asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals Her Majesty's Government propose to put to the projected all-party talks on Scottish devolution.

The Government have indicated that they will propose the repeal of the Scotland Act. The appropriate order is already before the House and a debate will be arranged. At that stage we will indicate how we intend to proceed thereafter.

Since the issue of devolution will not go away, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the proposals he puts forward for all-party consideration will be constructive?

We shall certainly approach the talks, when we come to them, constructively, and in that sense I accept what my hon. Friend has said.

When the Secretary of State examines this matter further, will he bear in mind that the Act contained a section which would have set up a commission to examine the administration of Orkney and Shetland? Is he aware that we would like that proposal set in motion again when the appropriate time comes?

I am well aware of that point. It is an issue that could be raised in the all-party talks.

Since the Act received a majority in the referendum, and since the Secretary of State's party secured a smaller percentage of the vote in the election than it secured in the referendum, does he not consider that it would be an act of political wisdom if he were to retain the Act until he has a substitute which he considers to be an improvement?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. An analysis of the referendum results shows that a large majority of people in Scotland did not feel that they could vote for the Act. That cannot be ignored.

While the all-party talks are continuing will my right hon. Friend consider setting up a Select Committee to sit in Edinburgh to study the workings of the Scottish Office?

As my hon. Friend knows, that proposal has been made from various quarters, and it is something that would be relevant for consideration in the all-party talks.

What exactly is there to talk about?

The object of the all-party talks will be to establish what the various parties in the House would wish to talk about on this subject, and to see whether there is some basis for a consensus about what should be done next.

Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues recognise that if any proposals are to be effective there will have to be changes of attitude about the management of business in this House? In particular, will he consider the place of broadcasting and television in any proposals?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but much of its content is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I shall draw his attention to it.

Will the Secretary of State recognise that these talks will be more likely to be meaningful if they are held before he attempts to repeal the Scotland Act? Since the views of all the other parties in the House about devolution are known, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he cannot dodge giving the Government's view, which is what we want as soon as possible?

As I have said, the one thing which came out of the referendum was that the Scotland Act did not command anything remotely approaching majority support in Scotland, and I think that we should be quite wrong not to recognise that. As regards our approach, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the object of the talks, of course, is to let all concerned make their views known, and it is quite possible that some of the parties in this matter may well have views different from those which they held a year ago.

rose—

Order. I allowed longer on that question than will be possible on other questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is prepared to hold a public inquiry into the delay in completing the new North Ayrshire district general hospital; and if he will make a statement.

The Ayrshire and Arran health board—rightly in my view—is giving absolute priority to having certain technical defects identified and rectified with a view to bringing this important new district general hospital into service as soon as possible. A public inquiry at this stage would not be helpful and might only give rise to further delay.

I am disappointed, and my constituents in Central Ayrshire will be disappointed, by that reply. Is the Minister aware that, five years ago, the health board drew the attention of the Common Services Agency to the high lead content of the water supply, and the agency at that time took away sample pipe joints for analysis but so far the health board has had no reply from the CSA? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the original design team appointed by the CSA has to all intents and purposes been sacked from any further work and a new design team has been appointed? Is it not about time that officials of the CSA responsible for hospital building in Scotland should be sacked, so that then we could wake things up?

The hon. Gentleman has asked two or three slightly different questions. The building division of the CSA—which, by the way, is part of the NHS, not of my Department—has been involved in this scheme only since NHS reorganisation in 1974. In any event, it has in this case a liaison advisory role, not an executive function. Officers of the building division have been working hard with those of the health board in an attempt to have the problem resolved, and my Department knows all about the problems of the split in the design team.

Without anticipating a later question of mine about the Borders general hospital, which my constituent, the Under-Secretary of State, knows all about, may I ask whether the Government's announcement about the review of the Health Service organisation in England and Wales will apply also to Scotland in view of the considerable delays being experienced in the construction of these new hospitals?

Although it is a different problem, I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the review of the National Health Service is, of course, a United Kingdom matter, and I am fully conversant with the problems of the new hospital in our—or his—constituency.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if hospitals were built to a standardised plan throughout the country, a great deal of time and money could be saved, in contrast to what happens with the one-off architectural monstrosities going up now, which are extremely difficult to build and to work efficiently in?

I think that one of the reasons for the delay in the Borders hospital is an initial attempt to go to a standardised plan. I do not think that that is possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice has been given to housing authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association and new town development corporations to offer all their houses for sale to sitting tenants; and if he will make a statement.

