Englishman. I do not think that anyone has any doubts about that. There was a genuine concern in the past about the fact that for free school meals some local authorities issued tickets that were different from tickets for paid meals. As far as I know, local authorities in Scotland have ensured that children who receive free school meals get tickets of the same colour as those given to children whose parents pay. If that is not so and my hon. Friend knows something about Scotland that I do not know, I shall certainly check the matter and report to him.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland who will pay the costs of the inquiry into setting up a mink farm on the island of Westray.

I shall meet the direct costs of setting up the inquiry. Other parties will in general be responsible for their own expenses.

How much expense will fall upon the Orkney Islands Council? As the Minister well knows, this is a somewhat peculiar inquiry, in that it may not be held at all, and most of the objectors come from furth of the islands. How much expenditure will fall locally?

I think that the answer is "Very little", because, as I understand it, it was from that point of view a comparatively simple inquiry. I do not think that much expense will be involved for anyone.

Will the Minister pay special attention to the outcome of this inquiry and be aware that mink have now reached epidemic proportions throughout the rest of Scotland, and that it would be most unwise to allow this dangerous animal on to an island?

It was really for that reason that I made a revocation order. The inquiry is into that order. Beyond that, given that we shall have an inquiry, I do not think that it would be right for me to comment further.

If Scotland is so poor, who will buy the mink?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of the Scottish Development Agency.

For the activities of the Agency until 31st March 1977, I refer the hon. Member to its report for 1976–77, a copy of which is in the Library. Since that date, the Agency has continued its valuable work of furthering Scottish economic development.

Does the Minister agree that it is quite wrong that an organisation that spends as much public money as the SDA does should be subject to virtually no scrutiny by Parliament? Will he agree, therefore, to reappoint, or to recommend the reappointment of, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, so that we may look at the affairs of the SDA and at how it spends its money, particularly as most of the money that it spends comes from taxes on profitable industry?

It is not right to say, as the hon. Gentleman does, that the SDA is not accountable to the House of Commons. Indeed, the Chief Executive of the SDA is an officer who accounts to the Public Accounts Committee. In the House we have had many opportunities of questioning the work of the Agency. It will be within the hon. Member's recollection that we debated the SDA's work in the Scottish Grand Committee during an Estimates debate. I am bound to say that whilst this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President, when last we had a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—which, incidentally, we started, in 1969—the hon. Member and his colleagues decided to scrap it, in 1972, for the very good and simple reason that they could not get their own Back Benchers to attend.

Will the Minister remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that the Tories voted against the establishment of the SDA? The SNP does not oppose it. Will the Minister also remind the hon. Member for Cathcart that by cavilling at the SDA he is saying that he is against the creation of jobs in Scotland? Will the Minister further remind the hon. Member of his monstrous, scandalous and disgraceful about-turn when in 1974 the hon. Member said that he was in favour of a Scottish Assembly with economic powers?

I am sometimes not quite sure what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is in favour of concerning the SDA. He comes here, he makes public comments in the Press in which he batters the living daylights out of the SDA, and the next minute he thinks that it is a good thing. I am not sure where the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) stands on the question of the SDA, either.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the effect of the SDA is non-existent in the Hamilton constituency? We have had two factories empty for the last seven years and still have not fulfilled the promise that we made following the cessation of the new town at Stonehouse for an industrial estate at Candersyde.

I am not prepared to accept what my hon. Friend says. In addition to the normal industrial investments by the SDA, which account for about £30 million, there has been a factory programme of £44 million and another scheme of about £43 million for environmental improvements. I am sure that Hamilton benefits as much as anywhere else.

I have two short questions for the Minister. Is there any reason why the SDA cannot do the job that it was set up to do without taking a 51 per cent. equity stake in firms? Secondly, will the SDA be prepared to sell back into the private sector firms that it owns?

The SDA does exactly the job that it was set up to do. It was set up to be not just a Government Department. It was set up with the necessary guidelines, which we have all discussed, to have an entrepreneurial role in the regeneration of Scottish industry. Therefore, it has the role of industrial investment and environmental improvement, and advance factory building.

