asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he approved the Western Isles Ferry Services timetable of Messrs. MacBrayne's without consulting the island district councils and other responsible people in the islands best able to give guidance on local and tourist needs; and whether he is aware of the concern in North Uist about the inadequacy of the ferry service and in South Uist at the lack of a direct sea link from Lochboisdale to Mallaig at least twice weekly.

Before approving Messrs. MacBrayne's proposed timetables for the new car ferry service my right hon. Friend consulted the County Councils of Ross and Cromarty, Inverness and Argyll and also received the advice of the Advisory Panel on the Highlands and Islands. My right hon. Friend thinks that it was reasonable to expect that local opinion on the new services would be conveyed to him through these bodies.

No representations have been received about the inadequacy of the proposed service to North Uist.

My right hon. Friend knows that the South Uist people are disappointed that the car ferry cannot call at Lochboisdale meanwhile. He hopes it will be possible for MacBrayne's to give a ferry service here when the pier has been improved to the necessary standards. South Uist District Council, which owns the pier, proposes to do this and, all being well, the work should be completed by the spring of 1965.

While I believe that the hon. Gentleman honestly believes what he has said, is he aware that it is utter nonsense? Is he aware that none of the local district councils were consulted, as they have been in past years when there has been a reorganisation of steamer services, and that hon. Members who represent constituencies in the area and who know some of the practical difficulties involved were also not consulted? Is he further aware that the Secretary of State signed a document which was radically and dishonestly different from the timetable document which was approved by the county council and the Highland Panel? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that all those people have seen the first document but have not seen the second one? I know that this will come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, but will he look into this matter and try to make Messrs. MacBrayne's revert to the daily services to Uist which the hon. Gentleman himself said were important when he was present at the launching of one of the vessels in this service?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look into this matter. It is certainly a fact that the county councils were consulted, and so was the Advisory Panel. As to the signning of some other arrangement, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that there has been no objection from the county council concerned.

rose—

Mr. Dalyell, Question 26.

On a point of order. The Under-Secretary is so lamentably misinformed and appears to be unwilling to bring himself up to date on the facts that I must give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Order. There is a traditional form of words for giving notice and, in giving notice, the hon. Member cannot make another speech.

On a point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Undersecretary has given information to the House which is grossly wrong, including the statement that there have been no objections about the matter. What I was pointing out—

The hon. Member must remember that there is a traditional form of words to be used when giving notice, the object being to prevent hon. Members occupying the time of the House by making further speeches.

On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, of course, accept what you say, but are you aware, or may I make you aware, Sir, that the Under-Secretary has given grossly wrong information to the House? Is he in order in doing so?

That does not give rise to a point of order.