A circular has been issued to local authorities giving general consent to the sale of council houses to sitting tenants and urging authorities to adopt a policy of offering houses for sale. I shall make a copy of the circular available to the hon. Gentleman. The new policy will apply also to the Scottish Special Housing Association, and discussions are being held to decide how it is to be implemented. New town development corporations have for many years had discretion to sell their houses. They are being asked to bring the terms on which they do so into line with those which we have authorised for local authorities.

First, may I offer the hon. Gentleman my personal congratulations on his appointment? He will need all the help he can get, even from me. Would it not have been wiser to consult local authorities and COSLA before embarking on this policy of confrontation? Where will the additional public expenditure be found for loans to people, and does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is no freedom of choice for the more than 40 per cent. of council tenants who are at present in receipt of rent rebate?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, albeit in their qualified form. He suggests that there has been no consultation with the local authorities. He seems to forget that at this stage the circular is simply discretionary. We are removing the restraints which were imposed by the Labour Government, and I do not recall that there were any consultations with the local authorities when the restraints were first imposed.

Order. Let me tell hon. Members who are new to the House that we normally have short questions and answers.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the bargains for council house tenants will not be found just in the so-called better estates? Is it not a fact that the scheme to put a market value on these council houses will mean that, with the discount, many council house tenants could find themselves in possession of a good solid piece of real estate for as little as £1,000?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is certainly the Governmen's intention that local authorities shall consider all houses in their area available for sale to tenants who wish to purchase. We believe that the fact that a house in an area which might be considered to be of low amenity will have a market value substantially less than that of other properties will mean that there is no council tenant who could not seriously consider purchasing his own home.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase the rate support grant to Scottish local authorities to improve the availability of places in eventide homes in the Paisley area, where there is a substantial waiting list at present.

None, Sir. Rate support grant is paid in aid of local authority revenues generally, and it is for authorities to determine expenditure priorities between services.

Will the Minister be more specific? Is he aware that the number of people over retirement age is likely to increase by about 10 per cent. to 15 per cent in the next decade? Is he suggesting that no additional resources are needed to meet this demand? Is he saying that what is required is simply a redistribution of what is already there? If he is, will he tell us quite specifically what local government services should get less, in the Government's view, so that geriatric care may be maintained?

I can only repeat that it is the privilege of my right hon. Friend to decide the level of rate support grant, and thereafter it is the duty of the local authorities to decide how it is divided up and spent.

Will the Minister state the effect which the Chancellor's announcement yesterday about a reduction in rate support grant to local authorities will have on the social work services, especially for the old and the mentally handicapped?

That entirely depends on how the local authority decides to divide up the rate support grant.

The Minister has not yet answered the question. What does he tell an elderly disabled person in need of local authority care who lives in a Tory-controlled area which will suffer massive rate support grant cuts? Does he tell that person to suffer in the name of Tory tax cuts? Is that the Tory freedom we have been hearing about?

I did answer the question, and I point out to the hon. Gentleman that if a local authority decides to spend the whole of its rate support grant on the social services, that is its privilege.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of Glasgow eastern area renewal; and what proposals he has for the future of this project.

Draft overall proposals for GEAR have been prepared by the Scottish Development Agency and are intended to provide a framework for action over the period to 1982 and beyond. They will be considered at the next meeting of the project governing committee. I have visited the area and had introductory discussions with the Scottish Development Agency; but obviously further discussions will be necessary before I can reach a view on how to secure the success of the project.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the project, which has attracted so much favourable attention and brought hope to an area badly in need of it, will not be affected by cuts in public spending?

I made clear when I visited the GEAR project on Friday that the Government believe in the project and wish to see it succeed. The representations we have received about GEAR relate not to financial resources but to the slowness of decision-making. It is in that area that we are trying to ascertain whether progress may be achieved.

May we congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on his second visit to Glasgow?

I think that I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my visits to Glasgow are probably substantially greater in number than his visits to Edinburgh.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement of progress in relation to the planning application from Shell and Esso for development at Moss Morran and Braefoot Bay.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to announce his decision on the Moss Morran petrochemical project in Fife.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his consideration of the observations received on the Health and Safety Executive report on the Moss Morran petrochemical project in the Kirkcaldy constituency; and when he expects to announce his decision on the planning application.