Is the Minister really happy about the fact that the SDA should have put over £800,000 into an entirely unsuccessful attempt to prop up the Scofisco project, with the result that fish processing firms in my constituency continue to work at well below capacity?

This is something that we must put into perspective. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the prospects of other companies in his constituency and elsewhere. Of course, objections were received from a number of these not disinterested people. But the SDA has a role, as have the Welsh Development Agency and the National Enterprise Board, to promote companies that it thinks will be successful and will give a good return.

Is the Minister aware that it is open to any firm to apply for SDA support and that most hon. Members on this side of the House want to see the SDA pursuing a much more vigorous policy in the development of new jobs? Will he ask it to approach all Scottish-based enterprises and ask them what obstacles there are to expansion, and how these can be removed by SDA action?

The people to whom my hon. Friend refers, who want to expand, can go to the Secretary of State's Scottish Economic Planning Department, which offers benefits in the form of regional development grants and selective financial assistance. We encourage this by seminars and publications. The SDA has taken on a number of investments where it thinks that there is a good chance of viability and profitability and an opportunity to encourage more jobs. The Chairman of the SDA said recently that, taking all these functions together, there is a prospect of saving and promoting about 30,000 jobs in Scotland—and 30,000 jobs is nothing to be sneezed at.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the financial control exercised by the Scottish Development Agency.

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the SDA is not at all sure what its financial responsibilities are and what sort of control it should be exercising, and that it has taken more than five weeks to reply to a letter of mine on that rather important if simple point? Further, is he aware that in evidence to the Expenditure Committee last year it was said that the NEB and the SDA would operate as first-class companies? In these circumstances, is the SDA taking responsibility for the creditors of its subsidiaries that go into liquidation? If so, how much has been paid out so far?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that some time after we set up the Agency industrial guidelines were agreed and published. Those are the guidelines that the Agency now operates. The hon. Gentleman has said that it takes many weeks for the Agency to reply to a letter, but clearly that is not a matter for me.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that financial control by the House is important but that more important is the success of the SDA, which depends on the extent to which it can involve itself with firms either by part-share public ownership or by full public ownership? Is it not gross hypocrisy on the part of the Scottish National Party to claim that it supports the Agency when it attacked it and tried to extract any teeth it had by attempting to remove the parts of the Bill providing for public ownership and public investment?

The SDA has been much maligned by both the Opposition and the SNP. In fact, I believe that the Agency does a worthwhile job in Scotland. I have already indicated in answer to an earlier Question that it has an important factory role, an important environmental role, and an important role in industrial investment. Although we have heard a great deal about two or three disappointments, it is worth bearing in mind that there are 26 or 27 companies where the Agency has had success, notably with Cummins, and has safeguarded and provided a considerable number of new jobs for the people of Scotland.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Conservative Party should stop the monstrous and scandalous vilification of senior personnel of the Agency? Were not the Conservatives being totally hypocritical when they voted against the establishment of the Agency?

In the Estimates debate last year I said that leading members of the Conservative Party were much more concerned about the size of the lavatory of the chairman of the Agency than about the valuable work that the Agency was doing. I continue to maintain that stance.

Bearing in mind that it has ben reported that Scofisco will suffer a loss of about £750,000, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that many people in the fishing industry stand to lose something as a result? Will he say what consultations took place with those with experience in the fishing industry and in fish processing before the Agency became concerned with that firm? Is he aware that many of those concerned in the industry were worried that insufficient homework had been done in relation to that enterprise?

Before the SDA makes this or any other kind of investment, it listens carefully to outside advice. It employs independent consultants, who do a first-class job on matters of this kind.

Does the Minister of State agree that we should deprecate this constant sniping at the SDA by Conservative Members who do not have the guts to say that they would repeal the legislation and declare it null and void?

I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say just that. It is discouraging to the Chairman, the Chief Executive and the board of the SDA if they are constantly being sniped at for the few disappointments they have had and if they are given no credit by any Opposition Members for their remarkable achievements in this sphere.

