asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve health care in Scotland.

There are more doctors and nurses than under any previous Government and more patients are being treated than at any time in the history of the National Health Service in Scotland. A massive capital programme is under way, with 48 major new hospital developments completed since 1979 and 34 more in the pipeline. The Government will continue to build on this record of success in Scotland.

The Minister may know that prior to the election Lord Glenarthur wrote to me to say that the Stobhill maternity unit would be saved and that it was possible that Stobhill might be the site for the new Royal maternity unit. Given his new position, does the Minister consider that Stobhill would be an excellent place to have the Royal maternity unit?

The future of the Stobhill hospital will depend on a general review of acute services that is being carried out by Glasgow. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a decision whether the maternity unit should close was deferred while a feasibility study and appraisal for the replacement of the Glasgow Royal maternity hospital was conducted. That is still going on. I have nothing to add to the previous commitments that have been given to the hon. Gentleman.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern in Grampian and Aberdeen about the need for a new, modern cardiac surgery unit? Can he tell us what progress has been made in the review and when we can expect a decision?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I was made well aware of that when I visited Aberdeen the other day. As he knows, the Advisory Committee on Specialist Services is looking at the matter and we expect to have a report shortly. At that point, it will be possible to take a view about Aberdeen.

Is the Minister aware that in general terms in Grampian there is concern at the delay in implementing the SHARE formula and at the shortfall in facilities such as those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith)? Is he further aware that we are disadvantaged by the fact that there is no such formula for ambulance services and that people in my constituency, in the community of Ellon, have no firm indication of when they will have an ambulance station, in spite of a commitment from the local chief ambulance officer that that will be provided? Will the Minister tell us when we will receive the resources?

Aberdeen and Grampian have done extremely well under the SHARE formula. It is true that they have not reached parity, but the resources made available to the Grampian health board are substantially greater than they would have been without the SHARE formula. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. Scottish Members take part in English Question Times and English Members may take part in Scottish Question Times.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that National Health Service expenditure per capita is higher in Scotland than in England? As the per capita consumption of alcohol, tobacco and confectionery is higher in Scotland, particularly in Strathclyde, than in England, may I ask what impact that has on the effectiveness of NHS services?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. I confirm that health expenditure per head in Scotland is 23 per cent. higher than the average for the rest of the United Kingdom. There are also 39 per cent. more health staff in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom and 59 per cent. more hospital beds in Scotland than in England. That is the extent of the Government's commitment to the Health Service in Scotland.

I am fascinated by the Minister's description of the success of the Health Service in Scotland. It bears little resemblance to my experience of the reality over the past 10 years. Will he turn his attention to the provision of community care in Scotland? Will he perhaps let the House know when the Government will make some necessary short-term commitment, as agreed by health boards, local authorities of whatever political colour and voluntary groups, to ensure the success of community care for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's question. As he knows, the Government have placed considerable emphasis on the importance of community care and achieving a gradual shift of elderly, mentally and physically handicapped people into the community. We have encouraged health boards and local authorities to give high priority to the provision of community care facilities. However, there will be a need for some patients to remain in long-stay accommodation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to bring forward modifications to the community charge scheme in Scotland in the proposed legislation introducing a similar tax in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend expects that the fundamentals of the reforms to be proposed for England and Wales will be comparable with those already enacted for Scotland in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. If changes are made to these proposals, he will, of course, consider whether any parallel changes need to be made to the 1987 Act.

During the summer recess, will the Minister, together with the Secretary of State, give most serious consideration to the proposal not to implement the poll tax in Scotland until the measure has been fully implemented in England and Wales? Does the hon. Gentleman understand some of the anomalies that will arise if he goes ahead and implements the poll tax in Scotland in advance of its implementation in England and Wales? Nurses who are training in nursing colleges in Scotland will pay the poll tax, and their colleagues in England and Wales will not; policemen in Scotland will pay the poll tax, and policemen in England and Wales will not; service men stationed at Glencorse barracks will pay the poll tax, and service men stationed at Catterick will not. Why does the Minister not gather all copies of the Act, take them to a site in south Edinburgh, get Michael Ancram to set them on fire, and put an end to the whole stupid carry-on?

One of the qualities of the House of Commons is its capacity to accommodate the separate need for Scottish legislation quickly and effectively. We brought forward the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill to meet a pressing need in Scotland arising from the injustice that is faced by ratepayers. We are meeting that need. The implementation of the Act cannot come soon enough to bring that relief to Scottish ratepayers.

