To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 so as to leave out section 13(1)(d) which requires that the register shall specify, in relation to each natural person registered in the register, his date of birth.

No, Sir. Dates of birth are to be included in the community charges register in order to assist registration officers in clearly establishing the community charge liability of individuals.

Will the Minister explain why there is to be one law for Scotland and another for England and Wales? Will he please explain why in Scotland there is to be a national identity number consisting of the name and date of birth, while in England that will not be required? Finally, what will he say to the people of Scotland when, in anger at such distinctive legislation being imposed on them, they send back their registration forms because they do not understand why such an imposition should be placed on them?

The use of dates of birth does not lead to a national registration process of any kind, although it may be used by individual local authorities to help identify individuals. The hon. Lady spoke about differences between Scotland and England. As they are usually to Scotland's advantage, I should have thought that the hon. Lady would be glad of them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party is running dead scared about community charges in Scotland and that it is grossly exaggerating the projected figures of what the charge will be in a year's time? Does he accept that in, for instance, Dumfries and Galloway the projected figure is about £210, including regional, district and water charges, while the Labour party there is talking about a figure of over £300?

Order. The same rules apply to ordinary questions as to Prime Minister's questions. There must be ministerial responsibility for the question asked.

My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the figures published yesterday will make it clear that the opportunity lies with individual authorities to decide the level of charge in their area.

Would it not be fairer to scrap the entire Act, bearing in mind the recent MORI poll findings that 75 per cent. of Scots are opposed to the poll tax, including 40 per cent. of Tory supporters, and that 42 per cent. of Scots are saying that they will not pay the poll tax, including 14 per cent. of Tory supporters? What will these percentages have to rise to before the Minister realises that the Government had better scrap the poll tax, which is threatened by a Government who were rejected by 76 per cent. of Scots in the last election?

I would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman's comments if his party had come forward with any alternative proposal on how to raise local government finance. He mentioned opinion polls. If he conducted an opinion poll among those who pay domestic rates he would find very many of them looking forward to the abolition of domestic rates that will take place in Scotland on 1 April next year.

Does the Minister recognise that there is a conflict, in that in Scotland education grants will be financed from this poll tax, while in Northern Ireland education grants are financed from the rates? Therefore, since very many Northern Ireland students attend universities in Scotland they will be penalised because they will have to contribute twice towards their education grants — once through the rates that they pay in Northern Ireland, and secondly through the poll tax that will be imposed on them in Scotland.

I am interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the situation in Northern Ireland. No doubt he will pursue the matter through the appropriate channels. However, his comments do not have much to do with the appearance of dates of birth on the register in Scotland.

I am sure my hon. Friend will be delighted to know that my 78-year-old widowed mother is looking forward to the introduction of the community charge. At the moment she pays £790 for a little semidetached cottage. If she lived in my constituency she would pay £300, and under the poll tax the amount payable in my constituency would be £190. There is no excuse for not welcoming the community charge and we look forward to it ever so much.

My hon. Friend's comments are true and apply to very many people. Over 90 per cent. of single pensioners in Scotland will benefit from the introduction of the community charge.

As the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments says that one of the parts of the statutory instrument that the Government have laid before it is illegal and against the Act, and as the poll tax was rejected by the Scottish people at the last general election and has been rejected by them in every opinion poll since then by enormous amounts, including by most Tory supporters, why on earth do the Government continue to press ahead with this absurd, unfair, unwanted and unworkable tax?

The comments of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments refer to minor and technical matters and in no way undermine the validity of the regulations. As to the introduction of the community charge, we are determined to achieve greater accountability in local government so that the interests of residents can be more fully protected.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he collected information concerning the number of operations postponed on 24 February.

