To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the funding for Crossroads care attendant schemes in Scotland.

I have received 25 letters about the funding of local Crossroads schemes in the past 10 months.

Does the Minister agree that the ending of the community programme will have a tremendously adverse effect on the excellent Crossroads scheme, which helps to give respite to the carers of over 4,000 disabled, multiple handicapped, sick people? Does he also agree that those people, who willingly and lovingly look after often confused and difficult relatives, desperately need time off just to do the ordinary things of life and that the Crossroads scheme enables them to do that? Will he tell us whether funding for the Crossroads scheme will continue and under what heading it might come—for example, the social work services group in Edinburgh?

I agree with everything that the hon. Lady said about the excellent work done by Crossroads schemes throughout Scotland. There are 42 operating in Scotland, of which 28 receive support from the Manpower Services Commission. There is no reason why funding should be withdrawn as a result of the changes in the employment training programme. Crossroads will be invited to apply to take part in the employment training programme, as will other voluntary bodies participating in the community programme.

Is the Minister aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment wrote to me on 28 March saying that the idea of a rate for the job will no longer be relevant to those employed on the scheme? Is he further aware that that is one of the main worries of those who are currently running the schemes and that, in East Kilbride, 300 beneficiaries of the scheme are likely to lose out if it does not continue?

The purpose of the scheme is to support carers and to help those in need of support. The question of the rate for the job does not arise. The training allowance is a more appropriate form of remuneration for a training programme. The proposed allowance will result in benefit entitlement, plus a premium of £10 to £12 a week. It will therefore be more attractive to unemployed people with families on higher benefit levels than the existing community programme wage limit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current proportion of confinements in (a) general practitioner units, and (b) specialist consultancy hospitals.

The latest figures are 7·1 and 92·9 per cent. respectively.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that general practitioner units, including those in rural areas, have a good record and an important part to play? I cannot expect him to comment at this stage, but, in relation to the proposals from Grampian health board about Torphins hospital in my area, will he bear in mind that if such proposals go ahead a large area with a big population, which is not easily accessible to Aberdeen, will be deprived of proper local maternity services?

My right hon. Friend has made clear his views on the Torphins proposal. Indeed, on 15 April he met my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and members of the Torphins Action Group. I can assure my right hon. Friend that, when the formal submission from Grampian health board goes to my right hon. and learned Friend, we shall take into account all the arguments that he has put forward and, indeed, all the submissions that we receive, before reaching any conclusion.

Are we to take it from his comments that the Minister has not yet received comments from Grampian health board? When does he expect to respond to proposals? What facilities will be offered by the Scottish Office for consultation and negotiation with the many interested parties in Grampian region on the future of maternity units? Does he agree that the centralisation of such facilities would be to the detriment of freedom of choice for mothers in rural communities?

For a moment I thought that the hon. Lady was going to congratulate Grampian health board on acceeding to a request not to close the unit at Keith in her constituency.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the health board should act constructively, sensibly and sympathetically to the problems of the far flung parts of our rural constituencies—the glens? Does he also agree that there are difficulties in getting to specialist units for confinement? Does he accept that the recent pay increase for nurses and others in the Health Service will substantially improve morale and service, and that that can only be good for all hospitals?

I agree with my hon. Friend. All health boards have a duty to review the services that they offer to ensure that the best use is made of resources and that the service meets the needs of the widest range of patients. Obviously, that includes taking into account the rural areas. My hon. Friend is quite right to refer to nurses' pay, which under this Government has increased in real terms by 44 per cent.

Not in Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman says, "Not in Scotland." When the Labour party was in power, nurses' pay was cut by 20 per cent. in real terms.

Is the Minister aware that many hospitals in Grampian and elsewhere, including Hartwood hospital in my constituency, are going through a tendering process for hospital services? Does he recall the Morrison directive, which stated that when considering tendering, cost should not be the only factor? Will he assure the House that he will not use his powers to insist that any particularly hospital must place a contract with the lowest tenderer, if that may result in a worse quality of services for patients?

