asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding the level of local services in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend discussed with the convention on 20 June the need to bring the level of current expenditure in 1980–81 back to the level assumed in the rate support grant settlement, and gave notice of the need for further reductions in 1980–81. My right hon. Friend has also concluded that he must ask authorities to plan to reduce expenditure in 1981–82 to a level 2 per cent. below the volume assumed in the rate support grant settlement for 1980–81.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that there will be a great deal of anxiety about the further reductions in public spending because of the rapidly mounting levels of unemployment? Would it not be sensible to take a more flexible view, given the damage that has been done because of the ever-increasing number of people who have been thrown out of work? Will the hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that there will not be new legislative powers to inhibit the freedom of local authorities to increase the level of public services by the use of rates?

The taking of further legislative powers will depend upon the attitude of local authorities towards a reasonable level of expenditure. If local authorities abide by the figures proposed for 1981–82, it will mean that they will spend more in real terms than they did in 1977–78. That must be taken into account.

Does my hon. Friend agree that costly experience shows that there is little, if any, connection between the level of local services and manning levels? Does he agree that the appalling statistics of empire building announced yesterday by the Lothian region offer, not hope to the people of that region, but more misery for the wretched ratepayers?

One realises that my hon. Friend is correct when one recollects that during the previous Labour Government manpower levels in local authorities in Scotland were reduced dramatically without any noticeable effect on the services to the Scottish public.

Will the Minister take note of the fact that we are utterly opposed to any further cuts in local authority expenditure, whether direct, as announced today, or in the shabby, dishonest way in which the rate support grant has been manipulated by completely phoney and unrealistic cash limits?

The right hon. Gentleman has still to explain to the House and the country why dramatic cuts in local authority spending announced by him were acceptable, but those proposed by the present Government are unacceptable.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received from Lanarkshire health board a list of services which will have to be curtailed as a result of Government cuts.

No, Sir.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Do I take it that there will be no cuts in the services provided, and that that will apply to ear, nose and throat, gynaecology, midwifery, maternity and geriatric services, and all services which the Lanarkshire health board provides for the people of East Kilbride and the area? I take it that there will be no raffles or prize draws to pay for the salaries of nurses.

I have not, nor has my Department, had any request from Lanarkshire health board for, or any suggestion about, any cuts that it intends to make to the services for which it is responsible. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question concerns a different matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individuals and organisations have made representations to him concerning the payment of financial assistance to industry; and whether he is satisfied with the organisation of the present system of paying grants.

My right hon. Friend has had no representations concerning the payment of financial assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 for which he is responsible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some confusion and uncertainty are caused by the fact that regional development grants are the responsibility of the Department of Industry, while other financial assistance is the responsibility of the Scottish Economic Planning Department? Will he have discussions with the Department of Industry to improve co-ordination?

I am not sure that that is so. There may be some confusion in the minds of some hon. Members, but I think that industry in Scotland is fully acquainted with the position, in that the regional development grant office, which comes under the Department of Industry, as my hon. Friend suggests, is virtually next door to the industrial development office, which handles section 7 assistance.

Is the Minister aware that I have just received a letter from a major employer in my constituency which suggests that the guidance that the Government are giving to the Scottish Development Agency will adversely affect that employer's planned expansion of a factory in my constituency, contrary to the agreements in principle that have been arrived at with the SDA? Will the Minister come clean about what is happening in inhibiting industrial development by the Government's policies?

I am unaware of that case. The SDA is free to exercise its discretion on matters of this kind throughout Scotland. It is not being inhibited by the Scottish Office in this respect.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a more positive way of the Government giving aid to industry is for Government Departments to place orders with Scottish firms? I have in mind one in particular, the Jetstream order. We should like to see a decision on that fairly soon.

I understand my hon. Friend's point. The Government are most anxious to encourage their own Departments and nationalised industries to buy British. In this respect, I hope that my hon. Friend's sentiments will soon become reality.

