To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of trade unions in the Scottish steel industry to discuss the future of steel in Scotland.

I met representatives of the Ravenscraig trade unions on 11 October. My hon. Friend the Minister for industry and local government met representatives of the Dalzell trade unions on 15 October. I am prepared to meet them again as occasion demands.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the deep and passionate concern in Lanarkshire not only among the trade unions but throughout the community about the future of Ravenscraig and Dalzell. We want to know whether, at yesterday's meeting with the chairman of British Steel plc, he received answers to the questions put by the shop stewards at Ravenscraig, which he undertook to put at any meeting that he had with Sir Robert. Did he receive any answers to those questions? Did he receive any assurances from British Steel about co-operation with the Scottish Development Agency inquiry into the Scottish steel industry? What confidence can the people of Scotland have in any assurances given by British Steel, given its past record and the contemptuous way in which it has treated the Secretary of State for Scotland?

With regard to the representations of the trade unions, I did as I undertook when I met Mr. Brennan and gave Sir Robert the detailed questions to which he and his colleagues wished answers. I put to Sir Robert the utility of trying to respond to those questions as much as he felt able to do. With regard to British Steel's attitude to the SDA study, in response to my representations Sir Robert Scholey said that British Steel would co-operate with the Scottish Development Agency study on the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland. He further said that he intended to have a meeting with Sir David Nickson, chairman of the Scottish Development Agency, to discuss that matter. Sir Robert gave me a full assurance that British Steel would not dismantle or remove any plant from the hot strip mill in advance of its proposed closure next April.

Will the Secretary of State invite British Steel to join the Government, perhaps other steel companies and the European Commission in a study of the treatment of Ravenscraig as a development plant for the introduction of the next generation of new technology, which is more efficient and produces higher quality steel, including thin-slab casting? Is he aware that that is within the policies of the steel strategy of the European Community, his research and development strategy, his energy policies and his environmental strategy and that it would qualify for state aid under the European Community state aids regime?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this suggestion, because he has raised it in the past. I hope that British Steel will fully consider any proposals, including that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, to find out whether this is a potential project which should attract investment by British Steel and get support from a wider circle.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the trade unions that the long-term viability of the steel industry can be guaranteed only if decisions on future investment are made for valid commercial reasons and not for political reasons? Will he tell the trade unions that the most commercially competitive and productive plant in this country is at Teesside and that it would be a tragedy to dismantle it because of the political machinations of the Labour party in Scotland?

I cannot comment on the details involving the Teesside plant, to which my hon. Friend understandably referred, given his constituency interest. I think that there is now agreement on both sides of the House that the steel industry's future must be decided on commercial grounds. When I met the trade unions, they emphasised their view that commercial considerations should apply. Of course, there must be a debate on what the commercial conclusions should lead to and on whether one should argue in favour of Ravenscraig or against it. Naturally, we in the Scottish Office hope that British Steel will fully take account of the commercial case for investment not simply at Ravenscraig but at Dalzell.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in effect, the meeting yesterday between himself and the chairman of British Steel was a meeting between two private citizens, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has effectively given up his ability to influence British Steel's decisions in spite of Ravenscraig's commercial viability? Can he tell the House when the SDA's study on the future of the steel industry in Scotland is likely to be available and whether it is likely to be available in sufficient time to contribute to reversing this disastrous decision?

If the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Liberal party, is calling for the renationalisation of the steel industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, unless that is what he is doing, he exposes the bankruptcy and double standards of his earlier question. We expect the preliminary conclusions of the SDA's study to be available by Christmas and final conclusions early in the new year. On that basis, I am particularly pleased that British Steel is to co-operate with the study. Obviously, there will be limits with regard to commercially confidential information. It is important to note that British Steel will co-operate with the study, that Sir Robert will discuss the study with Sir David Nickson and that no irreversible action will be taken on the plant until the study's conclusions are known and can be taken into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the Scottish steel industry; and if he will make a statement.

I met the chairman of British Steel yesterday when we discussed matters relevant to the steel industry in Scotland.