Does my hon. Friend recall the remarkable ease with which the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 went through Committee? Earlier this week, the supposed great assault by the Labour party on local authority finance in Scotland ended in the humiliating fiasco of only 80 Labour Members staying for the final vote. Is it not clear that the Labour party's opposition to such matters is limited to making a lot of noise during the day? Labour Members will not stay and fight after midnight because they do not have the guts for it.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In so far as the Labour party has any discernible policies on the matter, they are wedded to the discredited and regressive rates system. That is an intolerable system and we cannot accommodate it any longer.

Does the Minister agree that it would be extraordinary if, with a majority of 180 in England and Wales, the Government were frit to introduce the poll tax in England and Wales this side of the next general election, but, with a minority of 62 in Scotland, decided to proceed with it in advance of that date, despite the humiliation that they suffered in Scotland on 11 June?

I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that reform of the domestic rating system is a United Kingdom policy for which we have a United Kingdom mandate. The Scottish part has already been implemented and the English part will be implemented very soon.

When considering amendments to the community charge in the light of what happens when the measure for England and Wales passes through the House, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the great advantages of the community charge is that people will be paying for what they vote for? That being so, might it not be a good thing for the Government to consider having no rebates at all and insisting that everyone pays the full amount so that those in receipt of public support, whether they be students or people on supplementary benefit or pensions, had the average United Kingdom community charge level paid to them, which would encourage people still further to vote for low-spending authorities?

I shall have to reflect on my hon. Friend's recommendations. One of the merits of the community charge is that it is a simpler and fairer system which takes account of the capacity to pay. The rebate system is an important and integral part of it.

The Minister will be aware that directors of finance believe that only 80 per cent. of the poll tax levied will be recovered from payers of the tax. By what amount does he advise local authorities to increase the poll tax for those paying it to compensate for that level of under-recovery?

The figure of 80 per cent. was the outside limit of a range from 80 to 95 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is therefore mistaken in his assumption. The vast majority of people are law abiding, the Act is now the law of the land, and we can expect that most people will pay it.

Will the Minister bear in mind that Conservatives were abolished north of the border almost as quickly as English Conservatives rushed through the Lobby to make the people of Scotland guinea pigs in the poll tax legislation? The Minister has not changed his mind since the election. Is he aware that almost every section of the community in Scotland is angry about implementation of the poll tax and that both the business community and the Church have been alienated from the Conservatives? Will the Minister reconsider the Government's failure to honour their promise in the White Paper "Paying for Local Government" that the churches would be exempt from poll tax?

I shall try to answer some of the hon. Lady's questions, although I am not sure whether she is claiming that the Scottish National party has a mandate to govern in Scotland. As the community charge is a personal tax, I should have thought that ministers of the Church of Scotland and other churhes would wish to pay it in the same way as other members of their community.

Will my hon. Friend catch the drift of the questions from the Opposition and comprehend that if they have a mandate to govern in Scotland it follows that they have no mandate to govern in England? May we therefore assume that none of the Opposition, few of whom bothered to vote on Scottish matters the other night, will vote on the introduction of the poll tax in England?

Like my hon. and learned Friend, I find the whole concept of a Scottish mandate incomprehensible, the more so since the Labour party has abandoned half the policies on which it fought the general election.

The electorate last month told the Government in no uncertain terms that the poll tax was unwantable, unworkable and ought to be abandoned. If the Minister insists on ignoring Scottish opinion, does he share the expressed view of the Secretary of State that it would be wrong to have different local tax systems in operation north and south of the border? As implementation of the poll tax in England is unlikely before the mid-1990s, does he agree that a gap of five years between full implementation in the two countries is totally unacceptable? Despite what the Minister has said today, will he give an assurance that he will reconsider the situation and ensure that the timetable for the introduction of the tax in Scotland will be delayed so as to overcome that difficulty?

I really do not recognise the difficulties that the hon. Gentlemen discerns. It was in response to representations from the Labour party, from COSLA and from others that we decided that phasing-in was not appropriate for Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not now claiming that the Labour party has a mandate to govern in England.

the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold discussions with a view to setting up a Scottish Assembly with legislative powers.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold discussions with a view to setting up a Scottish Assembly with legislative powers.