Does the Minister recognise the value of incentives to industry in many parts of Scotland? What representations has he made to the Secretary of State for Industry about the withdrawal of development area status from many regions of Scotland, in particular the Lothians and the Borders?

Representations about regional development policy are made direct to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, who deals with them.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Hampden Park Ltd. since his statement on the future of Hampden Park; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of Hampden Park Ltd. at the company's request on 7 July, following the announcement of the Government's decision to withdraw their financial support of the scheme to modernise the Hampden Park stadium. The company's representatives expressed their disappointment at this decision and requested that the Government should meet in full the expenditure which has been incurred on the project to date. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to give further consideration to this request on receipt of a detailed statement of the costs involved.

Is the Minister aware that the financial commitments of that company are due almost entirely to the fact that two weeks before the withdrawal of his money he gave an assurance that the money would be forthcoming? Contracts were signed on that basis. Will he assure the House and the company that he will meet that debt in full? Is he aware that if he does not do so there could be severe financial hardship for one of the oldest football clubs in Britain?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's comment is incorrect. In the two weeks that elapsed certain liabilities may have been incurred, but they were nothing like the total amount that is now being questioned. We are sympathetic to the problem that has been raised for Queen's Park football club and to the requests that have been made for the Government to meet their share of the liabilities, but we require a detailed statement before any decision can be made. When that has been examined, the Government will meet their proper responsibilities.

If Hampden Park Ltd. comes back to my hon. Friend rattling its begging bowl, will he consider sending it along to Ibrox Stadium, where Rangers football club has modernised that stadium without coming to the taxpayer with a begging bowl?

That is a matter for the football authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from health boards about the effect which strict adherence to their 1980–81 financial allocations will have on the level of National Health Service provision; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect of cash limits on the National Health Service in Scotland.

At their request, the Secretary of State and I met the chairmen of health boards on 25 July. They indicated that at least some boards would have to make savings in order to comply with the cash limits for this year. My right hon. Friend said that these limits could not be increased and accepted that in some areas savings would have to be made. We are satisfied that essential services to patients can be maintained and that there is scope for worthwhile savings that will not affect services to patients.

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "essential services"? Do he and his right hon. Friend now accept, following that meeting, that the only way in which certain health boards can stay within these financial allocations is by seriously cutting the level of staffing in the Health Service in Scotland and by reducing sharply the level of health care in many areas of that Service?

I am satisfied that no responsible health board in Scotland will have to cut essential services. With regard to the meeting with Lothian MPs and our meeting with the health board chairmen, whilst I accept that in the share formula Lothian is second from the bottom, with only a 0–7 per cent. increase in real growth, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not the health boards that are responsible for the increase in staff by the Lothian region of 3,520 in one year, or for an increase in rates of 40 per cent. The fact that the Lothian health board may be having to curtail recruitment might not be unconnected with the fact that Lothian regional council has taken on over 3,000 more employees.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt Scottish questions, but it seems to me to be an important point of principle that if a Minister is able to quote from a newspaper when answering a question, a Member asking a supplementary question should be able to do the same.

The ruling has been given many times. Ministers are free to quote. The rest of the House is not free to do so.

As the Minister has repeatedly told the House that the real level of spending on the Health Service in Scotland is not to be cut, will he now face the reality that no amount of phoney arithmetic can conceal the fact that there will be real and savage cuts in the level of Health Service provision in many areas, and particularly in the area of the Lothian health board? Will he now apologise to the House and to the people of Scotland for having sought to conceal that information from them?

I shall not apologise, because I have nothing for which to apologise.

Shame!

It is not the Government's fault that Lothian region decided to raise its rates—

It is.

by 40 per cent. As I have said, essential services to patients will not be affected. In Scotland we have made provision for a 1·1 per cent. average real growth in the Health Service—

Rubbish.

and there is only one thing that can interfere with that—inflation. The Government's No. 1 priority is to bring down the rate of inflation.