On 25 and 26 February my Department collected health boards' preliminary estimates of operations postponed because of industrial action on 24 February. On 1 and 2 March the Department collected a detailed breakdown of the figures so that my hon. Friend could reply to the hon. Gentleman's written question for 3 March.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am also grateful for the fact that he has taken the responsibility for it and not passed it down to one of his junior Ministers. I am impressed by his ability to collect these figures and by the fact that he has made them public so rapidly. Why will he not do the same for the figures for leukaemia? Why is he keeping those figures from the research workers at the University of Newcastle, who are looking into the geographic distribution of leukaemia in Scotland? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman involved in yet another cover-up?

There is no cover-up and the hon. Gentleman, as usual, has his facts wrong. He might be interested to know that the latest figures for operations cancelled because of industrial action, which is what his question relates to—[Interruption.] No, his question is about the number of operations postponed on 24 February, which was the day of industrial action —[Interruption.]

Order. We must be able to hear the answer.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) does not want an answer to the question that is on the Order Paper, but what is of primary concern at present is that 2,600 operations have been cancelled in Scotland because of industrial action. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about operations in Scotland he might use his substantial influence in the National Health Service to persuade those taking industrial action to put the interests of their patients first.

With regard to the action on 24 February, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if Labour Members were concerned about resources in the Health Service they would support competitive tendering, which has saved £100 million for the Health Service in England and Wales, rather than acting like a bunch of tape recorders for COHSE and NUPE?

My hon. Friend, in his usual eloquent fashion, has made a pungent point. Labour Members who say that they are concerned about the welfare of patients might like to reflect on the fact that, because of the industrial action that they supported, more than 80,000 meals to patients have been affected, to the detriment of those patients, and more than 40,000 disposable sheets have had to be used. If that is what Opposition Members regard as being action that should be supported, it shows that their real concern is certainly not for the welfare of patients.

Will the Secretary of State explain why it appears to be straightforward to collect statistics for one specific day, but impossible for the Government to collect centrally the misery league of people who are waiting for straightforward operations? Is he aware that on many occasions his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said that the Government do not collect centrally figures for cataract operations or joint replacement operations, but such operations are a measure of the effectiveness of the Health Service in Scotland. When can we have those statistics and when will we reduce the waiting lists?

A major initiative is under way to try to improve the information that is available to us and the general public with regard to the performance of the Health Service. It is in everyone's interest that as much information as possible is available so that we can judge the way in which these massive amounts of resources are used and identify ways in which they can be used more effectively.

When my right hon. and learned Friend is working out the statistics on operations cancelled, will he bear in mind that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I are here in the House largely due to the success of operations carried out at Nine Wells hospital and that the privileges that we enjoyed have been denied to others in the narrow interests of trade unions?

My hon. Friend is correct. I pay tribute to the Royal College of Nursing, which, despite any concern that it may have about the situation in the National Health Service, has always made it clear that those who have a real professional interest in the Health Service would never use patients as a means of bringing pressure to bear in a controversy of this kind.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the number of staffed beds in Scotland has fallen by more than 5 per cent. since 1979? What has been the effect of that on waiting lists? Is he further aware that in the next financial year funding of the NHS in real terms will fall by 1·2 per cent.? What effect will that have on waiting lists? Is not all this covering fire in relation to the day of action on 24 February intended to cover up the scandalous situation created by his policies?

On the contrary. First, I emphasise that more patients have been treated in Scotland in recent years than was possible in the past. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about waiting lists, he will be interested to know that the additional resources announced by the Government some months ago have been used to reduce waiting lists in Scotland. The main effect of the industrial action that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends support will be to lengthen waiting lists. The hon. Gentleman should identify his priorities and support Government policies directed towards those ends.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards home confinements; and if he will make a statement.

rose—

Where is Maclennan?

Order. It is always helpful if hon. Members alert the Chair to the fact that they cannot be present, as the hon. Member did today.

It is our policy to encourage hospital deliveries, but where a woman expresses a preference for home confinement it is the responsibility of the health board to arrange for a midwife to attend her and to make every effort to ensure that services are available for that confinement.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the work carried out by Nottingham university and supported by the World Health Organisation, showing that home confinements and confinements in general practitioner units are relatively safer than confinements in consultant hospitals? Does that not stand rather strangely with the proposals of Grampian health board to close the small rural units for which there is very strong support, and which have been shown to be safe?