I have no proposals for setting up a Scottish Assembly.

Given that during the recent election campaign the Conservative party gave a commitment to enter into discussions on the future government of Scotland if there was evidence of a demand for an Assembly, and given that the Scottish electorate answered that question clearly—76 per cent. voted in favour of parties that favoured devolution—will the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise the House when those discussions will begin and what form they will take?

The hon. Gentleman's premise is surprising, particularly as he comes from a part of Scotland that voted overwhelmingly against the Scottish Assembly when the referendum took place. lie should be more aware than most people that in the Grampian region, from which he comes, feelings have always been expressed in a manner adverse to the concept of a Scottish Assembly because of the damaging consequences that it is perceived it would have on Aberdeen and on the north-east region of Scotland as a whole.

Does the Secretary of State recall that the superficial negotiations that took place with COSLA over rate support grant led to a one-and-a-half hour debate in the House and that the decision then taken has an input and influence upon every family and household in Scotland? Is that accountability? Why does the Secretary of State not adhere to his personal views on these matters? Why does he not honour Lord Home's intervention in the referendum and, above all, why does he not respect the overwhelming view of the people of Scotland as expressed on 11 June?

The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the time spent on Scottish rate support grant orders is exactly the time spent on English rate support grant orders. Why the hon. Gentleman should conclude that this is an unsatisfactory amount of time in respect of Scotland but not in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom I find difficult to comprehend.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely clear that he is opposed to devolution?

I have always expressed, and still express, the view that any form of devolution that proposes within a unitary state a devolved system of government for one part of the United Kingdom without any consequential changes for other parts of the United Kingdom is profoundly unworkable and is likely to lead to severe strains of an undesirable kind.

Is the Secretary of State aware that since the election, now that they are free to say exactly what they believe, Councillors Struan Stevenson, Murray Tosh and, above all, his close confidant Brian Meek have all said that they strongly favour a Scottish Assembly? I know that deep down the Secretary of State for Scotland also supports a Scottish Assembly. Therefore, will he now show that he has some conviction, some guts and some sincerity and give some indication that at the very least he will set up some sort of group to examine the possibility of a Scottish Assembly in accordance with the wishes of the people of Scotland?

I recall that almost 750,000 people in Scotland voted for the Conservative party. The fact that the hon. Gentleman is able to identify three people who share his views on devolution is unlikely to persuade me of his argument.

I am interested in the fact that the Secretary of State spoke confidently for the Grampian region, given that there are twice as many SNP Members of Parliament as Tory Members of Parliament in the region. Given that the Conservative party in Scotland stood on a separate manifesto, which was separately tested and separately rejected, how can he possibly maintain that the Government have a mandate to impose their policies on an unwilling country? Does he believe that if the Labour party were less confused on the mandate issue he would have more difficulty in sustaining what is in truth an untenable position?

I remind the hon. Gentleman, first, that the Conservative party received more votes in Grampian region than any other Scottish party, and, secondly, that the Conservative party in Scotland fought and won the general election on a United Kingdom manifesto.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend made any calculation of the reduction in the numbers of Scottish Members of Parliament if there were an Assembly? Would there not be severe casualties in the Labour party in the central belt? Is it not rather odd that the Opposition are calling for a Scottish Assembly, yet supporting a Welshman as their leader in Westminster?

Not only would the creation of an Assembly of the kind proposed by the Labour party inevitably lead to a reduction in Scottish representation in the House of Commons, but one is entitled to assume that the achievement of what could be called Scottish home rule would lead inevitably to an expectation and requirement for English home rule. [Interruption.] Opposition Members express puzzlement about that. If they believe that English Members would be prepared to allow Scottish Members to continue to vote on English domestic legislation when they were no longer able to influence Scottish legislation, they have a profound misunderstanding of the concept of a democratic system of government.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that I am genuinely puzzled by his reference to his personal position and the fact that he has always thought it wrong to have a one-off Scottish solution for devolution? I understand that he voted for and supported the devolution settlement in 1978, which was, of course, a one-off Scottish solution. Will he clarify that point? I also understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman largely jusified his retreat on devolution on the ground that it was unwanted in Scotland. If he is not convinced —as I understand that he is not—by the results of the general election, what evidence is he prepared to accept of Scotland's wish for reform in the structure of government? Does he agree that his presence at the Dispatch Box, blandly denying the reality of Scottish opinion and blandly defying what Scotland wants, is bad for the House and for the country?