I can help the hon. Gentleman rather more than he asks. I shall send him a copy of the advice that the Department has given to health boards. It makes it quite clear that competitive tendering is not simply about making savings. It is also about ensuring quality of service. We expect that competitive tendering will result in savings and, indeed, improved standards. That has been the experience in England. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to dissociate himself from those in the Labour party and in the trade union movement who fought so hard against competitive tendering, even though it offers many benefits to hospital services.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Strathclyde regional council to discuss education facilities in the region.

I have no plans to meet Strathclyde regional council to discuss education facilities.

The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), are on record as saying that they want to save Notre Dame school, Lady and St. Francis school and Paisley grammar school, from closure. The Secretary of State even went to the length of getting the Prime Minister to intervene in the case of Paisley grammar school. Parents want to keep open schools in my constituency, such as Colston, Elm Vale and St. Bede's.Why is the Secretary of State making flesh of some schools in Strathclyde and fell of others?

The hon. Gentleman is under a profound misunderstanding. The new regulations enable an appeal to be made to the Secretary of State where schools that are full, or substantially full, are proposed for closure. If schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency fall within those categories, they will be subject to appeal. I understand that St. Bede's is a denominational school. If its Catholic hierarchy is opposed to its closure, under existing regulations it would be subject to an appeal to the Secretary of State.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen copies of extremely offensive letters that parents of pupils at Neilston primary school in my constituency have been receiving from the leader of the council, Commissar Charles Gray? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that yesterday Commissar Gray announced to the Evening Times that he would refuse to meet the chairman of the Neilston action group, the local minister? Will my right hon. and learned Friend or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State agree to meet me, because people in Neilston are outraged that their letters will not be read by the leader of the council and by the implication that, because parents have had the temerity to write to Charles Gray, Neilston will be victimised? Is that not an outrageous way to behave towards parents and ratepayers?

I should certainly be concerned to hear that the convenor of Strathclyde regional council was not replying courteously to the representations of local people. Strathclyde regional council has often asserted its belief in the desirability of consultation. The Government believe in consultation, and we hope that the Labour party in Strathclyde region also believes in consultation. I am only too happy to meet my hon. Friend when he is making representations on behalf of his constituents.

Will the Secretary of State recognise the problem of falling school rolls in Strathclyde and other regional authorities? Would not his time be better spent on helping education authorities to deal with their problems than on making matters worse by pursuing unwanted ideas, such as school boards, proposals for testing, the curriculum and opting out, which were foisted on him by the Prime Minister and which have made him a figure of derision in Scotland?

I recognise the legitimate desire of Strathclyde regional council to rationalise excess capacity, but whether that is best achieved by closing popular schools is another matter. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I should have thought that today of all days he might have desisted from such comment. We are all slightly intrigued by the Labour party's latest proposals to allow parents and pupils to write confidentially to their local authority about the quality of schools. It would appear that the Labour party believes that assessment is all very well so long as it is conveyed by parents in confidence to a local authority, but not if it is conveyed in public so that teachers and the local authority can be made aware of the matters involved. The Labour party should stop playing double standards in this matter.

Order. We are making slow progress today. I ask for briefer questions and answers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if people registering their names and addresses for the purposes of the poll tax will still be required by the registration officers to add further details about their dates of birth.

Yes, Sir.

Does the Minister agree that this is a scandalous infringement of people's privacy? What guarantees can he give regarding the confidentiality of this peeping-Tom system?

There is nothing extraordinary or sinister about registering one's date of birth. It happens to us all soon after birth. Under section 20 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, access is clearly restricted.

Does my hon. Friend agree that local income tax, as advocated by the Social and Liberal Democratic party, the Scottish National party and a large number of Socialists, would require far more individual detail than is presently required by the community charge register?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That might not require the registration of dates of birth, but it would certainly require reference numbers of another kind, which would be far more complex and detailed.

Is the Minister aware that these poll tax forms provide an opportunity for an appeal against definition as a "responsible person"? Will he avail himself of that opportunity?

There is certainly an opportunity for appeal against a definition of "responsible person". It is a new concept which is introduced by this legislation. That seems to be a strange concept to the Labour Benches, which are peopled by irresponsible persons.

In agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about the amount of information required by a local income tax, does my hon. Friend also agree that the so-called Mates amendment would have involved a great deal of confidential information being made available to local councils?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know that registration officers in England and Wales will be empowered generally to seek information that they require, which could include dates of birth.

Does the inquiry form that is now being distributed by registration officers amount to designation under the statute as a responsible person? If so, does the right of appeal arise at this stage? Will the Minister address seriously the important question: is it necessary, when it has been specifically rejected by those drafting the English Bill, to have the date of birth included? Is that not the basis for tagging every adult with an algorithm—an obtrusive and threatening further invasion of privacy? Is it not time that Scottish Office Ministers followed the example of many of their Back-Bench colleagues and re-thought their position? Is it not clear that on a free vote, if such were allowed, the poll tax would be dead and buried? Has it not reached the point where public consent has clearly been withheld, and should not the whole offensive, unjust scheme be abandoned?

Designation does not begin with the issue of the canvass form. The canvass form is to enable the registration officer to designate a responsible person. The inclusion of dates of birth as a requirement on the registration form was at the request of local authority practitioners in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the Scottish Special Housing Association's recent rent increases.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that SSHA rents are among some of the highest in Scotland? Is he further aware that the recently imposed rent increases are way beyond three times the level of inflation? Is he also aware that in the same number of weeks we have seen horrific cuts in housing benefit? Will he assure us that he will move to stop the SSHA from levying such an appalling burden on its tenants?

The increases are not out of line with the increases for local authorities. SSHA rents increased by 11·1 per cent., compared with 11·6 per cent., which was the average increase for Scottish local authorities, and the rents paid by new towns tenants are higher. It is important that the appropriate mechanism for lowering the effective rents of those on low incomes or the unemployed should be through the revised housing benefit arrangements, which take account of household circumstances. The SSHA expects to spend 10 per cent. more on management and maintenance, which is the reason for the increase.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the evidence that a substantial number of people who are at present in council properties would be happy and delighted to transfer to SSHA properties because of its better record on maintenance and repairs?

I am convinced that the SSHA is regarded as a model landlord throughout Scotland.

Given these rent increases, does the Minister accept that, because of the changes in social security benefits and the relatively modest increase in the pension, large numbers of SSHA tenants will find themselves poorer this year than last year? That is the responsibility, not of the SSHA, but of the Government.

I have said that for every pound by which the rent of those who are on income support rises, their housing benefit will increase by a similar amount. Further, a housing deficit subsidy is payable to the SSHA. That subsidy was increased to £24·4 million this year. The purpose of the subsidy is to ensure that rents do not rise beyond a certain level.

Following the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), does my hon. Friend agree that it is significant, first, that he has received no representations about these rent increases, and, secondly, that 1,000 local authority tenants in Castlemilk have recently voted to go into the SSHA, despite higher rents, because they would receive higher standards of repair and maintenance?

It is significant that I have had no representations. I think it is valuable that the expertise of the SSHA should be involved in urban regeneration projects, and we would like to see more of that.

Does the Minister accept that those of us who have SSHA tenants in our constituencies recognise that there is a great deal of anxiety about the higher rents and the social security changes? Does he also accept that he would have received representations had the SSHA been an elected rather than an appointed body?

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say. There is to be a full debate on the social security arrangements and housing benefit later this afternoon, when the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to put forward that point.

Are not these unwarranted rent increases a bitter foretaste of what is in store for tenants in Scotland under the Scottish Homes organisation? Will the Minister stop playing cat and mouse with 80,000 SSHA tenants and give them a genuine choice, including the possibility of maintaining fair rents and security of tenure by transferring to local authorities when the SSHA is abolished under the Housing (Scotland) Bill?

I am glad to confirm—because there has been misinformation in certain areas—that SSHA tenants, when they become tenants of Scottish Homes, will retain all their existing rights. They will be secure tenants and their rents will be set according to the present procedure. As the hon. Gentleman asked about the setting of rents, I should point out that the council of management will determine the rents. In advising the SSHA of the annual deficit subsidy, the Scottish Development Department shows a range of possible increases. It is ultimately for the SSHA to determine rent levels which, with the deficit subsidy, will generate the revenue to maintain its stock in good order.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of Scotland's radiographers within the National Health Service.