British Steel's commitment to co-operate with the SDA's study and the guarantee that the hot strip mill will not be dismantled, destroyed, cannibalised or removed before the study's completion are two steps forward, and it would be churlish of me to say otherwise.

However, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that British Steel will be more co-operative with the SDA in supplying information on Ravenscraig than it has been up to now with him? Given the rumours that now constantly sweep the Scottish steel industry, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the works that were not mentioned—the Clydesdale tubes plant at Bellshill, were on the agenda for discussion yesterday? Can he give me a categorical assurance that he was given no information by the chairman of British Steel that would indicate an imminent or serious threat to the Clydesdale tubes works?

I asked Sir Robert about the Clydesdale works and he was not able to give me any decisions or conclusions reached by British Steel. He emphasised the difficult position faced by the seamless tubes sector and indicated, as has been said publicly in the past, that British Steel was looking for ways of identifying a possible future for at least part of that project. I do not conceal from the hon. Gentleman my concern about that plant's future, for reasons with which the House is familiar.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the willingness to co-operate with the SDA's study and particularly the agreement not to dismantle any part of the plant in advance of the study's conclusions. Clearly, part of the purpose of the SDA study is to seek to identify commercial opportunities for the steel industry in Scotland. It ought to be relevant for British Steel to wish to co-operate with that effort and with the report's conclusions if such opportunities are identified.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is inexplicable that such a highly profitable company should refuse to give a coherent reason for the closure of the hot strip mill? How can we possibly test the commercial judgment of British Steel if we cannot have the facts on which it has based its decision?

My hon. Friend is correct, and it is for precisely that reason that I and others have said that we cannot say whether the conclusion reached by British Steel is or is not justified. Clearly, one would have to have access to the information before one could be expected to agree or comment in any detail on the commercial judgment of British Steel.

In supporting all that my hon. Friends have said about the Scottish steel industry, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he is aware of the contribution made to that industry by the highly skilled work force at Clydebridge and Cambuslang in my constituency? Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that Clydebridge is also high on the agenda for his discussions with the British Steel chairman?

Yes. I can confirm that we are equally concerned with all employees and all aspects of the steel industry in Scotland. The SDA study does not concern itself with only one plant; its authors have deliberately and expressly been asked to consider the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland as a whole and that includes the plant to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

May I advise my right hon. and learned Friend that, since his meeting yesterday with the chairman of British Steel, the board of British Steel has met? I have been in contact with the company, which has assured me that its expansion plans and other works on Teesside will go ahead, that it is not being influenced by the Scottish lobby on this matter and that the expansion of jobs in my constituency—which no Labour Member in the north-east of England has tried to defend—will go ahead.

Clearly, those are matters for British Steel. I do not believe that it is helpful for any part of the United Kingdom to seek to achieve benefits at the expense of any other. We are all seeking to achieve a healthy steel industry in the United Kingdom as a whole, and I believe that all my hon. Friends will share that view.

Has the Secretary of State had the misfortune to read the ill-informed, sloppy and uninviting academic report that describes Coatbridge as one of the worst towns in the whole of Britain? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that this once-proud iron burgh is still suffering from the fact that the iron and steel masters, having made their money, have pulled out? Will he ensure that other towns do not have the same experience, especially at a time when steel is as competitive as it is today?

Many towns—it is perhaps true of every town in the United Kingdom—have had, at some time in their history, to adapt to new industrial requirements and the changing patterns of industry. I have no doubt that the genius and ability of the people of Coatbridge will enable them to cope with the effects of any difficulties that they have experienced in recent years and to attract new industry, employment and prosperity for those who have the good fortune to live in the town.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has managed to give us much more information about British Steel's investment than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has? Is he aware of his responsibilities to the Scottish people? Is he further aware that one cannot talk about the future of the Scottish steel industry without reference to what is happening on Teesside? Did he ask the chairman of British Steel about the foundation already laid for the pipe mill at Hartlepool, and is he aware of the link, through the pipe mill, to a single plate mill strategy? Is he aware that if that goes to Lackenby, it will be at the expense of Dalzell? Did he ask those questions? What was the response?