Will my hon. Friend take every opportunity to emphasise to the people of Scotland that there is no need to cut any essential medical services? What there is need to cut is the number of administrators in the Health Service, which, incredibly, rose last year.

My hon. Friend is right. The Clegg Commission suggested possible savings in 1979–80 of £400,000—a gross amount of £1 million in a full year. We put back this amount in the present figures for 1980–81 without asking health boards to take note of it. This sum is, therefore, also available.

Is the Minister aware—he must be so—that his defence is a pretty puny one which merely amounts to shouting "It wasn't me"? Since he is seeking to argue that there will be no effect or impact on the Lothian health service, and that cuts can be made that will have no effect on that service, will he say what cuts should be made and how these will affect the Health Service?

I do not think it was a puny defence. It was a puny attack.

Will my hon. Friend, in making restrictions on financial allocations to health boards, seek to make the distinction which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is seeking in relation to local authorities, and make a distinction between health boards that are wasting money and those that are using it properly in promoting the correct services within the National Health Service?

I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. It is difficult for us to interfere because when we appoint health boards and their chairmen and members we trust them to decide on the proper use of their rescources. It is for them to decide how to look after those for whom they are responsible. It is not the wish of my right hon. Friend and myself to interfere.

Will the Minister say whether services to patients will be cut?

Essential services to patients will not—

Answer the question.

I could have said "No", but. I was trying to be fair. Essential services to patients will not be cut. There may be some cut in services at the periphery in certain areas.

Will the Minister say what are essential and what are not essential services?

These are matters for clinical decisions by health boards.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his latest proposals for the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, fisheries Ministers have been considering carefully the case put to us recently by the fishing organisations about the economic state of the industry. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the statement which is shortly to be made on the conclusions that we have reached.

How much longer will we have to wait? Even with guillotines, we understand that Parliament is to rise on Friday. It is urgent for the industry to know soon. What steps have the Government taken to limit imports which are having a disastrous effect on the market?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern. It was hoped that a statement could be made yesterday, but as hon. Members know, events Intervened. It is hoped that a statement can be made during the course of debates later today. On the question of imports, the right hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that we have managed to take a lot of action in the EEC to raise reference prices and to improve protection against undue imports from that source.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that had it not been for the wrecking tactics of the Opposition yesterday we would have details of that aid package? Does not the Opposition's action indicate scant regard for the true interests of Scottish fishermen, which will not go unnoticed?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that Scottish fishermen will deplore the fact that it was not possible to make this information available as soon as it ought to have been available.

Is the Secretary of State aware that it is widely reported in every newspaper in the country that the Government intend to make £15 million available to the industry? Why can the press be told these matters, but the House of Commons cannot be told? Why does the Secretary of State hide behind bogus points of procedure? There will be great anger in the fishing industry, over the fact the £15 millon is so puny in relation to what the industry demands and needs to survive.

I have seen all sorts of reports in the newspapers. Most of them, in various degrees, are inaccurate. No statement on the matter has been put out by my Ministry or by any other Government Department. The statement will be made to the House in the proper way. The fact that it has not been made earlier is the fault of the Opposition.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any money generously made available to the fishing industry will be allocated carefully to ensure maximum benefit for the whole industry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have taken great care to work out methods of giving any extra aid that may be announced. That will be made clear by my hon. Friend when he makes the statement.

rose—

Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side. Mr. George Foulkes.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since it is stated in the newspapers this morning that £10 million is to be given to the fishing industry, and since the Government were apparently prepared to make a statement yesterday, why cannot the statement be made during Scottish questions today?

That is not a point of order to me.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

It was not a point of order.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his Minister of State refuses to meet the Clyde fishermen to discuss this issue? Ssince about 40 per cent. of United Kingdom fishing is done in Scottish waters, would it not be more appropriate for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make the statement, and not wait for the Minister of State to make it? Could it not be made now instead of some time later tonight?