Radiographers play an essential part in a range of diagnostic and therapeutic services.

Scotland's X-ray men and women will clearly see through the hypocritical cant of that answer. The Government have given early retirement opportunities at the age of 55 to physiotherapists and many grades of nurses on the ground that their work is strenuous. Why have they refused to allow radiographers to be considered for early retirement? Is their job not strenuous? Why are radiographers not being given a fair crack of the whip, when they are such an essential and hard-working part of Scotland's Health Service?

As to the question of cant, I remind the hon. Gentleman that under this Government radiographer's salaries have gone up in real terms by about 40 per cent. Under the Labour Government, which he supported, their salaries decreased in real terms by 21 per cent.

As well as the shortage of radiographers in the Health Service, the Minister will be well aware that there is a shortage of heart treatment facilities in the Aberdeen area. Will he tell the House when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the review body's findings, with particular reference to the shortage in Aberdeen?

First, I advise the hon. Gentleman that there is not a shortage of radiographers in the Health Service. Indeed, quite recently there was concern that there might be an over-supply. We have increased the numbers substantially. Secondly, on his question about providing additional facilities for cardiac surgery in the National Health Service, I shall be answering a written question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) today on that matter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that on top of the largest ever expenditure on the Health Service, which has been made in the current year, the Government have announced additional expenditure of £1·38 billion including, of course, the welcome pay award for nurses? Does that not show strongly that the Government really do care about health care and that they are determined to have the finest standards in the world?

Under this Government the Health Service in Scotland will receive rather more than an additional £200 million this year. That brings spending on the National Health Service to record levels—up by some 28 per cent. in real terms. We have the biggest capital investment programme and our nurses are better paid than ever before. If I may give just one example, the maximum salary for a sister on an acute ward will now be £13,925, which represents an increase of 16 per cent., as a result of the pay review award. That represents an increase in pay for sisters who have responsibilities on acute wards of 55 per cent. in real terms or of £4,945 since 1979, so we do not want any lectures from Opposition Members, who presided over cuts in nurses' pay.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further discussions he has had in relation to the future of Newbattle Abbey college.

On 10 February I met the hon. Gentleman with some of his colleagues to discuss the future of Newbattle Abbey college, and my officials met representatives of the board of governors on 25 January.

While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his answer, as he is supposed to be a friend of Newbattle Abbey adult residential college, may I ask him to explain the special factors about Scottish education which mean that Scotland has to be deprived of its adult residential college? Can he explain to the House why his office is prepared to fund students who go south of the border to colleges that are akin to Newbattle Abbey, but is not prepared to fund Newbattle Abbey college? Will he come to the Lobby tomorrow, like a real friend of Newbattle Abbey college, when he will get a full explanation?

I want the resources that are available to benefit the maximum number of people in Scotland who wish to enter higher education. The fact is that in the past year over 6,500 people over the age of 21 entered full-time higher education, of whom only 40 went to Newbattle Abbey. The conclusion that we have reluctantly come to is that the resources that at the moment are going into educating those 40 persons could be much more effectively used to provide the benefits of higher education to many more people than that.

About 20 minutes ago the Secretary of State said that the Government believed in consultation. If that is the case, will he now tell the House why he made his clear decision and announcement on Newbattle Abbey without consulting the board of governors or anybody else about it? Is that not an odd sort of consultation? Will he now answer the question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)? What is different about education in Scotland from that in England and Wales? What makes Scotland different? The Secretary of State did not answer that in the previous question that was put to him.

If the hon. Gentleman is putting forward the proposition that there should be uniformity of policy north and south of the border in educational matters, that is interesting when one takes into account earlier comments on other educational matters for which he has been responsible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much is spent on the education of each pupil in primary and secondary education; what were the comparable figures in cash and real terms five and 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

Between 1978–79 and 1986–87 spending per pupil in local authority primary schools in Scotland increased in real terms by 34 per cent. The corresponding increase for pupils in secondary schools was 26 per cent. I shall arrange for the full details to be published in the Official Report.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on those remarkable figures? The whingeing Labour party in Scotland should tell people the facts, which are that much more is being spent per pupil in Scotland than in England, Ireland and Wales—[Interruption.]