Does the Minister agree that he and the Labour Party have a record of which to be ashamed in the provision of jobs in Scotland? The job of the House of Commons is to make sure that public money is well spent. Does he accept that, whether we have one view or another about various activities, it is important to make sure that public money, taken in taxes from profitable, successful firms, is wisely used?

I agree that it is important that taxpayers' money should be well spent and that it should be spent on providing jobs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that message very much to heart. If the Opposition had had their way we would not have had the jobs in British Leyland in Bathgate, in shipbuilding, or in Chrysler, and we would not have had many of the jobs provided by the Scottish Development Agency.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the results of discussions he has had with the appropriate authorities regarding the provision of a national sports stadium in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to proposals for the improvement of Hampden Park. I have been keeping in close touch with the local authorities and the other interested bodies and have undertaken to consider any agreed scheme put to me. When I have received such a scheme, I shall be glad to discuss it with the interested bodies and make a decision as soon as possible.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is probable that Scotland will be playing host to World Cup football in 1986 and that he will still be Minister for sport on that date? Therefore, will he give the most sympathetic consideration to representations made to his Department and do his utmost to ensure that at least 100,000 spectators can be accommodated at that stadium in view of the unbelievable scramble for tickets for these attractive football matches?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I am not sure whether I shall be in the Assembly, but certainly it will be a Labour Minister for sport when the Assembly is established. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be there to support me when we open the new Hampden Park.

Order. May I appeal to hon. Members for a return to Celtic brevity?

Does not the Minister consider it a disgrace that in World Cup year our national football stadium does not measure up to the achievements of our national football team? Will he ensure that cash is made available to transform Hampden Park into a national multi-sports complex that is worthy of the name?

The only thing that I can say about the football scene is to comment on the disgraceful attitude of Scottish nationalists last year at Wembley who were singing and chanting "Hate the English".

Can my hon. Friend tell the House what is the national sport in Scotland—apart from the SNP bashing the English?

It certainly depends on the part of Scotland from which one comes. I would not like to give a decision on that.

Would it not be more helpful for the Minister to take the initiative instead of giving a list of questions and waiting for someone else to answer them? Is he referring to a national sports stadium or simply to a football stadium? A national sports stadium would be a much more viable project and would ensure the future of Hampden Park far better than as merely a football venue.

This is a purely private enterprise project. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) cannot claim more and more cuts in public expenditure and at the same time ask for a £20 million project for Hampden Park. If £20 million is available, I have priorities other than Hampden Park. However, my hon. Friends and I are prepared to consider the proposals for an £8 million scheme proffered in the national Press. As I said earlier, I hope to have an early meeting with the bodies concerned.

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

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

Is the Minister aware of local feeling about the shocking, monstrous and scandalous state of the A94 oil route through Woodside? When will he channel some of the revenues from Scottish oil into making the A94 a proper road?

I am bound to say that when the hon. Member asks this sort of shot-in-the-dark Question I shall give the answer that I always give. If he puts down a specific Question on the Order Paper, I shall answer it.

Will the Minister visit Woodside, which is part of my constituency of North Aberdeen, where he will see great changes taking place? He will see the building of many houses to benefit the people of Aberdeen and great interest in the National Health Service, which also benefits the people of Aberdeen. In fact, Woodside encapsulates the future of the Labour role in Scotland and, therefore, it should be commended to all other Woodsides in the country.

As my hon. Friend points out, there are a great many Wood-sides in Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) will bear this in mind when he next puts down a Question. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) were very sensible, and I am sure that he will still be sitting for that constituency after the next General Election. Perhaps he may even be joined by a colleague from Perth and East Perthshire on this side of the House.

Will the Minister visit Perth and East Perthshire rather than Aberdeen, North—

Order. Questions will get completely out of order if hon. Members switch around like that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total expenditure incurred so far in the acquisition and conversion of the formal building for the Scottish Assembly in Edinburgh, and what is his latest estimate of the expenditure still to be incurred?

Expenditure to mid-February was £1·6 million, including the cost of purchasing the Royal High School. There remains to be spent the balance of the £3·25 million indicated in the explanatory and financial memorandum.

What plans do the Government have for the use of this building if the Scotland Bill does not reach the statute book or the referendum does not achieve a minimum of 40 per cent. in favour?