I meet the chairman of the Clyde Fishermen's Association frequently. He is in close contact with me. All fisheries Ministers work in concert on these matters, and it is for us to decide which Minister makes the statement.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the £15 million, or whatever the sum is, will be welcomed by the fishing industry in Scotland, but that this is only a measure to keep the industry ticking over? Does he accept that it is important to negotiate a common fisheries policy, with particular emphasis on proper access and quotas, so that the industry can thrive without subsidies?

So far as press speculation is concerned, that is exactly what it is—just speculation. I agree with my hon. Friend that by far the most important issue for the fishing industry is a successful negotiation of the common fisheries policy. All of us are putting everything that we can into getting the right answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Economic Planning Department to make a study of the employment consequences of the Government's economic policy.

My right hon. Friend and I already keep a close watch on developments in the Scottish economy. The Government's economic policies are designed to reduce inflation which is the main cause of loss of competitiveness and jobs in Scottish industry.

Given that the Minister and his right hon. Friend keep a close watch on these matters, can he say what the rate of unemployment will be in Scotland by Christmas? What steps are being taken to alleviate unemployment, particularly among young people?

It is recognised by the Government that unemployment is still rising, but the hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers do not try to forecast the size of unemployment at any time ahead. Neither party in power has tried to do that. The hon. Gentleman asked about young people. The MSC has already stepped up considerably the youth opportunities programme in Scotland. It has been announced that the Government are considering what further steps might be taken for school leavers and other young unemployed to help to ease the present problem.

Will my hon. Friend arrange for his Department to consider the employment effects of the ruthless use of monopoly trade union power and the work of spendthrift local authorities?

There is no doubt that over recent years the ruthless misuse of trade union power has caused a great deal of unemployment.

Does the Minister con-skier that advice should be given to the unemployed to solve their problems by leaving Scotland?

That advice was not given by anyone in this Government, because the developments taking place in Scotland are not simply encouraging young people to seek jobs in various parts of Scotland—it is common knowledge that some parts of Scotland are more prosperous than others—but are encouraging new jobs and new industries to come to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that in the year to February 1980 between 15,000 and 20,000 new jobs were created in existing manufacturing units in Scotland, and that several thousand new jobs were created in new companies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one does not need to ask the SEPD to carry out a study of the employment effects of the previous Government, because the record speaks for itself? Not only did they more than double unemployment in their five years in office, but they so weakened jobs that many more have been lost since. Will my hon. Friend encourage his colleagues to persist with their policies, which we believe will create lasting jobs for the future?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Even the most pessimistic economic commentator does not suggest today that we shall come anywhere near the record on unemployment of the previous Government, who doubled the figures during their five years in office.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest level of unemployment in the Strathclyde region; and by what percentage it has increased since the same date in 1979.

On 10 July 1980, 140,859 people were registered as unemployed in Strathclyde region, an increase of 28·5 per cent. over the July 1979 figure.

Is not the Minister ashamed of himself in revealing those figures to the House? For a change, will he stop blaming the trade unions, take his finger out, get cracking and do something about unemployment? Will he also, for a change, start talking to the industrialists about an expansion policy? Will the Government change their policy? If they cannot, will the hon. Gentleman resign?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to know the steps that the Government have taken to try to overcome the problems of unemployment that we inherited from the previous Government. In West Central Scotland the special development area has been expanded, and regional policy generally has been sharpened to help such areas. In the enterprise zone announced for Clydebank a great new experiment in job creation is being carried out in Strathclyde, and in the new towns, which have been greatly supported by the present Government, 7 per cent. more funds in real terms have been made available this year for industrial development compared with the previous year. In the Glasgow Eastern area renewal project, the Scottish Development Agency has built more than 70 factories, and there are 50 more factories in this year's programme. There is major progress in Glengarnock and there is the St. Enoch's project, involving £40 million and 1,500 new jobs. That is action on unemployment.