Order. This is the United Kingdom Parliament and the hon. Gentleman has a question on the Order Paper.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Scots cannot be basically a nation of slow learners or of less fundamental intelligence than the English, Welsh or Irish? So why is so much more being spent per pupil in Scotland than in the rest of the country?

Education costs £424 a year more per secondary pupil in Scotland than in England. It is difficult to be precise about the reasons for that, but they might include, for example, the fact that in Scotland we have a larger number of teachers per pupil and higher secondary teachers' salaries, and we have had less success than England in reducing surplus places. Most significant of all, the rates burden on schools in Scotland is much higher, being 8 per cent. in Scotland as opposed to 3 per cent. in England. Rates account for no less than 25·8 per cent. of non-teaching costs in our schools.

Will the Minister confirm that the main reason for the higher quality of education in Scotland is that none of our regional authorities have the misfortune to be run by his party?

I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that the education authorities are well funded under this Government and are provided with more staff than are those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. He will no doubt want to reflect that this year expenditure on education in Scotland will go up by about 9 per cent., which is a better performance than that under the Government whom he supported.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to assist in the development of the Fort William ski area and further development of the Glencoe ski facility; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's policy is that ski development should be initiated and led by the private sector. We are ready to assist, through our agencies, any viable proposals that are put forward.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I recently spent some time in the Scottish ski resorts—[Interruption.] Is my hon. Friend aware that those ski areas have tremendous potential for tourism and the creation of jobs, and that that potential is not being pursued in certain areas? Will he confirm that the way to deal with that problem is through private sector-led activity? The Fort William development is typical of places where jobs could be created for the betterment of the people of Scotland.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was delighted that he was able to benefit from Scottish skiing facilities and I hope that many Englishmen will benefit from them in the future. As regards the development of skiing in the Aonach Mor area, my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is important to have private sector input in any forthcoming development. The previous development plans included 84 per cent. funding from the public sector. Clearly that figure was too high for a project that then had questionable viability. We are, of course, prepared to consider further propositions.

Will the Minister arrange to transport all the Conservative district council candidates to the ski slopes of Fort William and Glencoe so that they can get plenty of practice for the massive slide that they will take next Thursday in the district council elections as a result of the poll tax, cuts in housing benefit and the suffering inflicted on the people of Scotland?

I do not believe that that question is worthy of an answer.

Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that skiing is one of the fastest-growing participant sports in Scotland? I am sorry that Opposition Members do not enjoy it. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that where developments take place it is important that they are on a sufficiently large commercial scale so that any developer can properly fulfil his financial obligations in maintaining the environment of the area?

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Skiing in Scotland is a fast expanding sport, just as Conservative participation in district councils will be fast expanding after next month.

Is the Minister aware that both the skiing areas that have been mentioned are in my constituency? It might have been a good thing if he had told his hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) that an expansion at Aonach Mor would have been in operation now had the Government taken the positive action towards that development that his hon. Friend appears to be urging upon him.

My hon. Friend urged upon me the strong involvement of the private sector. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will remember that the previous proposition involved 84 per cent. of public money and the cost per job would have been between £60,000 and £80,000. Given the questionable viability of that plan, that would not have been a desirable use of public funds.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of forestry products from the Isle of Wight for the last five years.

The value of timber and Christmas trees removed from Forestry Commission woodlands on the island between 1 April 1983 and 31 March 1988 was approximately £164,000. The value of produce from private woodlands over that period is not known.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the lack of a broadleaved woodland policy in the past has deprived our world-famous craftsmen and shipwrights of locally grown timber? Is my hon. Friend aware that the wooden ships that sailed out to defeat the Armada off the Isle of Wight, manned by the iron men of England, were built from oak taken from Hampshire and the Isle of Wight? Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, with a county council chairman named Drake, should we have to sail out tomorrow for a similar event we could only do so on pine log rafts?