The hon. Gentleman fought the last election as a member of a party seeking to try to achieve a United Kingdom Government. While 5 million Scots returned 10 Conservative Members of Parliament, 16 million Englishmen in the south of England returned only three Labour Members of Parliament. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a Labour Government, if it had been elected, would have had no mandate in the South of England? I also remember that—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask hon. Members to give the Secretary of State a fair hearing.

I also remember that when these matters——

Answer the question.

Order. The Secretary of State is answering the question.

I remember also that when these matters were last discussed, the hon. Gentleman admitted that if devolution ever took place he assumed that there would indeed be consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. He might like to discuss that with the leader of his party.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much the percentage level of youth unemployment in Scotland increased between May 1979 and the most recent date for which figures are available.

Because accurate labour force figures are not available by age group, percentage levels cannot be calculated. Unemployment amongst under 20-year-olds in Scotland has fallen in each of the last four years.

I thank the Minister for his reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I can read; hon. Gentlemen cannot.

I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that unemployment in Scotland among 18-year-olds fell by 12 per cent. in the past year and unemployment among school leavers is 3,700 lower than —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] The hon. Gentleman asked me what hope I could offer to young Scottish unemployed people. I offer them the hope that they will find in the Fraser of Allander Scottish business survey published today, which is the most optimistic to be published since the survey began.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members are fed up to the back teeth with the carping of Scottish Members? [Interruption.] Is he not also aware that although there may be young people in Scotland who may have been unemployed for a long time —[Interruption.]

Order. I think that provocative statements do not help.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the levels of unemployment among young people under the age of 25 in the United Kingdom are lower than in any other country in the EEC? Those of us in the north of England and other regions in the United Kingdom have similar problems, but we are not complaining so bitterly about them, while Scotland is doing so much better than we are in the northern region.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unemployment among under-25-year-olds fell by 14 per cent. in the United Kingdom last year, which was much more than in the rest of the European Community. I am glad that the north of England, like Scotland and all the other parts of the United Kingdom, is now sharing in the fall in unemployment generally, the rise in economic activity and continuing low levels of inflation.

Did either the Minister or his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gain any impression of the scale of despair among Scotland's young people over the mass unemployment that they are experiencing? Does the Minister recognise that the two-year YTS and the fact that so many young people are driven away from their homes to find work in the south of England are utterly unacceptable? The figures do not reflect the situation and the young people in Scotland are seeing the waste of the whole generation.

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 40,000 in the past 20 weeks. As I said a moment ago, the Fraser of Allander Scottish business survey is the most optimistic since the survey began. It offers encouragement in manufacturing, construction, retailing and increased employment in those sectors and more is expected in the months to come.

Given that in the Scottish Highlands historically unemployment has led to depopulation, and given that within the Highlands youth unemployment has been severely increased by the major closures such as Corpach, Invergordon and more recently Kishorn, does the Minister have any specific measures to suggest to arrest the continuing increase in youth unemployment that leads to youth depopulation?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the population in the Highlands is increasing, as is the budget of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The Highlands, like other parts of Scotland, can share in the youth training scheme, the community programme, the job training scheme and all the other measures that we offer that give training and job opportunities to young people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in June 1986 the number of unemployed school leavers was 17,000, and in June this year the figure was 13,444? Is that not a sign of good news in Scotland, showing that YTS and the many other programmes are working and that the future looks much brighter than it looked some years ago?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is clear that the best prospects for the youth of Scotland lie in the continuation of this Government's sound economic policies.

Is the Minister aware that in a report published by the Department of Employment in Scotland last week 31,275 claimant and non-claimant school leavers were registered as unemployed? Is the Minister further aware that 131,000 young Scots under 25 are registered as unemployed? Is he also aware that there are only 400 registered vacancies at careers offices in Scotland? In view of that appalling record, will he bring a report before the House suggesting the steps that he might want to take to tackle that situation?

I have just told the House about the improvement in the trend of all these figures. One of the other figures that I have not yet given the House is the one about vacancies that are advertised at jobcentres. They are now at their highest level for seven years.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sectors of the Scottish economy which have experienced improvements since 1979.