I am considering all the material before me which is relevant to the planning applications for this development, including the representations received on the most recent material from the Health and Safety Executive, but I cannot at this stage say when a decision will be made.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Is he aware that I do not wish to press him into a decision? I understand that he will have to have some time to consider these complex and difficult matters. Assuming that his decision will be positive, as all the local authorities in Fife desire and as I desire, will he consider especially the terms and conditions of the hazard analyses that he will lay down and try to make them much more specific? So that there may be clarification, does he agree that an analysis should take place, if possible, prior to the construction of the project?

I note with interest what the hon. Gentleman says, but, as he will appreciate, I cannot anticipate my decision.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I want to press him now for a decision? These matters have been going on long enough. Is he aware that if his decision is not favourable to the minority of objectors in the area, they will take all steps to thwart the desire of the three Labour-controlled local authorities that desperately want the projects to go ahead because of the urgency of providing additional employment facilities in the area? It is desperately important that a decision is made as quickly as possible.

I know the hon. Gentleman's views. I reaffirm that it is my duty to consider all the evidence presented to me and to come to a conclusion when I have done so. Neither my predecessor nor myself would wish to do otherwise than give it the fullest consideration.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a travesty of justice that a few objectors, led by a professional objector in Fife, are holding up the project? Is he aware that the local authorities in Fife are frustrated by the delay, which goes back to January 1977? There is need for an urgent decision. Will he grasp the nettle like a man and make a decision forthwith? I ask him not to delay any longer. I appreciate that he has only recently taken office, but I am sure that the papers are available and that everything is ready for a decision to be made.

I shall not be responsible for any unnecessary delay. It is, however, my statutory duty to ensure that I consider carefully all the relevant evidence, and I must do that before coming to a decision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the delay in granting the application is causing considerable disruption to the plans of Shell-Esso, at the St. Fergus works, in my constituency, and that a decision is of considerable urgency?

I am well aware of that. I do not think that it can be said that there has been unreasonable delay. My predecessor had further evidence to consider. He was in the course of receiving that evidence when there was a change of Government. I have to consider all the evidence and to ensure that I take into account all of it that is relevant.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if ICI decides to proceed with the petrochemical complex at Barry Buddon, the Ministry of Defence will not put any barrier in its way? Is he aware that there is grave concern in the area that if ICI decides to come to Barry Buddon the Ministry of Defence will decide to upgrade the site for use by NATO forces, which will be opposed seriously by those living in the area?

I note with interest what the hon. Gentleman says. As he will appreciate, as such a project might come before me for some form of decision, I had better not make any comment upon it now.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to review the proposed construction of a nuclear power station at Torness.

No, Sir. The South of Scotland Electricity Board was given the necessary planning and expenditure consents to go ahead with construction of the power station at Torness by the previous Administration, and preliminary site work is already committed and under way. The board will, of course, require to obtain a nuclear site licence from the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing concern not only in that area but in Edinburgh about the safety aspect especially as it was never publicly examined at the time of the inquiry? Does he agree that it is the Government's duty to assure the people that the project is safe rather than the duty of the people to prove to the Government that it is not?

The health and safety aspects were considered at the public inquiry. Evidence was given both by objectors and nuclear inspectors. The public can and do make representations to the Health and Safety Executive. Both the executive and the Health and Safety Commission regularly publish reports of their proceedings.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be great disappointment that the Government have not taken the opportunity to review the decision, given that it was made and based on a very old public planning inquiry rather than one related to the needs of the industry? Will he note that there is widespread and growing concern among both the population and the local authorities in the South of Scotland?

There is also growing concern among the public about supplies of energy generally, including oil, about which a statement is to be made later this afternoon. As the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) indicated in the House on 4 December 1978, the public inquiry held in June 1974 was broad in scope and considered not only matters of local planning significance but the wider issues involved. I see no reason to dispute the conclusion reached by the previous Administration.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Torness is in the constituency of Berwick and East Lothian, where the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) was last heard of in October 1974? As the Minister must be aware that there is considerable public disquiet about the safety of nuclear power within my constituency, what does he intend to do to allay those fears? Will he use his influence with the Leader of the House to have an early debate on the subject in the Chamber?

The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is a matter for other occupants of the Treasury Bench. He may have the opportunity to raise it on the Adjournment motion later today. He spoke of public concern about safety factors. He will know that the inspectors issue a series of licences as the work progresses. They do so only if they are entirely satisfied with the progress.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there has never been a death from a nuclear accident in Britain? Does he agree that if we do not have a rapidly-improving nuclear power industry we shall run very short in the coming winter?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to alter the present legislation to make the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board responsible for providing electricity to the Island of Colonsay.