We do not anticipate any of those eventualities arising. It is very dangerous for Ministers to answer hypothetical questions.

Does the figure that the Minister mentioned include the cost of removing the aerosal-can SNP slogans from the front of the building?

I think that the right hon. Member has raised a very serious point. I take this opportunity, particularly with a by-election in Glasgow, of saying that one of the greatest acts of vandalism in Scotland at election times is the way in which road signs are defaced by the SNP. I wish that SNP Members would stop laughing and take this point seriously.

In all seriousness, will the Minister take note of the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)? What will happen if the Scottish people decide not to go ahead with this idea? What will the Government do with the building, and how will they use it? Will they sell it off, or what will happen? Is it not a scandal that we should have got this far, spending this amount of money, before the Scottish people have made up their minds?

The money is being spent with the full approval of Parliament. We are certainly not spending the money without that approval having been secured. Not only do I take account of what is said by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) but, even more important, I take more account of what is said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).

What discussions has the Minister had with representatives of the newspapers and broadcasting authorities about facilities in the Assembly? Does he appreciate that the present plans will mean that the Press, without a Lobby system, will sit on the Floor of the Assembly and that its telephones will be only a few feet away from the Chamber?

I have constant discussions with the media on the facilities that are to be provided when the Assembly is set up. The media accept that the Assembly is not being established for media purposes. The first priority is to establish the Assembly for Members and for the people of Scotland. Within that context, we shall fit in the requirements of the media.

Does not the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) add greater urgency to holding the referendum as soon as possible? Is not September the best date for the referendum so that my hon. Friend will not be bothered with Questions of this kind after we secure a "Yes" vote in the referendum?

I have noticed lately that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) appears to be desperately anxious to fix a September date for the referendum. I wonder whether he has already fixed his holidays for October, November and December. There are all sorts of possibilities open to him.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to Dundee harbour.

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

I am disappointed at the fact that the Minister has no intention of visiting Dundee harbour to consult the port authority on plans for a roll-on-roll-off facility, as that project is being held back by lack of grant-aid facilities. Will he ask the Scottish Economic Planning Department to examine the situation as a matter of urgency?

I should like first to see a further extension of oil-related employment in the Dundee area. I know that local authorities and harbour authorities are considering this matter seriously at present. I also know that the port authority is actively considering the possibility mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We shall examine any suggestion that is made to us.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to introduce a Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

I cannot give a specific date at present.

Will the Minister take note of the widespread anxiety mentioned in questions on the Business Statement recently about the prospects for such a Bill in a future Queen's Speech. Will he also bear in mind the fact that there is widespread interest in Scotland about the urgency for such a measure relating to the appropriateness of sentencing policy, and will he ensure that a Bill is laid this Session?

It is not in my power to give the House that assurance that a Bill will be laid in this or any other Session. That is not within my remit of responsibility. I rest on what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in business questions last Thursday, namely, that there is some legislation that we should like to introduce in all sorts of areas which it might not be possible to introduce this Session. We shall have to wait and see the outcome of any discussions that are taking place.

Is the Minister aware that in dealing with younger offenders there is considerable scope for making much better use of the facility for much more appropriate sentences? Will he ensure that when a Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill is introduced this aspect involving younger offenders will be given high priority?

The hon. Gentleman mentions an important matter. We are at a stage when we must consider the kind of sentences given to youngsters under 21. We are considering whether we should group all three classes of sentence and leave it to the Prison Service to allocate offenders to various institutions, or whether we should continue as in the past. That is one of the matters that we are considering.

Does the Minister accept that if this Bill is to be delayed it will create great concern in Scotland, since it is felt that there should be substantial changes in methods of dealing with offenders, and it would be regretted if such delay were to affect both law and order and penal reform in Scotland?

It will be regretted if there is any delay in terms of law and order. That is why the Government are desperately anxious to increase respect for law and order and why, in a few weeks' time we shall be launching a major publicity and advertising campaign to attract more men to the police force.

Did not the Government give notice that this legislation would be introduced? If the Scottish Office is unable to persuade the Government to find time for it, is the Minister aware that this will be regretted in Scotland?