My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that time is too short for anything Like a full list. Since 1979 manufacturing productivity in Scotland has gone up by an average of 4·9 per cent. per annum; service sector employment is up by nearly 38,000 and self-employment is up by 45,000. Net company registrations are up by 15,000 and average male weekly earnings are higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom except the south-east. Scotland is now third in terms of personal disposable income per head, behind only the south-east and East Anglia, as compared with sixth in 1979. Since 1981 Locate in Scotland has attracted investment of about £2·3 billion and has helped to create or safeguard over 42,000 jobs in Scotland.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect on the fact that I regret the necessity for brevity on this occasion? The list of economic improvements is long and the benefits that Scotland enjoys, and which no other part of the kingdom enjoys, are huge. Will he use all his efforts to remind the Opposition that if there is a north-south divide at Hadrian's wall all the benefits are north of it in terms of transport, employment, prosperity, inward investment and all the qualities of life?

My hon. and learned Friend is right to point out that any fair and objective assessment of the Scottish economy identifies not only the difficulties that Scotland undoubtedly experiences, but the major advantages and achievements that Scotland has realised over the last eight years. Any attempt to concentrate on one factor to the exclusion of the others shows a basic disinterest in the problems that Scotland faces.

As the Secretary of State is in a fair and objective frame of mind, he will agree that there are a great many English Members here who have never before attended Scottish Questions. One can see the wonder in their eyes. Can he explain this sudden surge of intellectual hunger south of the border? Is it because of his own charismatic appeal, or have they been dragged here on the promise that they will not have to go to the Scottish Grand Committee?

The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind about what he and other Opposition Members really wish. On the one hand they seek to deplore the lack of interest that English Members allegedly have in Scottish affairs, but when my hon. Friends attend the House and seek to ask intelligent and constructive questions the Opposition take exception to this interest in our affairs. I am delighted to see in this Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament my colleagues from other parts of the kingdom showing a sensible and constructive interest. Indeed, sometimes they seem to show a better awareness of circumstances in Scotland than do some Opposition Members.

Does the Secretary of State not regret the remarks by the chairman of Guinness plc in the June edition of the Scottish Business Insider, that it now looks unlikely that Guinness will set up its headquarters in Edinburgh, despite promises made at the time of the takeover of Distillers? Does he not accept that the proposal to restructure Distillers into a company that might be called United Distillers with those chiefly responsible for running it living largely in the south of England represents a slap in the face for the Scottish business community? Does it not illustrate how powerless the Government are in attracting the very sorts of office and business developments that they say they have managed to generate in other parts of the United Kingdom? Does this not demonstrate that the Government have misplaced their trust in private enterprise? They ought to be doing far more to get jobs into the capital of Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken on his general point. He represents an Edinburgh constituency and should be aware that in recent years Edinburgh has established itself as the second financial centre of the United Kingdom. It has experienced enormous growth in jobs related to the financial sector. The hon. Gentleman asked about Guinness. As Secretary of State for Scotland, my main interest is in where the control of the Scotch whisky aspects of the Guinness company are concentrated rather than in from where Guinness beer is controlled. I understand that thought is being given to some restructuring of the company which may lead to greater and more effective control of the Scotch whisky aspect of Guinness in Scotland. If that turns out to be the case, I am sure that it is something about which we should all be satisfied. However, we must wait and see exactly what the company's proposals will be. I do not think that anyone would dispute that Sir Norman MacFarlane will have Scotland's interests firmly in mind in the work that he does in the company. I understand that he will be anxious to ensure that commitments to Scotland, especially those to the Scotch whisky industry, will be properly honoured.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, certainly as far as the Scottish economy is concerned, the private sector has performed well in creating new jobs? With regard to the Guinness affair, if I can describe it as that, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important to ensure that those who did things incorrectly, wrongfully or illegally are dealt with properly? That will happen only when the inspector's report has been presented to the Department of Trade and Industry, and we can then look forward to action in the courts.

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Does the Secretary of State believe that the Scottish Economic Bulletin, which is published by his own Department, is a fair and unbiased account of the Scottish economy? If he does, why does he not accept the view of the bulletin that the Scottish economy is growing considerably less than the United Kingdom economy and that there is no prospect of growth in jobs during the next 12 months?