No, Sir. The present legislation has stood the test of time, and the board's policies under it have, in my view, fairly balanced the interest of its general body of consumers and that of potential customers in the remoter areas.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I urge him to expedite the matter, as my constituents on Colon-say pay 14p a unit for electricity and will probably pay 17p a unit by the end of the summer. Will he please get a move on so that they are able to see a future for their electricity supply?

I shall ask both of the boards concerned to act as quickly as possible.

I welcome the Minister's indication that he will ask the Highlands and Islands Development Board to intervene. However, is he aware that there is an exactly parallel situation in North Ronaldsay, and that the two islands have been in consultation with each other and with the Highlands and Islands Development Board? What is needed apart from co-ordination is for the Government to lay their hands on some funds to make it possible to generate electricity locally.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that both of the boards involved do their best in these remote areas. I am sure that he is also aware that there is not exactly a legacy of a great deal of available funds for the Government to use for these or any other purposes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the island of Colonsay is owned by Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, one of his ministerial colleagues? Will he consider whether it is possible to galvanise or electrify the noble Lord into some entrepreneurial activity in the interests of his long-suffering tenants? Will he conduct conversations with the noble Lord on this subject and report progress to the House?

I am happy to say that my noble Friend in previous years made a significant contribution to the electricity supplies in the islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the public inquiry into the Tweed and Eye orders on angling; and if he will make a statement on his proposed time-table for action.

The public inquiry to which my predecessor referred these proposals will be held on Monday 25 June at Kelso, and I would expect to receive the report within three months or so thereafter. In the meantime, it would not be appropriate for me to make any comment.

Does the Minister appreciate that the current legislation on angling is not exactly standing the test of time?

The hon. Gentleman and I have a joint interest in this matter. There have been some attempts over the years to change the law on angling. This is how the law stands at present. We must see how it works.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that angling clubs throughout the country need protection from the army of worm fishermen who descend on waters at weekends and holidays and do great damage to the fish stocks, which other anglers wish to fish by fair, fly methods?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Access to fisheries is inseparable from their proper management. The Act seeks to do that. I hope that it will be successful in improving matters.

Although the Minister cannot forecast the outcome of the inquiry, will he give an assurance that he will handle the matter speedily? Angling clubs in the border areas are irritated at the delays. Will the Minister give more weight to the views of those angling clubs which have contributed to the management of the rivers in the Tweed basin than to those of the angling clubs which have contributed nothing except organising bus raiding parties from West Lothian, Stirlingshire and other places?

I am sure that the reporter will take those facts into account at the inquiry. I shall not allow any undue delay in making a decision in due course.

When he makes a decision, will the Secretary of State try not to be too influenced by the fact that the applicants for the protection order include some of the biggest Tory landowners in Scotland such as Lord Home, the former Tory Prime Minister, the Duke of Buccleuch, the former Tory Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, North, and the family of the present hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)?

In these matters, I treat all applicants, whatever their background, on exactly equal terms.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the teachers' salaries claim.

A further meeting of the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee has been arranged for 25 May, and I hope that progress will be made then towards a satisfactory conclusion of the negotiations.

So as to reach a speedy settlement, will the Government accept in principle that the teachers need 42½ per cent. to restore their salaries to what they were at the time of the Houghton report? Is it true that when this and other vital education matters were debated last week, in the first major debate on education in this Parliament, the new Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland played truant so as to go to the cup final at Hampden Park?

I do not think that the latter remark has anything to do with the question. I have various responsibilities at the Scottish Office, including sport, which I think are important. The negotiating committee will meet on Friday. It would be inappropriate for me to forecast the discussions that will take place there.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the cost of the settlement will be included in the rate support grant settlement to the local authorities?

The cost of the settlement will be included in the rate support grant. It will also be included in the Government's revisions of public expenditure generally, where amendments are necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed new Perth to Aberdeen dual carriageway.

I have instructed my Department to report on the best means of implementing this commitment. Proposals at Stonehaven which involved new lengths of single carriageway have been withdrawn for redesigning.

Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that identified and accepted improvements to the roads in Angus, especially the proposed bypass for Forfar will not be prejudiced by the design planning work that will be necessary on the new dual carriageway? Will he reconsider the detrunking decision of the coast A92 road which the previous Administration took?

The road improvements now being carried out will be upgraded to dual carriageway standard. The Forfar bypass is not due to begin until 1982. It will be included in the new design at dual standard level. The public local inquiry recommended against double trunking in this area. We do not intend to change that. Four of the bridges on this road will be given help by the Department although the road is no longer a trunk road.