I assure my hon. Friend that, although the Forestry Commission headquarters may be in my constituency, we are conscious of the interests of the Isle of Wight. Most of the productive woodlands on the island are managed by the Forestry Commission, which is presently restocking with broad-leaved trees where the soil conditions are suitable. My hon. Friend has had an invitation from the manager to visit the woodlands and he will discover that many of the trees are larches, which are suitable for boat building on the island.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the future of the Scottish brewing industry.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such representations.

Has the Minister not received any correspondence from Scottish and Newcastle Breweries on the question of theft? What constitutes a theft? Is it when a man steals £1,000 from his building society or defrauds the Inland Revenue of £500 or is it, perhaps, when a church-going director of Scottish and Newcastle comes to Workington, to a development area, and steals the jobs of people working in my constituency? Is he not the thief? Is it not fair to say that in 100 years' time, when we are more circumspect about such matters, it will be the director of Scottish and Newcastle who will be seen as the criminal, and perhaps not the others?

Plainly, the hon. Gentleman is an expert on this subject. So far as I am aware, the shareholders of Matthew Brown accepted a takeover bid from Scottish and Newcastle, as they were free to do. I seem to recall that Matthew Brown itself closed down a brewery in Carlisle—Theakston's a couple of years ago.

Has my hon. Friend noticed the article on page 25 of The Times today, from which it would seem that that excellent company, Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, was frustrated in 1985 by highly questionable, if not illegal, activities on the part of the supporters of Matthew Brown plc?

I have seen the article to which my hon. Friend has referred. He will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a continuing DTI investigation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Shetland Islands council regarding rates.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received a letter from the convenor of Shetland Islands council asking him to reconsider the council's rate support grant for 1988–89.

I know that the Minister is well aware of the deep concern in Shetland among domestic and business ratepayers at the 85 per cent. increase in rates. Does he not accept that for many years the needs element awarded to Shetland Islands council under the rate support grant has been much less—indeed, only half—the assessed need of the islands' council? Given the substantial rates increase, what hope can he give for a review of the rate support grant so that domestic and non-domestic ratepayers will get some relief?

I accept that the circumstances of Shetland are exceptional. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have always said that we would be willing to reconsider the position once the Sullom Voe valuation appeal was finally resolved. I am sure he will also appreciate that it is difficult to do this retrospectively when the grant has been fixed for a particular year and the cash has been distributed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients were cared for in Scottish hospitals in each year from 1979.

There was an increase in in-patient discharges from NHS hospitals in Scotland of 104,708 between 1979 and 1987. Out-patient attendances increased in the same period by 464,356 and day cases nearly doubled. With permission, I shall arrange to have the information requested published in the Official Report.

Is it not excellent news that the Scots are getting so much treatment? Is it not also the case that even more patients could be treated in Scotland if it were not for the attitude of the Scottish TUC, which is trying to insist that all work within Scottish hospitals is carried out by a closed shop of its own directly employed members at the expense of private sector employees, many of whom are also union members?

As I understand it, the STUC has called off official action against competitive tendering in hospitals in Scotland and is setting about ensuring that its members take part in the competitive tendering process, which we very much welcome. My hon. Friend is right to point to the success of the Health Service in Scotland and the effects of industrial action. Some 3,500 operations have been lost as a result of the action taken by the STUC, at a time when we have a major waiting list initiative. We are reducing waiting lists, which had no fewer than 20,000 people added to them because of the last round of industrial action organised by trade unions and supported by Opposition Members.

The Minister of State will no doubt be aware that tomorrow Lothian health board will announce its option appraisal plan for the replacement of the Royal infirmary in Edinburgh. Can he assure us that when the appraisal is finished the Government will fund the replacement of the infirmary so that it is not downgraded to the status of a district general hospital, and so that it can maintain its status as a major clinical and teaching centre in the United Kingdom and the world?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, for some time we have been emphasising the importance of Lothian completing the review of acute services so that a decision can be taken as to the best means of going forward with Edinburgh royal infirmary, whether on its present site or on a green field site. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to I he success of Lothian health board in establishing so many new capital projects in its area, including the new district general hospital at Livingston, which is one of the biggest capital projects under way in Scotland at present.

Can the Minister state how many hospitals in Scotland have been closed since 1979? Will he state his level of commitment to rural and borough hospitals in Scotland? Will he join in the fight in his own district of Angus to ensure that the maternity units in Montrose and Arbroath remain open to continue their excellent work? Will he state his level of commitment to such hospitals?