It is more than action on unemployment; answers, like questions, should be reasonably brief.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to make 10 substantive points in reply to one substantive question?

I have just dealt with that matter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the trade unions asked for free collective bargaining, and that in free collective bargaining excessive wage claims are bound to result in fewer jobs in the end?

My hon. Friend is right. The Government and the trade unions are very much in agreement on that central part of trade union policy.

Is the Minister aware that, although he mentioned successes in the Garnock valley, the unemployment rate there is now 25 per cent? Is he further aware that in the Cunninghame district in my own area within Strathclyde the unemployment rate is 16.6 per cent? When will he do something to obtain an extra order for ships for Ailsa shipyard, Troon, and to make sure that the Jetstream project order is signed immediately for British Aerospace at Prestwick?

I am sure that if I had further extended the list of Government action more points of order would have been raised by Labour hon. Members. We are taking action about Glengarnock and all the other matters to try to improve employment prospects for the Scottish people.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres of forestry in Scotland have been felled to make way for (a) housing and (b) road building so far in 1980.

I regret that this information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Does my hon. Friend agree that forestry and the allied paper and board industry are important to the economy of Scotland? Will he bear that in mind when any planning matters come before his Department? Will his Department review the situation relating to the paper and board industry, particularly the unfair competition that it faces at present?

I take the points that my hon. Friend has made. He will be pleased to know that the Forestry Commission considers that relatively small areas of land will have been affected by developments of the kind indicated in his original question.

Mr. Hugh Robertson. I am sorry; I meant Mr. Hugh Brown.

I have suspected for the past year, Mr. Speaker, that you have forgotten my name.

My right hon. Friends are engaged in a review of forestry policy, and they will make a statement on that policy when they have concluded the review.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government remain committed to a prosperous long-term future for the forestry industry, and that when the statement is made it will confirm the Government's support for the industry?

I can confirm that.

Who gave the Minister the information that on such an important matter the information required was too costly to procure?

The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that collecting statistics of this kind involves considerable manpower. Over the years—not simply in recent weeks—successive Governments have not considered it appropriate to devote that amount of manpower to collecting the statistics.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received Professor Halliday's report on the arrangements under which Robroyston hospital and its surrounding land were sold; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the report of Professor Halliday concerning the sale of Robroyston hospital.

I have received the report, and copies have been placed in the Library. The report confirms that the initial purchasers of the land made a considerable profit out of the transaction, realised very soon after the purchase, and for this reason the transaction has attracted criticism. It confirms that the sale of the land at Robroyston was carried out regularly in accordance with the prescribed procedures, and that the responsible officials performed their respective duties conscientiously and with care. It finds that the relevant decisions of the regional and district councils on the planning applications made to them were made with care and a due sense of responsibility. The report criticises the dispersal of responsibility for conducting sales of property occupied for Health Service purposes and makes recommendations for changes in procedure. I shall give these careful consideration.

I am glad that Professor Halliday found that there were no improprieties and that the recognised procedures were carried out, but will the right hon. Gentleman take note that I believe very strongly that those procedures need amendment now? In particular, proper formal application should be made to planning authorities about the planning position, because the excessive profit in this case was made because there were changes later in the views of the regional council and the district council about the planning for the particular areas of the land concerned. We must make every effort—I accept that this case happened under my administration—to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I shall consult colleagues to see how we can implement the recommendations in the report.

Will the Secretary of State ensure in future that no land is handed over or sold to a company that has been created only a matter of weeks before the application is made? Will he also ensure that any company involved in a transaction does not acquire a further number of companies so that it can evade the development land tax? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that the farmland that is now in the ownership of the company at Robroyston is not developed, as it is first class farmland and is the only green belt that we have in the Springburn area?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I know his close interest in the matter. The matters raised in the first part of his question will have to be looked into with regard to the recommendations in the report. The hon. Gentleman's second point I think, is, primarily a matter for the planning authorities involved, but I shall look into it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Professor Halliday's report has vindicated the purchasers of the land, who were the subject of a vicious attack but who, although they made an excellent profit, did an honourable deal with the authority concerned?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no suggestion in the report that anything dishonourable was clone by the purchaser or anyone else.