I am slightly puzzled by the logic of my right hon. Friend's question. Home confinements would clearly be encouraged if the rural facilities were not there, as those facilities offer an alternative to home confinement. About 1 per cent. of deliveries take place at home, but in some 5 per cent. of cases women in labour need rapid intervention to save mother and baby. Professional advice and opinion is that hospital deliveries involve less risk and provide specialist assistance if complications occur.

The Minister is famous for his open mind. Will he cast his mind across the English Channel towards Holland, which has had an effective home confinement system for many years? Will he examine the possibility of introducing a proper, effective and fully funded home confinement system in Scotland for the growing number of women who want it?

So far as I am aware, there is no problem in providing home confinement for women who wish it. They are able to obtain the services of a general practitioner or a midwife, but I am not aware of any considerable demand for this. As I have said, only 1 per cent. of deliveries take place in that way.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of full-time equivalent staff employed by Scottish local authorities as at 31 March 1979, 1984, 1985 and 1987; and if he will make a statement.

The number of full-time equivalent staff employed by Scottish local authorities as at 31 March 1979, 1984, 1985 and 1987 was 253,000, 251,600, 251,400 and 247,000 respectively.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures will be something of a disappointment to us, as over the past eight years efficiency savings in the Scottish Office have resulted in a 20 per cent. decrease in the number of people employed, whereas in many local authorities in Scotland — especially those that are Labour-controlled—there have been significant increases in the numbers employed? Is my hon. Friend aware that in Dundee the local authority ha .s increased the number of people it employs by 10 per cent. in the past four years? Will he recommend that if that authority is interested in achieving economies it could take some advice from the Transport and General Workers Union, which knows very well how to lose jobs?

We are very much in favour of the creation of jobs in the wealth-producing sector of the economy. My hon. Friend is right in suggesting that the Scottish Office figures have been reduced by 19 per cent. since 1979. However, in relation to local authorities, if one takes out of consideration the creation of the local bus companies, which involved a large transfer of staff last year, the figure is a decrease of only 0·3 per cent. The overall staffing per head in Scotland is approximately 15 per cent. higher than in England and Wales.

Will the Minister take time today to congratulate Edinburgh City district council on its excellent work, and especially the former Conservative candidate for the Marchmont ward in my Edinburgh, South constituency, who today has resigned from the Conservative party because he said that £2 billion —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—according to page 3 of The Scotsman, has been given by the Chancellor to the super-rich at the expense of the Health Service, for which he works? Will the Minister congratulate that candidate for standing up for the Health Service, the Royal Edinburgh hospital and for the Bruntsfield hospital, which his hon. Friend seeks to close? Will he congratulate him today?

I personally congratulated a councillor who was a Labour councillor in Dundee and who has just become a Conservative—

Name him.

I will send the hon. Gentleman a photograph—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear the answer.

I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of a photograph of us together—[Interruption.] Local authorities should look carefully at their staffing levels to produce the best value for money for the ratepayers. We strongly support competitive tendering in that connection, and at present Edinburgh is opposing that.

On the question of Minister's policies for reducing local government staff, is he aware that the Government's policies are producing the opposite effect, and for all the wrong reasons? Angus district council is a cost-effective and efficient council, but has had to take on extra staff purely to meet the bureaucracy and red tape of the Government's policies regarding council house sales, housing benefit, and now the poll tax? Will the Government get off the back of local government and allow elected councillors and officials to provide the staffing levels that are suitable for the needs of their people, rather than there being a central Government diktat?

I very much hope that local authorities will look closely at their manpower policies. We strongly believe that in many cases competitive tendering could result in much better value for the ratepayers, which could have an effect on the levels of manpower. However, if contracting-out takes place, it will mean increased employment in the private sector.