May I enlist the hon. Gentleman's support in the fight to improve the Health Service, instead of concentrating on attacking a Government who have ensured that out-of-date and redundant facilities are closed in order to invest in new facilities? I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a Scottish National Member, would point to the considerable share of the capital programme enjoyed by hospitals in Scotland. Since 1979 there have been no fewer than 53 new hospital projects costing more than £1 million, and 32 more are in the pipeline, yet the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to ask me about closures.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to monitor expenditure incurred by local authorities in compiling the community charge register.

The setting-up costs for the community charge register will be taken into account by local authorities when completing the usual monitoring returns which they send to central Government.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the cost is borne by the local authority? Does he further agree that the registration officer responsible for distributing poll tax forms and cards is an employee of the regional council? If he does agree, will he remind the registration officer for Glasgow that he works for the regional council and not for the Government? Apparently that officer does not agree that he is an employee of the council, and has said so both in court and to the press.

The already generous 1988–89 RSG settlement has made provision for an extra £12 million to be made available this year to meet current expenditure costs for the setting up of the community charge, in addition to which about £20 million of capital costs have been provided over the past two years.

Will my hon. Friend monitor the cost of non-co-operation of the kind sponsored by so many Opposition Members? As to dates of birth, does he recall that one has to give a date of birth when applying for a driving licence? Does he have any information on whether the Scottish Labour party will insist on people in Scotland giving up driving?

My hon. Friend is right. The increased cost resulting from the non-co-operation urged by the Labour party will have to be borne by other community charge payers. As to driving, the one consolation I have is that the Labour party does at least drive on the left-hand side of the road.

The Minister referred to the recent judgment in Glasgow sheriff court. Does he agree that the sheriff made it clear that the card being distributed by the registration officer, which appeared to suggest that people should not exercise their right to take three weeks to consider their position before returning the form, had no legal validity and could be ignored? Will the Minister take this opportunity to dissociate himself from the widely reported allegations by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the effect that those exercising their rights in raising genuine doubts about their role as responsible persons, and in testing the system, as they are legally entitled to do, may be liable to fines and criminal penalties that do not exist in the statute? That form of near-intimidation, or at least of misrepresentation, has been widely resented.

I would not dream of dissociating myself from anything said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, when accurately represented. As to the court case, I recall that the sheriff regarded the procedure of issuing postcards as being sensible, reasonable and practicable.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for the Government's social and health policies of the recently published preliminary return for 1987 for Scotland by the Registrar General.

I welcome the fact that the preliminary return indicates that infant mortality is at the lowest rate ever recorded. However, I am concerned about the level of premature deaths from lung cancer and coronary heart disease and will continue to promote health education measures.

I am sure that the Minister joins me in welcoming the Registrar General's information that the lowest-ever rate of infant and perinatal deaths and stillbirths was recorded in 1987. However, I draw his attention to a petition printed in today's Order Paper from mothers and members of the Royal College of Midwives in Dundee, which calls upon the Government to face the facts about the under-funding of the maternity services. Does the Minister agree that unless the Government face the facts and provide adequate funding the information from the Registrar General in future years may not be so encouraging?

The hon. Gentleman takes my breath away. The return from the Registrar General shows the lowest rates ever recorded for stillbirths and of perinatal mortality. That is an example of the success of this Government's investment in the Health Service. It is an example of the success of the Government's investment in the Health Service. It is true that a result of our success in saving infants with a very low birth weight is that they require some six weeks to three months of intensive and special care, and that of course causes intense pressure on the available cots. However, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge what is being done in the acceptance of the review body's recommendations on pay for those involved in intensive care in other aspects of the hospital. He should welcome what is being achieved, rather than using it as a means to attack the Government's record, which is excellent.

Will the Minister have regard to the burning needs and demands placed on the Health Service, both social and medical, and in particular the special implications of the AIDS epidemic on the east coast of Scotland? Is he satisfied that enough money is being devoted, in both social and the medical directions, to cope with the problem in future?