I have two things to say in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, the bulk of our discussions was about the prospects for the steel plants in Scotland. I raised with Sir Robert the claim that I believe was made by the hon. Gentleman at the end of last week that he was privy to information that the decision on the Dalzell plate mill would be delayed for two years. I regret to say that I was informed that the hon. Gentleman's allegation was, as usual, complete nonsense.

Having heard that Coatbridge is allegedly the worst place in which to live, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Perth and Kinross has been adjudged the place with the highest quality of life and the best place to live in Scotland—no doubt because of its representation?

My hon. and learned Friend's most excellent representation of that worthy borough and county at least in part explains his reputation with the nation as a whole.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is little consolation for the stewards at Ravenscraig to be told that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has urged upon Sir Robert the utility of responding as far as he is able to do to their questions? Is not it time that the Secretary of State delivered his promises, got to the facts and forced British Steel to come clean about the reasons behind the decision to close the strip mill?

However, may I welcome what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about British Steel not dismantling or removing any plant from the strip mill in advance of the report commissioned by the Scottish Development Agency? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that there will be no removal of any plant before the publication of the report and before a proper assessment of its findings? I ask him to clarify that, because his earlier answer stated that there would be no removal in advance of the proposed closure, which is a very different circumstance. We want a guarantee that there will be no removal until the report is available and has been assessed. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that, when the report is available, he will be prepared to meet Sir Robert Scholey and to go to battle on behalf of the Scottish steel industry if the report reaches positive conclusions about its future which, I am sure, is what all hon. Members hope?

Finally, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember that on 16 May when he first dealt in the House with the proposed closure of the strip mill, he deplored the decision and its implications for the work force and pledged:

"we shall seek to persuade British Steel to reconsider its proposal".—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 887.]

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman still trying to do that?

Yes, I certainly am. On the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I have no doubt that it will be desirable for me to see Sir Robert again in the next few weeks or months, depending on how matters develop.

I have two points in response to the hon. Gentleman's other questions. First, the categorical assurance that Sir Robert gave me was that there would be no dismantling of the plant or of any part of it before the proposed closure in April next year. Secondly, however, Sir Robert also stated his intention to co-operate with the SDA study. I would find it inconceivable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am answering the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I would find it inconceivable that British Steel would wish to take any action that would be inconsistent with the proper consideration of the conclusions that that study might reach. We expect the study to come to its preliminary conclusions by December of this year and that will give an early opportunity at least to consider the general conclusions, proposals or ideas. There will be further opportunities early next year. That matter will need to be dealt with in the spirit as well as the letter of the assurance that was received from Sir Robert Scholey.

I allowed a long run on that important matter, but we must now move on more rapidly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland since May 1979.

Since April 1979 more than 210,000 public sector houses in Scotland have been sold to sitting tenants. Included in this figure are more than 147,000 sales by local authorities. Owner-occupation now amounts to 50 per cent. of the total number of houses in Scotland.

Does my hon. Friend expect that the extension of the rents-into-mortgages scheme to local authority tenants, which was announced last week, will result in a significant increase in home ownership in Scotland?

Yes, I certainly do. In the course of time eligibility will be open to 320,000 local authority tenants—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) is putting up five fingers. I must point out that ten times as many as that will have bought their homes under the trial scheme by the end of the month and that there will be 200 by the end of March. In the first year of the right to buy only 10 Scottish special housing association tenants bought; it takes time for the process to gather momentum.

The average weekly payment under the rents into mortgages scheme will be about £18 and the average weekly council rent is £20·89, so this is a very good opportunity for those in a position to afford it.

Has the Minister read the copy of the Dundee house conditions survey that was recently given him? Did he fully comprehend the awful state of housing that it describes? Eighteen thousand council houses are riddled with damp and condensation; 15,000 require urgent repairs; 4,000 require whole window replacement. Will he get it into his skull and into the skulls of all his fellow Ministers that rents into mortgages do nothing to alleviate these Dickensian housing conditions? Will he therefore undertake to send a loud and clear message to the Treasury that what is required is massive new investment in the housing stock across Scotland? If Ministers are not prepared to fight Scotland's corner they must move aside for those of us in the Opposition who are.