I am not sure about the degree of regret in regard to this legislation, but the Government are desperately anxious to ensure that law and order have a proper place in the society. I must emphasise that a major amount of time on the Floor of the House has been concerned with Scottish legislation. I would not want the impression to go back to Scotland from this Question Time that Scotland has been starved of parliamentary time. That is simply not true.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on prospects for the Scottish economy over the forthcoming six months.

As I told the hon. Member on 15th February, our economic prospects will be influenced by developments in world trade as well as the extent to which we can reduce our rate of domestic inflation. Since then the annual rate of increase has come down to single figures.

But, as I said to the Minister on the same date, if the Government are genuine about reducing unemployment, there is only one sector in which that can be achieved in Scotland, namely, in the small business sector. That sector is now hampered by Government regulations. Will the Minister consider examining those regulations, and particularly the provisions of the Employment Protection Act, which is destroying employment?

The hon. Gentleman knows that many matters affecting small businesses are now being examined. I agree that the small business sector has an important part to play in the Scottish economy, but, of course, it does not by any means comprise the whole of the Scottish economy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the effect on the Scottish economy of the weakness of the dollar? Has it affected Scottish exports, and what is the effect on the subsidiaries of American companies in Scotland?

Following uncertainty in currency values, I do not think that I can distinguish between effects on the United Kingdom economy as a whole compared with the effects on Scotland as part of that economy. The right hon. Gentleman will know the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the last few days on the subject of the expansion of world trade.

Will the Minister say something about the contribution to the Scottish economy of Yarrow Shipbuilders, Glasgow? Is it not a fact that Yarrow would have no future at all if Parliament as a whole had voted in the same way as Conservatives and SNP Members of Parliament, who voted against aircraft and shipbuilding being taken into public ownership, since taking them into public ownership saved thousands of jobs for workers on Clydeside and elsewhere in Scotland?

I agree with my hon. Friend that Scottish ownership of the shipbuilding industry and the considerable sums of public money put into that industry in Scotland have saved a considerable number of jobs. Anything that would damage the Scottish shipbuilding industry—either Tory opposition to shipbuilding nationalisation or the bizarre statements of the SNP candidate at Garscadden about Yarrow—should be treated with considerable anger by the people of Scotland.

Does the Minister accept that the SNP Members are proud at having a high-principled candidate at Garscadden who is not afraid to lay his views on the line, and are surprised at the views of the Labour Party, which are not in line with those of its founding father, Keir Hardie? What representations has he made to the Department of Industry and the Common Market to allow the continuation and expansion of the Intervention Fund in view of the importance of the shipbuilding industry in the West of Scotland?

We are anxious to see the Intervention Fund continuing. I am delighted that any SNP candidate is frank about his party's policies. I only wish Conservative Members would be equally frank.

Is the Minister aware that the high and apparently rising level of redundancy payments sometimes received by redundant workers does much to ease and humanise immediate redundancy difficulties but blunts public protest and the underlying opposition to the high level of unemployment? Therefore, will he accept that the reduction of unemployment remains the overwhelming priority of Members on the Labour Benches?

I agree with my hon. Friend that we must get the unemployment figure down. Although we wish to see adequate redundancy payments made, that is very much a second-best policy. The primary consideration must remain the saving of jobs.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not rather ashamed of having been elected on a manifesto which said that the 1974 rates of unemployment were intolerable, when unemployment has doubled since then and we now have a further sign with reports of 150 redundancies at Drumchapel, in the Garscadden constituency? Will he encourage his party and the SNP to continue being frank, since the latest evidence of political opinion in Scotland is a dramatic win for the Conservatives from the nationalists on a 60 per cent. poll in the Perth constituency?

I have already made clear on numerous occasions that the present level of unemployment is far too high. I am glad that there was some reduction in the seasonally adjusted numbers of unemployed in January and February, but it was quite small, and I want to see it coming down much more rapidly.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Cunninghame and Kyle and Carrick districts following the recent revaluation of properties for rating purposes; and if he will make a statement.