Does my hon. Friend notice that there is a correlation between Labour authorities such as Edinburgh, which has increased its staffing totally unnecessarily, and the predicted amounts of the community charge to be paid, and that the Labour party is so against the community charge because the individual voter will be sent a bill for its extravagance?

The community charge will undoubtedly increase accountability. That is one of the reasons why it is so strongly opposed by Opposition Members.

If the Government are so concerned about the administrative costs of local authorities, why on earth are they imposing the monstrous inefficiency of the poll tax on local government in Scotland? As we understand that the Prime Minister has at last noticed that Britain has become the midden of Europe, can we expect the Government to start encouraging Scottish local authorities to employ more manual staff to keep Scotland tidy? Have the Government yet grasped the fact that what people in Scotland want is job creation, better local services and no part in the fundamentally corrupt process of privatisation?

The policy of competitive tendering is directed, not at the creation of more jobs, but at getting value for money for the ratepayers, eventually the community charge payers. The reason why the community charge is being introduced is to bring about more accountability.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Milk Marketing Board relative to the provision of adequate supplies of milk for cheese manufacture in southwest Scotland.

Since last August my noble Friend the Minister of State has been in regular contact with the board over the problems of the cheese makers in the south-west of Scotland. The most recent of those discussions was on 9 March.

Can my hon. Friend tell me why it has taken more than nine months, despite ministerial pressure, to get the English and Scottish boards to come together and decide how to provide sufficient milk in the south-west of Scotland to enable cheese to be made for immediate sale? Is it not intolerable that we should drag our feet for that length of time?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the matter, but I understand that some milk is now being delivered from England to Scotland for cheese manufacture and that negotiations between the Scottish and English boards to secure the supply of milk for manufacture in Scotland are now in their final stages.

Does the Minister not realise that when my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and I saw the Minister of State as long ago as November he promised immediate action, but there has been no action apart from the milk coming from England? We do not want more milk from England. We want more quotas to be allocated to Scottish farms because a great many jobs are in jeopardy. If we keep on taking the milk from England, we shall have to rename Scottish Cheddar Anglo-Scottish Cheddar.

The name "Scottish Cheddar" relates to its place of manufacture, not to the milk that goes into it. When the hon. Gentleman says that we do not want milk from England, he speaks for himself alone, and certainly not for the interests of the producers or the manufacturers.

I sincerely hope that the Scottish Milk Marketing Board will not issue redundancy notices to members of its work force in the near future because of these disastrous shortages in supply. Surely what is needed to meet the shortages is the creation of a quota reserve in each of the European Community countries and, failing that, the restoration, on a non-intervention basis, of at least some of the cuts in the milk supply.

It was always recognised that the advent of quotas would result in some rationalisation of the milk product sector, but it is not true to say that the shortfall in milk supplies is of such an order as to bring about the demise of the Scottish Cheddar industry. The hon. Gentleman suggested creating a reserve, but that could be done only by taking from the quotas that have been allocated, including those that have been allocated to the south-west of Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many petitions he has received from individuals or groups in Scotland protesting about the introduction of the poll tax or community charge; and what response he intends to make to them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the implementation of the poll tax.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received 970 representations, including a number of petitions, since the enactment of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Will the Minister tell the House how he can justify ignoring the wishes of hundreds of thousands of Scottish people and treating with contempt the opinion of 75 per cent. of the Scottish population? Does he not realise that, far from needing expensive glossy booklets issued by him which try to dispel opposition to the poll tax, the people of Scotland understand only too well what that iniquitous tax means? For them it is unnecessary, unworkable and, like this Government, unwanted in Scotland.

Far from being glossy, expensive and misleading, the information guide issued by the Scottish Office on the community charge costs less than the price of a second-class stamp per copy. It was badly needed to counter the misleading propaganda being put about by other parties, including, for example, those who suggest as a fact that

"The only way to avoid paying is to give up your right to vote!"

Will the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State come to Glasgow this Saturday, where there is yet another petition against the poll tax? They will then see for themselves the opposition of ordinary people to this tax and hear for themselves their demands for it to be scrapped.