In the past Dundee district council was taking more than a year to process council house sales. If it had processed them more quickly it would have received considerably more funds for its public sector stock. I am also advised that this year we increased net public expenditure for housing by about £40 million as compared with last year as a result of the drop in right-to-buy receipts. We shall consider the representations made to us by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) in the final allocations that will be made later this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the failure of Dundee council to run its housing stock is an argument for encouraging more owner-occupation and a smaller public sector, not a larger one? Would he like to suggest that Dundee corporation sorts out its problems instead of running an independent foreign policy, linked as it is with Nablus on the west bank of Israel?

I strongly agree that home ownership is an aspiration of a large number of Scots who do not have the opportunities now, and I believe that they will have them in future. I also suggest that authorities such as Dundee, which I shall visit again shortly with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), would be well advised to do what they are doing—to work closely with housing associations, and to explore all the possibilities, including the possibility of using its land bank—this applies to authorities that have land banks—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are doing it."] I am glad to hear that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had in the current year regarding the constitutional status of Scotland within the United Kingdom.

Nineteen letters regarding the constitutional status of Scotland have been received during the current year.

Will the Secretary of State also tell us when he expects to receive the report commissioned by leading Conservative business men in Scotland on the future government of Scotland? In the meantime will he take some time to look at the experience of West Germany where, over many years, decentralised powers and administration have gone hand in hand with business and economic success?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question appears to refer to a newspaper report in The Scotsman, which referred to certain business men, who were not named, who had asked an academic, who was not referred to, to produce a report that no one had requested. It is an interesting bit of newspaper speculation, which, as far as I am aware, has no foundation in truth.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the West German experience bears no relation to the proposals put forward either by the Labour party or by the so-called constitutional convention, which wants to create unilateral devolution with an assembly in Scotland but no significant or fundamental change in the rest of the United Kingdom. That would create the dangers and the additional level of taxation that would be so damaging to Scottish prosperity.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the people of Scotland are right to regard the conclusions of the so-called self-appointed constitutional convention with complete boredom and indifference? Would not it be better to pay full heed to the opinions of leading business men such as Mr. Ewan Marwick of the Association of Scottish Chambers of Commerce who has consistently opposed devolution in the light of his outstanding personal knowledge of business and industry in the west of Scotland, including Paisley?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the important contribution to the debate made by Mr. Marwick and his colleagues. My hon. Friend asked about the constitutional convention. I hope that in one respect people in Scotland will not treat the views and recommendations of the so-called convention with boredom or indifference. It is important for the public to be aware that that convention and the Labour party are proposing that the people of Scotland, under such an assembly, should be subject to an additional level of income tax which would not be paid in any other part of the United Kingdom. The damage to Scottish jobs and prosperity which would result from that would be devastating for the future of Scotland.

If the Secretary of State is so concerned about the people of Scotland, why is he so rigid in his opposition to the idea that people should have the right democratically to express through a referendum their views on Scotland's constitutional future? Given that his party has one stance, that the constitutional convention is bringing forward a devolution package and that my party supports the idea of independence in Europe, does he not think that there should be an opportunity for the Scots to have a choice on these matters? Is it the case that, like the Prime Minister who is afraid to debate constitutional matters in relation to Europe, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is just a big fearty on Scottish constitutional matters?

The hon. Lady is unwise to draw such a conclusion, because she will he aware that her party and mine declined to take part in the so-called convention precisely because we believe that talking shops of that kind are unlikely to be of any practical benefit to people. She will also be aware that the nationalist proposal for a referendum has had very little support from other political parties or from other expressions of opinion with interests in constitutional matters. It has been seen as a slogan by her party with little else to commend it.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if Scotland wishes to remain part of the United Kingdom, and all the indications are that it does, any change in its unique constitutional position would have to be agreed and accepted by this House and by the other place before such change could be implemented? Any attempt to persuade the people of Scotland about measures that would never get through the House must be either flawed or fraudulent or both.

What my hon. Friend says was the experience of the last Labour Government. It is right that all the citizens of the United Kingdom should take an interest in these matters. Apart from anything else, there are several hundred thousand if not millions of Scots living in England. Under the SNP proposals they would become foreigners in the country in which they are presently our fellow citizens. The people of Scotland are well aware that the United Kingdom as a nation has existed for almost 300 years and that the proposals of those who seek fundamental constitutional change would cause serious damage.