Will the Minister say what the cost to public funds would be of dualling this road and whence the money will come? As the Government are dedicated to making public expenditure cuts, who will suffer to pay for these roads?

The hon. Gentleman should be only too delighted at the Government's commitment to make this road a dual carriageway. The cost of the improvement to dual carriageway standard will be £27 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the carping comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), the Government's determination to go ahead with this vital development will be widely welcomed in Scotland? Will he give us an approximate idea of when construction will begin and how long it will take?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The need to redesign the road to dual carriageway standard means a delay of six months in starting the construction work. We hope that all construction work will have begun in 1983.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

I met representatives of the General Council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 21 May.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the Scottish economy is especially vulnerable to cuts in public expenditure and public investment and that the policies announced in recent days by the Government threaten thousands of jobs in these? Will he at least give an assurance that some attempt will be made to moderate the impact of these policies in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the Scottish economy is exceptionally vulnerable to industries having to contract or go out of business when long-term policies act against their interests. He should have been worried about that when the previous Government presided over the doubling of unemployment.

In his talks with the Scottish TUC, will my right hon. Friend emphasise the need for giving greater publicity to the fact that industrial relations in Scotland are a great deal better than they are often painted?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that remark, which indeed is true. I have always been at pains to emphasise to those who might be considering setting up business in Scotland that the majority of Scottish businesses have extremely good labour relations records.

Does the Minister recognise that during the period of the Labour Government there was a tremendous amount of carping criticism from the then Conservative Opposition? Does he recognise that for three months there has been a decrease in Scottish unemployment? Will he give an assurance that there will be further decreases during the Government's period of office, bearing in mind the redundancies now taking place?

I wish that I could expect the unemployment levels in Scotland to go down. There has been a welcome reduction this month. Unfortunately, even that reduction has not yet wiped out the serious increases in January and February of this year. We must tackle that problem now. But quick results cannot be produced from the situation.

When my right hon. Friend meets the STUC, will he impress upon it that the Government will not tolerate the blackmail tactics laid out this weekend by NUPE, that we intend to ensure that the promises we made to the electorate as to what we would do in the life of this Parliament will be fulfilled, and that we shall do without being instructed by the unions by blackmailing tactics and threats?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have the responsibility of being the Government. We intend to carry out our programme in that way.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify the situation on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs to Scotland, Wales and the English regions? Confusion arose in the election campaign when the right hon. Gentleman's supporters and friends in London were saying one thing whereas his predecessor as leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland was saying another. May we have a specific assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) still stands?

No changes have been made in the position left to us by the previous Government, and our stand on this matter has been well understood for some time.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on employment prospects in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he intends to take to deal with unemployment in Scotland.

When I arrived in the Scottish Office I found unemployent levels which were almost exactly double what they were when I left the office in 1973. It is my prime task to try to recreate confidence within Scottish industry so that it can once more start to expand and create more employment.

Will the Secretary of State publish in the Official Report his precise estimate of the number of jobs that will be lost in the Civil Service in Scotland through the 3 per cent. reduction that has been imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he publish in the Official Report the number of jobs that will be lost in local authorities in Scotland through the reduction in the rate support grant, also bearing in mind the indication earlier that the Government would expect jobs to go, as a result of the sale of council houses, in the housing departments?

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman seems to have no sense of shame for the inheritance he handed over to this Government. I can assure him that all the policies we pursue are designed to encourage Scottish industry once more to expand, and not to have the disastrous loss of jobs which has occurred over the last five years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision by the Government not to intervene to save the jobs of Pye/TMC in Livingston new town is a deplorable decision, bearing in mind the concern that he has synthetically expressed to the House in his previous answer? Is he further aware that the Government have at this early stage already given the impression that skill and diligence by a work force will get no response from them? What does he intend to do about unemployment?

One would not have thought that the hon. Gentleman had been a distinguished member of a Government who left office only 18 days ago. If his criticism of me is that I have not solved all these problems in 18 days, I accept it. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State saw those concerned with the first matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and they went very carefully into the background to this very unfortunate position. The sad fact is that there did not appear to be a viable or profitable future for that part of the business, but we would have been very glad to help if any way could have been found of doing so.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is very deep concern in the North-East of Scotland about the 600 jobs being made redundant at Lawson's of Dyce, with the loss of the pig-slaughtering facilities there? Will he say what discussions his Department has already had, and what he is proposing to do to try to alleviate this disastrous situation?