I have had 19 letters from Kyle and Carrick and six from Cunninghame. If ratepayers in these districts are dissatisfied with their new valuations, they have rights of complaint to the assessor and of appeal to the local valuation committee.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anger in the Cunninghame and Kyle and Carrick districts over what appears to be discrimination against local ratepayers in the recent revaluation, especially against business and commercial interests? Will he act on the proposal that I put to him that, as a transitional arrangement, he should ensure that no ratepayer pays more than a 10 per cent. increase, because of revaluation, this year and in subsequent years?

I have answered questions before about transitional arrangements. I discussed the matter specifically with COSLA, and its unanimous view, which I share, was that transitional arrangements would not be desirable. If there is any feeling in the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend that standards applied to the revaluation are unfair compared with standards applied elsewhere, there is an appeal machinery open to ratepayers.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he has no locus in this matter, but will he accept that there is a good deal of irritation and, in some cases, anxiety about the revaluation? Could he not discuss with the assessors and the local authorities the possibility of having explanations of the revaluation—in non-officialese—put in the mail so that householders understand what is going on?

We have already done that. The Scottish Office played a part in drawing up a leaflet, in agreement with COSLA, and copies were sent to every ratepayer in Scotland. We have made considerable effort to explain to people what the revaluation is about. Naturally, those who have gained—they are a substantial number and include, in general, domestic ratepayers—do not make a great deal of fuss. They are happy. Those who have suffered relatively do make a good deal of fuss; I do not criticise them for that. But it would be misleading to give the impression that there is a seething mass of discontent about revaluation in Scotland. That is certainly not my impression, though I realise what is happening in areas about which I have had representations.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, from the material that I and many others have sent to him, there is overwhelming evidence that the general level of valuations in Ayrshire is being deliberately raised, as a matter of policy, over that in other areas? Bearing in mind the rating and valuation Acts, is this not illegal?

If the hon. Gentleman is making allegations of illegality, he should make them in more specific terms. Is he saying that assessors have behaved illegally? That is a serious charge. I have said that there is an appeal procedure available and I seriously suggest to ratepayers in these areas that if they are dissatisfied they must use the appeal procedure. It would be foolish of them simply to make points to their hon. Members, and to make political points, without also protecting their interests by taking the necessary steps to appeal. I strongly recommend them to do that.

We all appreciate the role played by the assessors in these matters, but does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the people of Argyll have been hit second only to the people of the Cunninghame district in relation to the new revaluation? Does he think that it is satisfactory for us as politicians to wash our hands of the affair? Would it not be better to institute an inquiry to ensure that people are not asked to pay too much?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to inquire into. Any revaluation affects one ratepayer and one area differently from others. I should be surprised—though do not have the exact figures—if the rates paid by the average domestic ratepayer in Argyll, even after revaluation, are out of line with rates in the rest of Scotland. I suspect—I shall be happy to check this—that they are still a good deal lower than the average paid by domestic ratepayers in the rest of Scotland. That fact, as well as the increases, must be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what preparations are being made to provide the proposed Scottish Assembly with discussion papers on alternative forms of Standing Orders for the Assembly.

My right hon. Friend aims to ensure that the preparations made for the Assembly will include briefing on procedures for elected Assemblies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important that matters such as the declaration and registration of Members' interests and the open access to information for Members should be discussed before the Assembly is elected and not imposed by the Assembly afterwards?

We cannot set up discussion groups and committees to have discussions with a body that is not yet in being. On my hon. Friend's general proposition, the Assembly will want to pay regard to what happens in this House when framing its Standing Orders and procedures, because the Standing Orders and procedures that my right hon. Friend is to prepare will take effect only in the run-in period of the Assembly. Thereafter, it will be for the Assembly to establish its own procedures.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that much of the desire for devolution arises from annoyance over the ineffectiveness of Westminster government and the continuation of outdated methods that are perpetuated in this House? Would it not be much better for the Assembly to start with a clean sheet and to introduce its own Standing Orders?

We are aware of the ineffectiveness of Opposition parties. That is one of the main reasons why, after February 1974, the Government introduced aid to Opposition parties. I am beginning to have doubts about the value that we are getting for the money.