Is not it a mark of the Government's desperation that when they look for an independent authority to quote on this issue they come up with an inexperienced parliamentary candidate, Mr. Marwick? If the concept of what the Secretary of State is pleased to call unilateral devolution is so objectionable in principle, why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman resign Front Bench office in the Conservative party over its failure to support what was a unilateral scheme? Does he agree that it is silly to spread daft scare stories about well-thought-out constitutional convention schemes which would give a greater say to Scots over Scottish affairs within the framework of the United Kingdom and which command widespread public support? Does he not realise that in so doing he sounds every day a little more like the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), and that that is doing his reputation no good at all? The Secretary of State managed to make the report in The Scotsman sound like an everyday chapter from life in Chester street at Scottish Conservative party headquarters. Does he not recognise that a growing concern is clearly surfacing about the totally negative attitude of the Conservative party to the government of Scotland? The Conservatives really must make some bid in this field if they are to retain any credibility at all.

The hon. Gentleman is in danger of trivialising a serious issue by the nature of his question. The House will have noted with some interest that the one remark to which he did not respond was the clear and unmistakable proposition from his party that Scotland will be saddled with an additional level of income tax as a result of the proposals for a Scottish assembly. The failure of the so-called convention to address itself to the serious implications for the Scottish economy and Scottish jobs requires us to treat its conclusions with contempt and indifference.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the funding of health boards in Scotland.

Yes, additional allocations will be made to health boards to take account of the changes in the VAT rules affecting construction. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to welcome today's announcement of £150,000 towards establishing cochlear ear implant operations and surgery within Lothian district.

I welcome that drop in the ocean. Will the Minister acknowledge what everyone else in Scotland and in Lothian knows—that when it comes to choosing between creating patient choice or cutting patient services, the Government will cut services every time? When 14,000 patients at the Longmore hospital exercised their choice by expressing their wish that that world-famous hospital be kept open, the Secretary of State backed its disgraceful closure. In view of the incompetent handling of that issue by Lothian health board, will the Minister and the Secretary of State intervene and save Longmore?

Only the hon. Gentleman could complain about cuts in services in response to an announcement of a new service being established in Lothian. To describe as a drop in the ocean a service which will enable deaf people to hear is symptomatic of the hon. Gentleman's approach to the health service.

The hon. Gentleman said that Longmore is to be closed, but he knows that the service that it provides in terms of breast cancer treatment will continue at the Western general hospital at a unit in which £2 million is to be invested by the health board. That will bring the facility into a hospital where there is an oncology department, with the result that the service to patients will be improved.

It is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent the splendid efforts of Lothian health board to improve services for his constituents throughout its area. The hon. Gentleman delivered a letter about Longmore hospital to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, under the gaze of the cameras, but we did not receive the letter until two days later because he left the Department and posted it. Therefore, he may be unaware of the background, but he should pay tribute to the efforts that Lothian health board has made in respect of Longmore.

Does the Minister appreciate that an important element of the chronic underfunding of the health service in Lothian is the inadequate money allocated to it to tackle our AIDS problem? Is he aware that around one twelfth of the people identified as HIV positive in the United Kingdom are in Lothian but that the district receives less than 1 per cent. of the total budget for the United Kingdom, that the short-stay drug crisis centre has been postponed because of lack of money, that there is no long-term residential resettlement centre and that the cost of dealing with people with AIDS and those who are HIV positive will double every year from now on? When will the Government give us the money that we need?

I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters carefully, so he will know that the sum provided for AIDS care in Scotland is £15 million. I believe, from memory, that the share that Lothian receives is £5 million, the bulk of it going to the new unit to provide care for AIDS patients. He needs to distinguish between HIV-positive cases and cases of AIDS. He will be aware that the planning which has gone on in Glasgow, Dundee and Lothian towards provision for AIDS patients has taken account of projected numbers, and we have committed ourselves to providing the necessary resources.