The hon. Gentleman has not given an accurate description of what the bulletin stated. I think he will acknowledge that the bulletin referred to the fact that the Scottish economy is growing—a phenomenon that one would not believe if one listened only to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. The Scottish Economic Bulletin referred to the setback that occurred last year because of the recession that was then taking place in the North sea oil industry. However, in recent months we have seen a tremendous upturn in the Scottish economy, as evidenced by today's survey published by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which in the past has been perfectly willing to be critical of the Government, but which now reports the most optimistic survey since its reports began. When one adds to that the 40,000 drop in the Scottish unemployment figures in the past 20 weeks alone, hon. Members have to be positively blind not to acknowledge the major progress that is now taking place.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the index of industrial production and construction for Scotland in each of the most recent four quarters for which figures are available and for each of the quarters of 1979.

For successive quarters in 1979, the estimates are 102·9, 107·8, 107·7, 107·1, giving an annual figure of 106·4. For successive quarters in 1986, the estimates are 99·8, 99·6, 101·2, 101·7, giving an annual figure of 100·6.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he and his colleagues were to address more helpfully the recent housing document issued by COSLA that would help the construction industry and might put more people in Scotland back to work?

Substantial funds have been given for housing. For example, £184 million has been paid, which is an increase of 81 per cent. over the past three years. Expenditure on new build has remained relatively constant at about £60 million per year.

Does the Minister agree that the most effective way of giving speedy help to the construction industry would be to restore the house improvement programme in both the private and public sectors? Does he recognise that both the housing authorities in my constituency have plans for house improvement schemes, but with which they cannot proceed because of a lack of funds? Unhappily, I represent the town which still has the highest level of sub-tolerable houses in the private sector in Scotland. Will the Minister make this a priority?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I shall consider his point, but I should mention that a larger sum has been spent on the housing associations than ever before—more than £120 million this year.

Will my hon. Friend point out to the Labour party what has been achieved on the roads programme in Scotland, for example, the completion to dualling of the Perth to Aberdeen road, and the upgrading of the A74 to a motorway? Does that not suggest the good prospects for the construction industry in Scotland under a Conservative Government?

About £95 million is being spent and will make a considerable difference to employment by encouraging tourism. It is very much in the national interest.

To return to productivity and the economy generally, will the Minister comment on page 7 of the Scottish Economic Bulletin, where there are undoubtedly references to certain hopeful signs, as the Government see them, especially the growth in self-employment. However, it continues:

"it seems doubtful whether the sources of growth will be sufficient to lead to any overall increase in the current year."

"it is not yet clear how far the changes reflect an improvement in the underlying labour market position in Scotland."

The surveys have been encouraging, especially the Fraser of Allander Institute survey, which has come out today. It states that employment has increased in manufacturing, construction and retailing in the second quarter and that this is likely to continue. Unemployment has fallen by 40,000 and vacancies at Scottish jobcentres are at their highest levels since March 1980. These are encouraging signs.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many local and health authority contracts have been put out to competitive tender in Scotland.

Details of the number of local and health authority contracts put out to competitive tender are not available centrally. However, the most reliable figures available show that of local authority works subject to competition under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, 58·8 per cent. was undertaken by the private sector. Since 1985, 29 contracts for support services have been let in the Health Service.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a pathetically small figure and compares most unfavourably with England and Wales, where savings of 25 per cent. have been achieved, compared with the 10 per cent. saving achieved in Scotland? Is he aware that private contractors wish to bid? Is it not disgraceful that five of the 15 health boards refuse to go out to tender? Will he please ensure that Scotland has the full benefit of Conservatism?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has obviously made a close study of this matter. He will have seen that the recent National Audit Office report concluded that slow progress in contracting out in Scotland was due to a lack of availability of private contractors, strong opposition to the initiative from the trade unions and structural reorganisation within the National Health Service. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall examine these matters closely in the coming weeks.

Is the Minister aware that when the canteen provision at the Glasgow college of technology was recently privatised wages were frozen at £2·20 an hour? Will he undertake to assure Scottish canteen workers in health and local authorities that their pay will be better when privatisation is forced on them?

It is not my responsibility to ensure that the pay of canteen workers or of anyone else is held at a particular level. I am responsible for ensuring that maximum resources are directed to patient care and our policies are geared to that purpose.

Is it not the case that the best means of providing support services in the Health Service is a matter for the health boards to determine? Is it not also the case that the health boards are appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, so are largely Conservative? If the Minister does not accept from me that nobody in the Health Service wants privatisation, will he accept that view from the largely Tory-controlled health boards, about which the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) complains?