What would be more interesting would be to hear the hon. Gentleman putting forward the facts about the community charge.

What does my hon. Friend think about those who claim to care about local services, but who are, none the less, urging people to avoid contributing to those local services by not paying the community charge or even not registering for that charge?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that fact. Indeed, the Labour party is in considerable disarray as to its reaction to the community charge. I hope that those who encourage breaking the law will be willing to pay for those who are fined as a result.

If visiting forces are to be exempt from paying the poll tax in Scotland, can the Minister give an assurance that local authorities, such as my authority of Argyll and Bute, where he is aware that many overseas service men are based, will not lose much vital income? If that is the case, can he give us any details as to how arrangements will proceed?

The position of members of the armed services is still under consideration. I assure the hon. Lady that I shall pass her comments to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government.

Has my hon. Friend received any representations from the Transport and General Workers Union, as it seems to he more concerned with preventing things happening, including jobs in Scotland arid in Dundee—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must—[Interruption.] Order. I think that there is a later question appropriate to that matter.

It is to do with the community charge. As a former active member of the TGWU, I am concerned about the activities of that union and what it is up to. Would my hon. Friend care to comment?

I assure my hon. Friend that those members of trade unions who are also local authority employees are getting on with the implementation of the machinery for the collection of the community charge.

Would the Minister care to tell the House what effect his and other Ministers' representations have had on the Scottish people in terms of propaganda about poll tax? Does he believe that support for the poll tax in Scotland has grown, or diminished?

I am not answerable for propaganda, since the Government have not put out any. What we have put out is a factual, step-by-step guide to help the public to understand the various processes for the implementation of the community charge. The registration process gets under way on 1 April, by which time the booklet will have been distributed to every household in Scotland.

My hon. Friend no doubt noted that, at the Scottish Labour party conference, there were arguments about how the community charge would be avoided, either overtly or by deliberate breach of the law. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has received no alternative proposals from the Labour party to replace the community charge?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a deafening silence from the Labour party on this as on so many other issues. We still wait, even at this late hour, for the Labour party to say whether it remains committed to the domestic rating system or whether it can offer a more constructive way of producing a fairer and more accountable system of paying for local government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had recently with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on the Scottish economy.

I have had no recent requests from the Scottish Trades Union Congress for discussions on the Scottish economy. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry and local government has, however, accepted an invitation to attend the STUC's annual congress next month. I met STUC representatives yesterday to discuss Ford.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is some concern in Scotland about the role that he is playing in furthering the Scottish economy? Why does he seem continually to denigrate the situation in Dundee? Why is it that every time he appears on the media he is destructive rather than constructive? Can he tell the House whether he was in touch with Ford yesterday, or whether he has been in touch with Ford today? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Scottish people do not trust him because of the "sit on your hands, do nothing" attitude that he adopted in relation to the proposed murder of the Scottish deep mining industry, which will result in the loss of 10,000 jobs?

The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that, following my comments, the SSEB and British Coal have resumed negotiations on deep mining. The prospects for progress are indeed more encouraging than they seemed to be. I must confess that I find myself both amazed at and interested in the hon. Gentleman's early remarks. Having taken part in the negotiations that led to Ford deciding to go to Dundee in the first place, I do not need any lectures from him about my interest in this matter.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it likely that the senior management of Ford in America will to change its mind about its investment in my home town of Dundee on a vote of 11 to 10 by the TUC? Which does he find more surprising: the intransigence of the TUC, or the shameful silence of the eight transport union-sponsored Labour Members?

The failure of Labour Members who are sponsored by the TGWU to make their position known is doing a great disservice to the interests of the Scottish economy. As the House may be aware, today the TUC ratified by a significantly larger majority the position taken by one of its committees recently. That is an important step in the right direction. However, it is unfortunate that the TGWU appears to maintain its opposition to that proposal in the vote that took place today. It is important that we should obtain some clarification from the TGWU as to whether in the light of today's vote, it now accepts the policy of the TUC.