Does the Secretary of State recall that when this matter was raised some months ago at Scottish question time his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) made a disgraceful, scandalous and filthy attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan)? Will the Secretary of State repudiate that attack and ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his statement?

I think that the hon. Gentleman exaggerates somewhat. That was a normal exchange in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward special measures to alleviate mass unemployment in Scotland.

The Government already operate a number of special measures to alleviate the worst effects of unemployment, particularly amongst the young. The youth opportunities programme has been substantially expanded this year and we are considering with the Manpower Services Commission what more can be done to help the unemployed. Ultimately, employment prospects depend on the restoration of competitiveness and the return to a soundly-based economy. That is what our policies are designed to achieve.

It is clear that the Government have no answer to the unemployment problem. They are deliberately destroying real jobs. That reflects their class views, and there is no doubt that the situation will get a lot worse. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government are ready to face the consequences during the winter? I can tell the Government that the trade union movement will not accept—

Order. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) has been here long enough to know how to ask a question rather than put a point of view.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are having to face the consequences of the actions of the Labour Party during their five years in office.

With regard to youth and school leaver unemployment, will my hon. Friend confirm that the measures being considered by the Government will not be like those of the previous Government, who merely created artificial jobs for political face-saving reasons? Will my hon. Friend confirm also that the Government will create real job opportunities and real work experience for these youngsters, who are Scotland's future?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are anxious that the youth opportunities programme should include as many training and apprenticeship schemes as possible.

Will the Minister tell us how many new permanent jobs he personally has managed to see created in Scotland since the Government came to office 15 months ago?

I have already indicated that during the past year in excess of 20,000 new jobs have been created in Scotland.

Is my hon. Friend aware that NALGO, which is among the trade unions so beloved of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), is still hell bent on making people unemployed because they will not join a trade union?

Yes, Sir, and the Government deplore such undemocratic action on the part of trade unionists and some Labour Members.

The MSC in Scotland has said that it cannot cope with the increasing unemployment without additional funds. May we have a guarantee that those funds will be forthcoming?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has already given that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what latest discussions he has had with representatives of the fishing industry regarding low fish prices and other factors contributing to the current crisis in the fishing industry.

The industry's representatives amplified the case which they had presented on the economic state of the industry at a meeting with Ministers on 3 July.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that quayside prices today are still very depressed? Is it not deeply worrying that 10 years ago we were importing about 15 per cent. of our fish, but that today we are importing almost 75 per cent? What further measures is my right hon. Friend considering to stop foreign countries, particularly our EEC partners, from dumping cheap foreign imported fish in this country?

That has been one of the main problems of the industry this year, but, as my hon. Friend knows, we cannot act unilaterally. We have, however, persuaded the Community to increase reference prices for imports of frozen fish from third countries. Community tariffs on cod, haddock and hake have also been returned to the full rate, due largely to our actions. These measures should help the industry significantly.

Is the Secretary of State aware that any announcement that he may make later today about the level of Government aid to the industry will be judged by the demand of the industry for help of at least £35 million? If the response falls short of that the Government will be seen to have failed in their duty.

I am happy that the Government should be judged on the contents of the package when it is announced. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen with interest to the announcement.

I am sure that we all await with considerable interest the statement to be made later today, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is essential that the withdrawal and reference prices of the EEC are substantially increased at the quayside? Unless those prices are increased the fishing industry cannot possibly hope to survive.

I appreciate the difficulties. My hon. Friend has seen me about them on many occasions. These are the matters that we have taken into account in working out the help that we can give the industry.