First, I take this opportunity of welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box from the turmoil of the Whips' Office. He asserts that because health boards are appointed by the Secretary of State they must be Conservative-dominated. That will be a considerable surprise, but I note his expectation. I am sure he will agree that all health hoards will be committed to ensuring that every penny is directed towards patient care. Therefore, it should not be a matter of conflict between us that if tendering for services results in the best value for money in patient care it should be welcomed on all sides and certainly by health boards.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in response to the publication of the National Audit Office's opinion that expansion of competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Scotland has been too slow.

I shall be discussing progress on competitive tendering of support services with Health Board chairmen in the light of the National Audit Office report and our manifesto commitment. Boards were asked in 1984 to ensure that all support services had been put out to tender by April 1988.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, does he agree that, while discussions are all very well, what we want is action? Is he aware that, according to the recently published National Audit Office report, £5·9 million has already been saved by contracting out and in-house services provided under the pressure of the threat of contracting out, but that potential savings of between another £9 million and £15 million could be looked for? Are not the Scottish health boards robbing the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, and those who might otherwise benefit from an improved level of services in their areas? What can he done?

The only way in which to ensure that we are able to realise all the possible savings is to ensure that the efficiency of in-house services is tested against outside competition. My hon. Friend is right to point out that even the threat of privatisation seems mysteriously to produce savings, and there has been some progress in that respect. To date, savings in Scotland amount to about 10 per cent. In England, they are between 20 and 30 per cent. There is a great deal to be done in Scotland if our priority is to ensure that patient care is maximised.

The Scottish people decisively rejected the thieves' charter of privatisation just a few weeks ago. Scottish Ministers have come here today buttressed by the motley crew of English placemen and deracinated Scotsmen to ignore the salient points——

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

The question is this, Sir. When will those Ministers, with the green acres stretched out behind them where their Scottish colleagues used to be, come to terms with the fact that 78 per cent. of the Scottish people and 62 out of 72 Scottish Members of Parliament reject them and everything that they stand for?

I read in yesterday's Glasgow Evening Times that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about the provision of kidney machines and that he was going to have a meeting with me about it. I look forward to that, because when he comes to see me I shall point out that the savings that the NAO report estimates could be made from tendering in Scotland of between £15 million and £22 million are roughly equivalent to the cost of the purchase of 1,500 kidney dialysis machines.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the Scottish health boards have been up to some tricks, including, for example, the award of an in-house contract at up to 50 per cent. more than private contractors would have charged? In the light of that, will he in the course of his consideration agree to meet representatives of the industries concerned to hear from them what they think are the opportunities and the problems?

I should be delighted to meet any such representatives to get to the bottom of the problem identified in the NAO report of an apparent lack of interest on the part of private contractors. It is essential that the cost of in-house operations is properly examined, and comparison is made on a like-for-like, apples-for-apples basis. When in-house savings are promised, we must have proper procedures to monitor them, and to ensure that they are achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of the steel industry in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that Ravenscraig steelworks will not be closed during the lifetime of the present Parliament.

The future of the steel industry in Scotland depends on the health of the British Steel Corporation. I am sure the House will share my delight at the healthy profits announced recently by the corporation.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Ravenscraig contributed substantially to those profits? Is he further aware that we are looking, not just for an extension of the short-term guarantee to Ravenscraig as an integrated steel producer, but for long-term investment in modernisation, new products and new processes to take Ravenscraig into the next century as a high-tech steel producer of both plate and strip?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Ravenscraig has contributed in a valuable and important way to the profitability of the British Steel Corporation, and I congratulate the management and work force of Ravenscraig, who have achieved records in both productivity and output. The hon. Gentleman knows that the British Steel Corporation has announced £30 million of varied investment in Ravenscraig. That demonstrates a commitment to the plant. I hope that it will help to ensure a very long and healthy future for the plant.

As the Secretary of State has just acknowledged that Ravenscraig is now a profitable plant, with record levels of output and the highest level of productivity of any steelworks in the United Kingdom, why cannot it be guaranteed a long-term future? Why should it have to live from hand to mouth, with only the guarantee of continued existence to August 1988? We want a long-term guarantee for Ravenscraig, with the long-term investment that is so necessary there.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the next stage is for the British Steel Corporation to put forward its strategic plans for the future of the industry. I very much hope that when it puts its proposals before the Government the BSC will take into account the productivity and the output of Ravenscraig and the contribution that it has made to the profitability of BSC.