What is the comparison between the funding of Scottish health boards and of English and Welsh health boards? Has my hon. Friend's Department any information about the efficiency with which that money is being used in terms of how it is translated into patient care?

It is well known that the Scottish health service is better funded than the health service south of the border—for example, by about one third in its hospital services. One of the interesting points about the proposal by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for the funding of a Scottish assembly is his argument for the principle of equalisation. The health service in Scotland spends twice as much as the health service south of the border on care for the elderly. In the south, that burden lies with local government—yet local government in Scotland still spends more than local government in the south. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the considerable investment in the health service in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the report of the Scottish housing conditions survey; and if he will make a statement.

The results of the national house condition survey will be published in the summer of 1993.

Is not it true that the report is not being published because it would harm the Government's prospects in the general election, because the Minister is ashamed of what it will reveal about disrepair and dampness in Scottish housing, leading to a crisis of homelessness, and because he will not make available the necessary funds properly to house the people of Scotland?

The physical survey of the sample dwellings will take place before the social survey of occupants. The two sets of data necessarily need to be compiled before the statistical analysis is conducted. It is not possible to publish the physical survey results in advance of the social survey, and all the results need to be considered as a whole. Unfortunately, an earlier publishing date is not feasible. The reporting timetable is customary for surveys of such complexity. The national house condition survey is not a substitute for local surveys, which I strongly urge all local authorities to carry out.

Does the Minister recall that Glasgow district council carried out a local survey several years ago, but the Government have taken no action on it? Although Glasgow has the highest allocation, it still has nothing like the amount of resources that it requires.

As the survey will take the best part of three years, will the Minister undertake to visit some of the bad housing areas, such as those in my constituency, so that he can see the damp-ridden houses? He should not come to Maryhill only to open pretty, new housing estates.

The hon. Lady must be aware that I have visited 52 district councils in Scotland and have seen their housing stock. I have been to the hon. Lady's constituency several times. Although I opened a new housing project, she must appreciate that it is not possible to visit her constituency without seeing other sorts of housing. I have seen plenty of examples of damp housing. I stress that what goes into Glasgow's housing plan will be very important and will be fully taken into account before allocations are made.

On the point about local surveys, the hon. Lady is aware that Scottish Homes is spending considerable sums of money in Glasgow, and that almost £500 million has been spent by housing associations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will formulate an integrated transport policy for Scotland.

The Government believe in a balanced transport policy, providing users with as much choice as possible between competing forms of transport.

Is the Secretary of State aware that during the summer an efficient Scottish transport network suffered two blows—first, the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport that the new Al motorway would stop short of the Scottish border and, secondly, the announcement by ScotRail that it is postponing the modernisation programme for its rolling stock due to lack of funding? When will the Scottish Office stand up to the Treasury?

The right hon. Gentleman seems unaware that there are two major projects for improving the A1. The dual carriageway will be extended first to Haddington and then beyond that to Dunbar. A steering group has been formed between the Scottish Office and the Department of Transport to determine what further improvements might be required.

The right hon. Gentleman must know that only 5,000 vehicles per day use the stretch of road between Dunbar and the border—one tenth of the amount of traffic using those parts of the Al in the south that are to be upgraded under the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

With the near completion of the east coast line British Rail is completing the biggest ever investment in that area, amounting to some £450 million on the electrification of the line between London and Edinburgh.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that electrification is not complete when it reaches Edinburgh, but should continue up the east coast to Aberdeen? Is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport British Rail's investment criteria, which are related purely to a return on investment, not to a cost benefit analysis so that road and other forms of transport benefit? Secondly, in the light of the new situation affecting the price of fuels, will he discuss with British Rail and his right hon. Friend the relative costs of diesel and electric power?

I am familiar with the aspirations of people in the north-east to see the electrification of the east coast line extended from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, and British Rail's recently appointed project manager in Scotland is investigating whether further electrification can be justified. I appreciate that there is a debate about whether the criteria for a return on such investment are too strict or whether they are justified. If the use of taxpayers' funds is to be justified it is not unreasonable that British Rail should be expected to obtain a return on its investment and British Rail must take that into account. Debate on that issue will clearly continue for some time yet and I am glad that British Rail has not ruled out the electrification of that section of the line in the future.