In view of the recent events in Garscadden, would it not be a good idea for the Scottish Assembly to have a special rest room for SNP nannies and Tory Party nanny goats?

In relation to the Tories, I suspect that the rest room would need to have a chimney in it, and in relation to the SNP, I suspect that the rest room would need to have space for changing nappies and feeding babies.

I got into trouble the other day over a reference to animals.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with current progress in house building in Scotland.

I am satisfied that authorities are assessing their housing needs as a whole, including the need for the building of new houses, and that these will be reflected in the housing plans which they have been asked to submit to my right hon. Friend annually.

How can the Minister be satisfied with anything when the number of houses completed in 1977 was only 26,772—the lowest total for more than 20 years, and lower than in any year of the last Conservative Government? How does that square with the Labour Party's pledge at the last election:

"The next Labour Government will … reverse the disastrous fall in house building"?

It is true that it is almost as bad as in the years of the Conservative Government before 1964. [Interruption.] It is almost as bad. Do not let us argue about a few houses. The figures are almost as bad as the average for the three years preceding the election of the Labour Government in 1964, when the need, presumably, was much greater. I thought that we had agreed to get away from the numbers game. There was no limitation on the building of new houses until last year, and the figures reflect the greater need for modernisation and rehabilitation. That is the view of the local authorities concerned.

When my hon. Friend considers the housing plans submitted by local authorities, will he pay particular regard to the authorities that submit realistic housing plans and not regard them as bids for the money that is available? Will he take into account the capability of local authorities to meet their plans when allocating the money?

Yes, that is only one of the factors that we shall take into account. The borrowing allocation for 1978–79 is increasing. I never know what the SNP policy is on anything, but I should like to know whether the official Opposition are asking me to increase public expenditure on housing.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the amount of grant for township roads in the Western Isles.

I regret that the resources for the township road programme as a whole do not permit any increase at present.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will be received with regret in my constituency, especially in areas such as the Island of Harris, which has many communities still without roads and is an area that has had the least access to job opportunities and development? Will he give reconsideration to disbursing some of the funds for the congested districts, which I understand are still at the discretion of the Secretary of State?

I am prepared to consider that point. I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that the grant allocation for 1978–79 is the biggest of all the five authorities concerned.

asked the Lord Advocate, further to his reply of 20th February, whether he will now prosecute the South African Immigration Organisation (Pty) Limited of 104 West George Street, Glasgow, in the light of evidence now supplied to him.

The information supplied to me in connection with this matter was insufficient to enable a decision to be taken. I have instructed that further inquiries be made.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to pursue this matter in view of the fact that on the evidence submitted to him, including a letter from the Department of Employment, it is quite clear that the company was not registered as an employment agency under the Employment Agencies Act 1973? Does he agree that it is clear that the firm is collaborating to support apartheid and is misleading many people into emigrating to South Africa by painting that land as a place flowing with milk and honey, whereas in reality it is ruled by one of the most immoral and unscrupulous Governments in the world?

My hon. Friend has painted a black picture of South Africa. I hope that you will forgive me for that, Mr. Speaker. We are concerned, as my hon. Friend has recognised, with a statutory provision that can attract a penalty for non-compliance. That is the primary issue. The only issue before me is whether the provision has application to the firm in question.

asked the Lord Advocate when he next intends to visit Glasgow Sheriff Court.

I have no immediate plans to visit Glasgow Sheriff Court.

Is not the Lord Advocate very concerned at the unpaid fines in sheriff courts, as reported yesterday, which now amount to almost £1 million? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel that this problem might bring the whole court system into disrepute?

Although I am concerned, that matter does not come within my ministerial province. The hon. Gentleman would be wise to table a specific question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has mentioned the problems of Glasgow Sheriff Court. As he is interested in the matter, I point out to him that two additional sheriff and jury courts came into operation last week.

Is the Lord Advocate aware of the considerable anger among Scottish prison officers at their low pay and the proposal to go slow on escort duty, with a view to clagging up, in particular, Glasgow Sheriff Court? What consideration has he given to the judicial implications of that action?

That matter is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.