Yes, I am satisfied. If we were not satisfied, we would be devoting more resources to the problem. We have made an additional £1 million available to the health boards to help voluntary organisations. As for the resources required for local authorities, the hon. Gentleman knows that a working party has been examining the matter. Its assessment of need is well within the additional resources that we have made available for social work, w hich—I speak from memory—have gone up by nearly one third in real terms under the Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the net capital allocations for the housing revenue accounts for Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen district councils for the current financial year.

The net housing revenue account capital allocations for 1988–89 are £7·340 million for Edinburgh, £58·828 million for Glasgow, £8·095 million for Dundee and £10·506 million for Aberdeen. Councils may also utilise the actual capital receipts which they generate within the financial year.

Will the Minister explain why he refused to meet an all-party deputation from Edinburgh district council, which wished to voice its concern about the housing benefit changes that have had such a traumatic effect on the lives of so many pensioners and others in Edinburgh?

I have visited Edinburgh district council within the last few weeks, when I was made fully aware of the problems. I do not recall that particular point being an issue, but it will be fully debated later this afternoon. What council members were worried about was the rate at which council house sales might be carried out, and I hope that I was able to reassure them.

Will the Minister give an assurance that tomorrow he will meet a delegation of tenants from Cunninghame district, who are coming to lobby and to express their deep anxieties about Scottish Homes and various other aspects of housing policy? Will he come face to face with people's real and legitimate concerns?

I have attended meetings of tenants, and I recently addressed the Scottish tenants' organisation in Glasgow. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to meet me and put specific points, I shall certainly meet him. I leave it at that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the recommendations of the Griffiths report on community care; and if he will make a statement on his future policy.

The Government are considering Sir Roy Griffiths' proposals and reactions to his report. My right hon. and learned Friend will bring foward proposals for the development of community care policies in Scotland in due course.

Will the Minister let us know when he will publish his answer to the SHARPEN report?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the SHARPEN report was produced by a working party of the planning council. The council has now had an opportunity to consider it, and I believe that it has been forwarded to the Department. We shall consider the report and the foreword provided by the full planning council, and issue a response in due course.

The Government's response to the Griffiths report was very depressing, given that the failure to produce a coherent policy on community care is causing widespread suffering among the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government's response will come within the next couple of months, and no later?

This Government have done more than any of their predecessors for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped and when the party that the hon. Gentleman supports was in power it did nothing to improve facilities in units such as Lennox Castle and the Royal Scottish national hospital. Far from the Government's response being depressing, it was entirely responsible. The Griffiths report raises far-reaching proposals which require assessment, and local authorities and health boards need to be given an opportunity to respond to that report. We have given them that opportunity, and as a responsible Government we shall give the report considered thought before reaching any conclusions.

The Minister has made an extravagant statement about the Government's commitment to care in the community. Is he aware of the tremendous work being done by Scottish local authorities in difficult financial circumstances? Will he accept that the Disabled Persons Services, Consultation and Representation Act, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), has still not captured the imagination of the Government? When will they make a commitment to fund the Act before the Griffiths report is implemented?

The hon. Gentleman said that I had made some extravagant statements. We have made substantial commitments in expenditure on the Health Service and in transferring resources towards the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly, which have been a success for our policies. As to his point about local authorities being hard-pressed for funds, the resources that have been made available to them for social work have gone up by more than one third. It is a pity that they have not devoted more of these resources to providing facilities and devoting themselves to joint planning. We are making progress on that, but not fast enough. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his friends in local government.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to use Scottish Question Time as a dressing room? It is bad enough when Members such as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) turn up as imported token Scots in Scottish Questions, but it is even worse when they decide to sport tartan ties for which any normal Scotsman would demand a volume control. When they decide to take them off and pass them round at the end of Scottish Question Time, it is not only an act of provocation but an act of contempt towards the people of Scotland.

I repeat what I said earlier, that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) had a question on the Order Paper, and many Scottish Members have questions on the Order Paper on other days.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Not further to it.

On a point of order regarding the changing of dress in the Chamber. At Scottish Question Time some hon. Members come in wearing a kilt. Would it be in order for them to change from their kilt into trousers at the end of Scottish questions?

Certainly I hope not!