In any consideration that the Government give to the investment plans of the British Steel Corporation, will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to ensure that British Steel is able to produce those quality products, for which there is a demand in Scotland, particularly from the offshore industry, to maximise the contribution of British industry to the offshore industry?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I am sure the House will agree that the best guarantee for Ravenscraig and for the other plants in Scotland will be if they are able to produce the types of steel for which there is a demand and a market, thereby ensuring their relevance to the health and prosperity of the steel industry as a whole.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to end once and for all the speculation regarding the future of Ravenscraig? Is he aware of the feelings of the people in Scotland? Unlike some of the synthetic Scots who are sitting on the Conservative Benches, is he not aware that Ravenscraig has become a political as well as an industrial symbol? Is he aware that there was further speculation this morning in The Times that a statement made by the Industry Commissioner in Europe may result in the closure of Ravenscraig? Congratulations to the workers at Ravenscraig are cheap. The Secretary of State should give them real commendation today by stating that their future is secure. He should give a guarantee today to a work force who have beaten every record in the book that the investment will be there so that their efforts are matched by his guarantees.

The Government have shown their commitment to Ravenscraig in an unmistakable way. Ravenscraig was kept as part of the British Steel Corporation's activities, even at a time when the British Steel Corporation was making enormous losses because of the failure of the Labour Government to approach the needs of a modern steel industry in an efficient and sensible manner. If the Government recognised the importance of Ravenscraig to the Scottish economy when the British Steel Corporation was making massive losses, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that Ravenscraig's position today must be infinitely healthier, since it is now part, thanks to this Government's policies, of a healthy and profitable steel industry.

Having heard from Ministers about the rosy picture in Scotland, I am almost tempted to return. With the co-operation of south Wales miners, British Coal is to produce coking coal. Will this not protect and ensure the long-term future of Ravenscraig?

We are naturally interested in any developments that will help to ensure that future.

Has the Secretary of State received a copy of the EEC report which asks the steel industry to cut production by 30 million tonnes and to shed 80,000 jobs over the next three years? If he has received that report, what guarantee will he give to Ravenscraig that it will stay open? Will he ensure that that happens? Indeed, will he put his own job on the line and make it clear to the House that if British Steel closes Ravenscraig, he and his Ministers will resign?

The hon. Gentleman does not understand the degree of disservice that he does to Ravenscraig. By assuming, as he appears to be doing, that any necessary reduction in British Steel manpower has to be at the expense of Ravenscraig, he serves only to give comfort to those who argue that Ravenscraig is the weakest element of British Steel's activities. If he has Ravenscraig's interests at heart, he should emphasise the advantages that Ravenscraig offers for British Steel and its valuable contribution to British Steel's overall output. So far, his remarks have been positively damaging to the steel industry in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now revised his Department's estimate of the share of the cost of meeting the recent National Health Service pay awards payable by health boards out of their current allocation; and if he will make a statement.

No. The additional £35 million made available by the Government on top of the original provision of £1,545 million for the hospital and community health programme will result in a total increase in provision this year of 8·4 per cent. In addition, efficiency measures should direct the equivalent of 1·5 per cent. of revenue allocations into direct patient care. This will allow boards to meet increased costs and to develop services.

The Minister's reply is disingenuous, to say the least. I am fully aware that, for at least one health board, the gap between the Scottish Office's estimate of what will have to be met out of current allocation and the reality is £250,000. Where is the health board supposed to find that money?

The difference between the £35 million made available and the costs are based on estimates provided by the boards——

They are wrong.

Well, they may be wrong, but they were provided by the boards themselves. I see no need to revise that estimate or to accept the hon. Gentleman's view that it is wrong. I should have thought that the health boards and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman, would welcome the fact that the Government have made available £35 million extra, as announced in May, on top of what the health boards were expecting in March.

On a point of order.

I shall take points of order after the statement.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

rose——

Order. The House knows that there has been a rule about this matter for some time now.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order.

I spy Strangers.

Order.

If you will not take my point of order, Sir, I spy Strangers.

I will not take the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

I spy Strangers.

Order.

I spy Strangers, and they are all on the Conservative Benches, and they were in here for Scottish questions.

Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that this takes time out of the debate.

I spy Strangers.