With regard to earlier statements on this matter, is the Secretary of State aware that when I contacted the office of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday morning I was informed that no statement was to be made yesterday afternoon on the question of aid to the fishing industry? It is therefore untrue to suggest that a ministerial statement on this matter could not be made because of the actions of the Opposition. Is the Secretary of State further aware that when £3 million of aid was announced there was a proper ministerial statement? If the intention is to make the announcement during the debate on the EEC, that will be wholly unacceptable.

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was told by telephone. He knows that there was business that might have been discussed last night, but that that discussion was prevented by the Opposition. That is the point that I make.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel that it is within your discretion to rule on the way in which the Secretary of State is grossly misleading the House. In the Aberdeen Evening Express last night the front page was devoted—if you prefer, Mr. Speaker, I shall raise this matter at the end of Question Time.

I think that it would be fairer to the hon. Member's colleagues if he waited until after Question Time. However, the matter did not sound as though it had anything to do with me.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions were undertaken for illegal telephone interception in 1979, and to the most recent practicable date in 1980.

Statistics on any such prosecutions are not kept separately from those relating to other prosecutions under the Post Office Acts or Wireless Telegraphy Acts. I understand from the Crown Office, however, that there is no record of any prosecutions for illegal telephone interception in 1979 or in 1980.

Is the Secretary of State aware that at Craigowl Hill, near Dundee, the Post Office microwave tower is being used to collect information that is being fed into the Menwith Hill operation, which is run by the National Security Agency of the United States? Is he aware also that there is no authority to do that? The Post Office Act 1969 does not allow foreign agencies to intercept international or national telephone calls. Does that not mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland is conniving at illegal activity that is being carried out, at least, in part, in an area of the country for which he is responsible?

I do not know the basis for the hon. Gentleman's statement, which contains pure speculation. The statement is unsupported by any form of proof. I cannot add more information to that contained in the White Paper that has been laid before the House.

The White Paper referred to British people being involved in such activity. However, it has been admitted by the CIA that it has been involved. Will the Minister look at this matter in the context of foreign agents? There is a vast difference between activity of this kind undertaken by foreign agents and that undertaken by British people. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should object to any foreign agent—whether American, Russian, or even Iranian—carrying out such activities?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will inform either myself or the Home Secretary, according to which country is concerned, if he has information of any foreign agency breaking the law in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his further consideration of the report of the Warnock committee on the educational needs of handicapped children and young people; and if he will make a statement.

I have published today a White Paper containing proposals for a new approach to individual educational needs on the lines recommended by the Warnock committee. My right hon. Friends have also published today their proposals for England and Wales. Copies of the White Papers have been laid before the House. I intend to embody my proposals in legislation at the first convenient opportunity.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for working so assiduously on this matter as to be able to answer my question today, but may I ask him to what extent it differs from the English proposal? What, particularly, is the role given to parents in the assessment of their children's needs.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are no differences of substance between the proposals for Scotland and those for England and Wales, and the main principles—that is to say, abolition of categories of handicap and concentration on children's needs—are the same. The differences between the two arise mainly from our differing education systems and traditions and from different existing statutory provisions. We envisage that parents will have similar rights, whether they have handicapped or other children, as regards the school to which they will go.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and I introduced private legislation relating to the mentally handicap. ped? Is he also aware that there is a feeling in Scotland that financial resources are not being fairly allocated to the mentally handicapped? Does he agree that at this time of economic recession the mentally handicapped will be more disadvantaged than others? Will he try to do something immediately for the mentally handicapped, other than what has been said in the worthwhile announcement relating to the Warnock report.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I know of his longstanding interest in this matter. I hope that the proposals in the White Paper will meet with his approval. I look forward to discussing them with him if he wishes. All these matters are subject to the overriding need for finance, and I shall ensure that the needs of handicapped children are given their proper priority.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the prospects for the sale of store sheep in Scotland this autumn.