If the Secretary of State does not miss the bus at the next general election but makes a journey to the centre of Leith, he will find tenants demanding repairs to their properties which Scottish Homes, under the chairmanship of Sir James Mellon, is refusing to do.

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is on the wrong question. This one is about transport.

May I assure the Secretary of State that the Government's anti-rail prejudices will be a major issue in Scotland, as elsewhere, in the run-up to the general election? What interest has the Scottish Office taken in the decision to postpone investment in the main west coast line from London to Glasgow? Will he tell us precisely what representations the Scottish Office has made in the past months on the disastrous proposal to abolish Speedlink freight services, thereby forcing large quantities of freight from rail, to which they had been drawn, back on to the roads? The Secretary of State for Transport said that he had not referred to electrification north of Edinburgh at the Tory party conference in answering Mr. Hirst's protestations because he could not change his autocue in time. Is the Secretary of State for Scotland capable of changing his autocue to give some backing to the expansion, modernisation and electrification of rail services in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman should inform himself before he makes foolish accusations. If he suggests that the Government are against investment in the rail network, he is clearly unaware of the fact that the Government have authorised no less than £3,700 million investment by British Rail throughout the United Kingdom during the next three years, which is the largest railway investment that Britain has ever known. The fact that Scotland has already benefited from one of the largest electrification projects that the United Kingdom has ever known compounds the hon. Gentleman's foolishness in asking that question. As the hon. Gentleman knows, British Rail has not reached any conclusion on Speedlink. We are taking considerable interest in that matter and we are seeking to evaluate the implications in Scotland and elsewhere of implementing the proposal.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance.

My right hon. and learned Friend last met the president and senior office bearers of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 6 July.

When the Minister met the president and office bearers, did he discuss with them the increasing difficulty that they and their members are encountering in encouraging people to pay their poll tax? Does he not realise that the inability of local government to draw blood from a stone by asking people living on poverty wages to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. is seriously challenging its ability to deliver services? Is it not time that he and his colleagues did away with the poll tax and started to deal with the serious underfunding from which local authorities have suffered for a number of years?

Part of the problem that local authorities have faced in collecting the community charge is the fact that so many Members of Parliament and councillors—in the Labour party and in other parties—have discouraged people from paying, thus leading them into considerable personal difficulty. In my view, they are embarking on a course of the highest irresponsibility. Despite that, however, authorities in Scotland now expect, on average, to collect some 95 per cent. of their budgeted targets. As the community charge accounts for only about one fifth of the total expenditure of local authorities, they will have about 99 per cent. of their total spend. In those circumstances, they should be able to meet the problem through prudent management of their spending.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has moved from the Labour Benches to the Scottish National Benches? However, it does not matter—

Order. Has this something to do with Scottish questions? The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the question on the Order Paper.

It does not matter where an Opposition Member sits if that hon. Member engages in the irresponsible and reprehensible action of encouraging people not pay their community charge. That hits—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and he knows that he must ask a question and not make statements.

I had noticed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) had moved from the Labour Benches to those of the Scottish National party. As he has moved from one socialist party to another, however, it is hard to tell the difference.

As for the attitude to the community charge, the most unfair and irresponsible posture for any party to adopt is to encourage people not to pay their fair share. The most unfair feature of all would be for those who have contributed to the cost of local services to be asked to pay the cost of those who have not. That is something that local authorities should not be asked to do.

rose—

I think that I should call Mr. Dick Douglas.

When the Secretary of State met COSLA, did he not say that local authorities in Scotland had fallen into the trap that he had laid for them? They are caught between a rock and a hard place. In the beginning, COSLA said that the tax was unworkable so why is it now trying to make it work by the most draconian means? I myself—and I have already been referred to—have been the subject of warrants of a dubious nature. Is it really in the mind of the Secretary of State to tell local authorities that to make the tax work they must get into the barbarous atmosphere and attitude of poinding and warrant sales? Should not the Minister go back to COSLA and say that he will review the scheme and take it away completely?