I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State at least leave a little chink of light open by saying that he might respond to the pleas made to him to intervene in support of the workers and the unemployed in Dundee. Is he aware that yesterday TGWU shop stewards at the Dagenham plant, which is widely regarded as the most militant in the Ford network in Britain, decided not to black any components if, and only if, the plant were located in Dundee? —[Interruption.] Given that the editorial in Scotland's leading national newspaper today pleaded with the Secretary of State to drop everything and go with Gavin Laird to plead with Ford, will he now respond to that plea and to the pleas of the people of Scotland?

Any evidence of real contact with the late 20th century by any elements in the TGWU is to be welcomed, and if Mr. Todd can repeat the views that we have been told are the views of the Dagenham members, that, too, would make an important contribution. Naturally, having been in part responsible for the original decision by Ford to come to Dundee, I have at least as much interest as the hon. Gentleman in doing anything within my power to ensure that the project still finds its way to Dundee. [Interruption.] Opposition Members will appreciate that I must use my best judgment about whether and in what way Ford could be asked to reconsider its decision. The TUC, somewhat belatedly, has now endorsed the agreement originally reached with Ford, and that is to be welcomed. On our present knowledge the TGWU, which is the main union which all along has been an obstacle to progress, has still not, so far as we are aware, changed its position in one significant way. If that is going to be altered, we must wait and hear what its view is. It is, indeed, necessary to find out whether Mr. Todd and his colleagues are now prepared to endorse the views of the TUC, the Government and of all who have spoken on this matter. I may say to hon. Gentlemen that if—[Interruption.]

Order. This is a very important matter.

If Opposition Members are concerned about the matter, as I am sure they are, one contribution that could be made from the Opposition Benches would be for the Leader of the Opposition to give his support to the view that has now been endorsed by the TUC and by the Government.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is one of the most miserable moments in trade union and Labour party history, in that we have lost 1,000 jobs in Scotland through a petty squabble? Will he say whether he has had any word from the Transport and General Workers Union that it is anxious to come to see him today to withdraw total opposition to its policy of the last week?

I have had no such notification. If the TUC and trade unions generally had, some weeks ago, adopted the position which they are reported as having adopted today, Ford would never have made the decision that was announced last Friday. We are now involved in an exercise to try to reverse the damage, which was totally unnecessary, and resulted solely from the most extraordinarily primitive attitudes still to be found in certain sections of the trade union movement.

Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister quoted with great approval Mr. Gavin Laird of the AEU. Did the Secretary of State see Mr. Laird on the national news today saying that what happened this morning was a major breakthrough and that he was confident that the agreement would hold? Is it not the height of irresponsibility for a Government Minister to give the impression that he does not believe that that is the position? It would be tantamount to encouraging the Ford Motor company to lock and bar the door, which we want to see open. [Interruption.]

Order. I say again that this is a very important matter.

Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to welcome unreservedly the TUC's decision to endorse the Ford/AEU agreement? As the company said as recently as last week that the key condition was the single union deal, with the provision that the new plant would be independent of current national agreements—this morning's vote seems to give exactly that—is it not important that he clarifies his position? He has talked about clarification. Should he not make it clear that he will join me and everyone else in Scotland in urging the company in the changed circumstances to reconsider and reinstate the project? Can he give an assurance that he is making it clear to the company that in the Government's view the essential conditions have been met and the plant should now be built?

First of all, I have given more public support to Gavin Laird than either the hon. Gentleman or the Leader of the Opposition. Secondly, I have already welcomed the decision taken by the TUC today and only wish that it had been taken some time in the last five months. Thirdly, I am saddened that even today the hon. Gentleman has not felt able to add his weight to representations to Mr. Ron Todd and the Transport and General Workers Union to withdraw their opposition and give full support to the TUC. The deafening silence of the Labour party and its refusal to make one iota of criticism of the position taken by the Transport and General Workers Union is a total and unqualified disgrace and refutes any assertion it makes to have the interests of the Scottish economy at heart.