Producers have a good lamb crop to market, and the level of the fat sheep guarantee was increased in April by 11 per cent. The new Community sheep regime will give a further substantial increase in market support, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made clear to the House earlier this week. In their understandable concern to get a firm date for implementation of the regime, producers should not lose sight of the terms of the regime which offers major long-term benefits. Meantime, I would urge them to market lambs normally.

As the June census figures, which have just been published, show a net percentage increase in lamb numbers in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend take every possible step to create confidence in the autumn store sales?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As there is now the prospect of a sheepmeat regime that should help farmers, I hope that there will be an increase in confidence in the sales.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the sales are already under way and therefore any announcement is already too late? I have received letters from farmers in my own constituency, and from farmers in the Secretary of State's constituency, stating that they no longer have confidence in the Conservative Government.

Plenty of letters on these matters come in all the time from sheep farmers and other farmers. The important thing is to remember the interests of those whom we are supposed to represent. They are interested in having a market in which they can be confident and in a sheepmeat regime that will help them.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to increase Tayside's share of oil-related industry.

The Government are very conscious of the need for further industrial growth in Tayside and will ensure that any oil-related or other companies which might be attracted to the area are made fully aware of its advantages and of the assistance available.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there is great disappointment on Tayside at the decision of BNOC not to base any of its operations on Tayside? In addition, the announcement by Conoco during the past fortnight that it is also running down has brought considerable despair to that part of Scotland, which has not benefited from the North Sea as the other northern areas have.

I agree that there has been disappointment over the commercial decisions of those organisations. It is essential that prospective industrial investors should not be confused by a proliferation of authorities. The regional and district authorities must work together, regardless of party, to attract industry to Tayside.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider taking steps to assist the provision of electricity supplies in the Island of Colonsay.

I am pleased to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has indicated its intention to include the provision of a public electricity supply to the island in its future uneconomic rural development programme, which is currently being planned to follow the completion of its present programme in 1981. The board has informed me that, provided a survey shows that a submarine cable is feasible, and provided that the future uneconomic rural development programme attracts support from the European regional development fund, it would hope to connect the island to the mainland grid by submarine cable before the end of 1983.

Does my hon. Friend realise that that news will be welcome to my constituents on Colonsay, who are without a proper electricity supply? In the interim, can he give them any hope of an abatement of the high charges that they face for the electricity that they use?

The Highlands and Islands Development Board has agreed to provide a temporary subsidy to the Colonsay community electricity association, which will have the effect of substantially reducing the price of electricity to domestic consumers on the island.

Welcome though that answer is, can the Minister say what steps he proposes to take, in the light of the Secretary of State's announcement to support the differential charging of islanders, to remove this anomaly and ensure that all highlanders and islanders pay the same tariff for electricity, in the light of the recommendations of the Consumer Council?

My right hon. Friend and I very much regret the board's decision in relation to diesel charges. However, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that in this affair my right hon. Friend has no powers to give a direction to the board.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has made to the proposals of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation for further financial assistance for the Scottish fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the leaders of the Scottish fishing industry have made effective and responsible proposals to the Government, which are worthy of a better response from the House than the sort of fractious filibustering yesterday, which put off the making of a statement on this matter?

I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the great strengths during the controversy over the fishing industry in recent years has been all-party support for the fishermen's case. I should like to keep it that way.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House here and now how much aid will be made available to the fishing industry? Or has the Minister of Agriculture not yet told the Secretary of State how much aid will be given to the industry?

If the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to obtain that information—which he should be—he should have persuaded his hon. Friends not to behave so foolishly yesterday.

Will my right hon. Friend refute the ridiculous allegations by Ian Grigor in The Scotsman about the inadequate representations to the Government of the fishing industry?

I noticed that article, and I was surprised at the suggestion that there was inadequate representation. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has done a magnificent job in making its case known to all those who are negotiating it within the European Community.