The vast majority of community charge payers have paid and are paying their community charge. The system of recovery available to local authorities is broadly the same as it was under the previous rating system. Those who are willing to ignore the irresponsible advice of politicians who tell people not to pay taxes, and are willing to pay their due to local authorities, will not have to fear the processes of recovery.

When will the Minister stop using the rather foolish non-payment campaign being run by the Scottish National party as a shield behind which to hide and pretend that the poll tax is working? Does he not recognise that research shows that the vast majority of those who have not paid their poll tax simply cannot afford to pay it? The simple fact is that he could end the crisis tomorrow by abolishing the 20 per cent. rule, allowing a moratorium on rebates back to 1 April 1989 and improving the rebate system to make it much more generous. He must recognise that Scottish local authorities are facing a financial crisis as a result of the poll tax itself and not because a few people are foolishly not paying it.

If the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell me that Labour Members of Parliament and Labour councillors are refusing to pay their community charges because they cannot afford to do so, I have to tell him that I do not believe it. The vast majority of people have paid their community charge, and more than I million are eligible for a rebate, so account is taken of ability to pay. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's irresponsible position explains why his party has inconceivably decided to go back to the even more unfair and most unacceptable payment of all, with a return to the old rating system.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Scottish health board chairmen to discuss the national health service in Scotland.

I met the chairmen of health boards on 29 June.

It is unlikely that the Minister would have had an opportunity to discuss with them the report produced recently by the Institute of Manpower Studies, commissioned by the Scottish Office, which showed a worrying wastage rate among nurses because of the lack of opportunity to involve themselves in patient care and because of cuts in wage rates. Will the Minister discuss that report at his next meeting with board chairmen, which I hope will be in the not-too-distant future? Is not that report a damning indictment of 11 years of Tory policy and of the Government's attitude to the health service, which nurses are leaving in droves?

We are anxious to improve the opportunities for recruiting nurses and other staff to the health service. The hon. Gentleman will recognise, if he is fair, that since 1979 the number of nurses in the health service has increased substantially, as has their pay—by about one quarter in real terms. I confess that I have not read the report to which he refers, but I will do so and respond to the points that he made.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the objectives of health service reform is to encourage greater public involvement and interest? In relation to the reform of local health councils, is my hon. Friend satisfied that in large areas such as Grampian there will be adequate representation of both rural and urban interests? Even rural interests can be very disparate. Will he re-examine local health council reorganisation to ensure that it will provide genuine local involvement?

My view, which is shared by Opposition spokesmen, is that in general it will be better to have one health council per health board, with the resources to operate as a strong organisation and on an equal footing. I shall be answering today a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about the possibility, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), of having more than one health council per board.

There is nothing to prevent boards from proposing schemes which involve more than one health council, although our preference is for only one such council.

I was right. Withdraw the circular.

If the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will allow me to answer my right hon. Friend's question, he may then catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Our preference is for health councils that are strong enough to represent the voice of the consumer effectively, but health boards may suggest schemes that provide for more than one health council, and they will be considered on their merits.

When the Minister next meets the chairmen of the health boards, will he discuss with the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board the continuing public utterances of his general manager, who only yesterday said that the national health service in Glasgow is "second class"? That same general manager recently issued a warning to his staff that if any of them publicly criticise the NHS in Glasgow, they will be summarily dismissed. In that, he included comments to Members of Parliament. Yet only yesterday, in the surroundings of the luxurious Gleneagles hotel, the same general manager deprecated the Greater Glasgow health board and its services, for which he personally is responsible. Why do we have such double standards, whereby the general manager can criticise the health service but the rest of the staff cannot? If the general manager can criticise, so can the rest of the staff.

It is the general manager's job to identify deficiencies in the health service and to put them right. I pay tribute to what Laurence Peterken has done in the health service. In Greater Glasgow health board, Lennox Castle, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, was identified as a hospital in need of improvement by the general manager, and it has been transformed. In that speech, Lawrence Peterken was saying that it was no part of the business of the health service to continue with inadequate Victorian buildings and that we wanted an efficient service providing the highest standards of care. That is the Government's belief. Only a fool would argue that there are no problems in the health service. There are problems. The Government are the first to have tackled them for a very long time and have delivered a higher standard of patient care.