Question No. 9, Mr. Steel.

That is an absolute scandal. It is an absolute disgrace.

I had intended to ask a supplementary question on Question No. 8.

I am sorry, but I have called Question No. 9.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board; and what matters were discussed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board; and what matters were discussed.

I last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board on 19 March on the occasion of an informal dinner in Edinburgh.

I hope that the Secretary of State will pay a deserved tribute to the Scottish TUC for the efforts that it has made to bring its brethren south of the border into line on this issue—[Interruption.]

Order. We are now on Question No. 9.

That was by way of parenthesis, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The Secretary of State should not be let off the hook on this.

The future ownership and acquisition of shares in the industry is still being considered. Information will be given to the House as soon as we reach conclusions on the matter.

Just as the Secretary of State is prepared., apparently, to do nothing to protect jobs in Dundee—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me to finish the sentence, they might realise that there is some sense in it.

On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I said last week that I would be perfectly prepared to make representations to Ford if and when I believed that such representations would be appropriate — [HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] — and would have some prospect of producting the desired result. I was involved in the negotiations to bring Ford to Dundee, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is my clear intention and objective.

Order. I am well aware that the Ford issue is of major importance to the House—[Interruption.]—but we must stick to the Question on the Order Paper.

I was responding to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it crystal clear to the chairman of the SSEB that his job is to produce electricity as cheaply as possible for his consumers? Is it not the ultimate hypocrisy for an hon. Member representing a constituency in Lanarkshire —the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—to urge on the SSEB policies which might make Ravenscraig uncompetitive?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The House should bear in mind that the chairman of the SSEB has said that he wants to reach a satisfactory conclusion that will enable him to continue purchasing coal from British Coal. In the discussions that have taken place in the past few days both sides have reported progress, so there is a prospect of some satisfactory agreement being reached. That should be welcomed by the House.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has blatantly failed to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Has he at any time discussed with the chairman of the SSEB the social costs or consequences of the massive loss of jobs that is possible in the deep mining industry as a result of current policies?

I have had a number of very general discussions with the chairman of the SSEB covering all the issues that are relevant to this matter.

He says no.

Order. I ask hon. Members not to ask questions from a sedentary position, because that gazumps questions that are to be asked legitimately.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the maintenance of the economic development role of the Scottish electricity supply industry after privatisation.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations on this matter. The Government intend that the major contribution which the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has made to the development of its area by providing secure supplies at an acceptable cost to remote consumers will be maintained after privatisation.

I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. Will he acknowledge that there is concern that the Government, either after, or in preparation for privatisation may force up electricity prices artificially? Will he give us an assurance that that will not be the case?

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he sought in the first part of his question.

Will the Minister or the Secretary of State please answer the question asked earlier about discussions between the Secretary of State and the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board? Did the Secretary of State at any time during those discussions raise the matter of the social and economic disaster that will take place after privatisation, or discuss whether a deal can be struck between the SSEB and the coal board? Did he at any time discuss the social costs to the whole Scottish community?

My right hon. and learned Friend has already answered that question. The electricity board has made it clear that it is willing to contemplate a phased reduction in prices for coal.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of helping the economic development of the Scottish electricity supply industry after privatisation would have occurred if Ford had been able to construct a plant at Dundee, which would have used far more electricity? What representations have been received from hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench in support of the scheme?

What scheme?

I am not certain to which scheme my hon. Friend refers, but it is true that the development of the economy and of enterprise in Scotland, leading to increased consumption of electricity, could only be of advantage to all consumers in Scotland.

Has the Minister, in his conversations about the development of the Scottish electricity system, discussed the possibility of a connector line with Northern Ireland, which would be in keeping with the EEC policy of interconnecting lines, and appropriate, as the Kilroot power station has contract with the Ayrshire mines?