I share absolutely my hon. Friend's concern. My noble Friend the Minister of State will be meeting those concerned tomorrow to see whether there is any way in which he can help.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Republic of Ireland seems to be taking up the lion's share of the mobile manufacturing jobs available at the present time, including the recent Mostek development, which went to Dublin? Has he any plans to alter the guidelines of the Scottish Development Agency to allow it to attract some of these jobs to Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman will have to ask my predecessors to explain the full details of what occurred in the Mostek case. I am sure that they could explain. We shall be looking at the guidelines of the Scottish Development Agency to see whether there is any way in which its performance can be improved. It will have every support from us in carrying on its work under the statutes.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made to ensure that the particular interests of Scottish fishermen and farmers will be fully represented in negotiations with the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to ensure the adequate representation of the views of the Scottish agricultural and fishing industries on the renegotiation of the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy.

I am meeting representatives of these industries to hear their views on both issues. Scottish Ministers and officials are taking a full part in the formulation of United Kingdom policy on agriculture and fisheries, and will attend meetings at all levels in the Community—including the Council of Ministers—whenever necessary.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government's commitment to the pledges made in our election manifesto? Will he confirm that there is indeed urgency in these matters—as the question a moment ago about Dyce underlined—in the context of the devaluation of the green pound in order to permit our farmers to compete on level terms? Will he also recognise the need for urgency to ensure conservation of our fish stocks?

I confirm that we intend to proceed as fast as we can to implement the undertakings that we have given to both industries. We shall keep in close consultation with them in doing so.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his replies, but as we in the Conservative Party have a commitment to the fishing industry, I should like to have his assurance that the fishing industry and agriculture will be fully consulted before any final negotiations are entered with the EEC. The people in those industries had a fear, while the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) held the post of Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that he went to the EEC with his tongue in his cheek—

Order. Question Time is for asking questions and not for advancing a point of view. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) must ask a question.

Will my right hon. Friend assure us that before these decisions are taken full consultations will be completed with the fishing industry and with agriculture?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I have already met informally the president of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, and I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will tomorrow be meeting representatives of the British fishing industry in order to have consultations with them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the manifesto on which the Conservative Party fought the election made no mention whatever of fishing? Is he further aware that we draw small comfort from the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is now Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, since he was party to the sell-out of the fishing industry when we joined the Common Market?

I certainly do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If he can spare the time this evening, he might care to read the Conservative manifesto, in which he will find that there is a mention of fishing.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that, very welcome as are the extra conservation measures announced last week, the fishing industry requires more? Will he give urgent consideration to introducing, first, a one-net rule and, secondly, to extending the pout box?

These are matters that we have in mind to discuss with our colleagues, and we shall take the advice of the fishing industry on those very points.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the house that he will defend the interests of Scottish fishermen and farmers in Brussels with no less determination than the previous Government showed?

Yes, I can give that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency.

My right hon. Friend has already met the chairman informally, and both he and I shall be having further discussions with the chairman and chief executive shortly.

When the Secretary of State met the chairman of the SDA, did he assure him of the Government's abiding desire to maintain the public enterprise aspects of the agency, or did he revert to the Conservatives' previous vomit during the discussions on the Bill, which one of them regarded as a bit of a Marxist nightmare? Would not an opportunity be given to the Secretary of State to get himself off a personal hook, in relation to Monsanto, if he called in the Scottish Development Agency to help him and the people of Scotland on that question?

I said that the meeting was informal. When we have formal meetings with the chairman and the chief executive, we shall make it clear to them, if there is any doubt, that we intend to retain the SDA as such.

Will my hon. Friend, when he meets the chairman of the SDA, invite the agency to consider more sensitively requests for help for very small projects rather than for the expenditure of very substantial sums of money?

My hon. Friend will know that in the SDA there is a small business section which is supposed to be doing that. Certainly, in our consultations with the chairman and the chief executive, we shall ask questions about that.

Now that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to look at the actual activities of the SDA, and the Government's pledge to give new guidelines seems to be whittled down to saying that the SDA will no longer be able to invest for political rather than commercial purposes, can he give one or two examples of such investments over the past two or three years which would have been caught by these new guidelines and which will not be allowed?

That is a very hypothetical question. The new guidelines for the SDA are still under consideration. As my hon. Friend said, our object is to make the SDA even more efficient—if I can put it that way—in the very difficult task it carries out in Scotland.