That is an interesting matter, but the hon. Gentleman will have to pursue it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reviews he is conducting into the structure and function of the Scottish Health Education Group.

None.

The Minister is, I hope, by now aware that there have been considerable problems in the Scottish Health Education Group, where there has been a 220 per cent. turnover in staff during the past five years. Will he make representations to the management board of the Common Services Agency to ensure that the reorganisation now taking place within that department, for which he is responsible, is both speedy and effective, so that morale at SHEG can be restored to its former levels?

There has been an internal review of the staffing structure at SHEG, and discussions on that have been somewhat protracted. I understand that they are now reaching a conclusion. I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

When the Minister has discussions with SHEG, will he bear in mind that having 320,000 unemployed in Scotland is probably the largest single contributory factor to the poor health habits of a depressed people? Will he express the astonishment of the House at the revelation by Mr. Donald Miller today that the social and health consequences for 10,000 people and their families in the mining communities of Scotland have not even been discussed by a Secretary of State who, at other times, sheds crocodile tears and seeks to make political capital out of the difficulties of creating employment in Scotland?

The Scottish Health Education Group exists to provide information to the people of Scotland on how to prevent ill health. In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I shall ensure that copies of its literature are sent to him for his education.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently involved in Government employment and training measures in Scotland; and what is the estimated figure for expenditure on YTS in Scotland in the current year.

At the end of January 1988, 85,204 people were participating in YTS, the community programme and the enterprise allowance scheme in Scotland. In addition, between April 1987 and the end of January 1988, 42,188 entered adult training programmes. Estimated expenditure on YTS in Scotland in 1987–88 is £91 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of the Dundee Ford project will mean not simply the loss of 1,000 hi-tech jobs, but the loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs to the local economy of Dundee? Is the tragedy of this case not simply the exposure of the stupidity of the Opposition and the Transport and General Workers Union, but the fact that many young people who could have had training and work experience will not now have those opportunities?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Dundee is an area to which we have devoted considerable care and attention in employment and training measures. The job training scheme was pioneered there, as were restart and job clubs. With the recent announcement bringing, as it does, a chilling reminder of the winter of discontent, the chances for young people in Dundee are inevitably diminished. Nevertheless, we shall do our best to restore those opportunities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to encourage nursery education in Scotland.

For 1988–89, provision for expenditure by local authorities on nursery education is £31 million, representing an increase of 26½ per cent. in real terms over the level of expenditure in 1979–80, but it is for individual authorities to determine the priority given to this subject in their areas and the form of provision made for pre-school children.

Is it not disgraceful that the Secretary of State has cancelled five years' work by members of his staff, who extolled the value of nursery education arid called for more resources to be devoted to it? When will he give a lead in this matter?

I am interested to note that the hon. Gentleman has given me the conclusions of a study that was never completed — [HoN. MEMBERS: "Smile."] This is a serious subject. The Scottish Office has no responsibility for nursery education and pre-school provision. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, of all hon. Members, should seek to persuade the Scottish Office to interfere in a matter that we have left to local authority discretion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has had any consultations with the Lanarkshire health board on the building of a new district general hospital within the Hamilton-East Kilbride unit; and if he will make a statement.

Any proposal for a new hospital would have to be supported by an option appraisal and would require approval in principle by my right hon. and learned Friend. The Scottish Home and Health Department and the health board's officials have discussed the matter briefly at a recent strategic planning meeting.

Is the Minister aware that within the Hamilton-East Kilbride unit there are 190,000 people who are not served by a district general hospital? When the hon. Gentleman considers this matter further, will he take full account of the strong representations made by the community, the consultants and the GPs within the Hamilton-East Kilbride unit for the building of this district general hospital at an early date?

As the Government are involved in the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the National Health Service in Scotland, I can understand why the hon. Gentleman expects a new hospital in his constituency. Any proposal for a new hospital would have to be submitted to the Department for approval in principle and be backed by a full and detailed option appraisal, to which we would give careful consideration.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take the point of order after the Standing Order No. 20 applications.