To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what allowance was made for inflation and growth, respectively, in his provisional allocation of resources to Scottish health boards for 1988–89.

The provision for expenditure by health boards on hospital and community health services in 1988–89 is 5·8 per cent. over the corresponding provision for last year, which includes an allowance for inflation of 4·5 per cent. and for growth of 1·3 per cent.

Does the Minister sincerely believe that the figure for growth that we have—0·5 per cent.—is sufficient to meet the needs of the Scottish health boards, in whose areas thousands of people are waiting for treatment on the National Health Service?

The hon. Gentleman obviously prepared his supplementary question before listening to my answer. The figure for growth for health boards this year is 1·3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that health boards have never been better funded in real terms than under this Government, having had an increase in funding of more than a quarter since 1979.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in cash terms, we are spending more than double what was spent in 1978–79, which followed a period when there had been cuts in building and resources for the Health Service under the Labour Government? Is it not a real demonstration of the Government's concern for the Health Service and for caring that we are spending so much more?

My hon. Friend is right. The only cuts in the Health Service in the past 20 years were made under the Labour Government, who were forced to cut the capital building programme. My hon. Friend is right to point to our record. Not only are we spending more, but we are getting more value for the money spent in the Health Service.

The Minister must be aware that the actual figure for next year's increase as against the previous outcome is only 0·5 per cent. He will also know that that level is barely enough to cope with demographic demand, let alone to improve the Health Service. Because of the chronic and continuing under-funding by the Government hospitals such as the Elsie Inglis in Edinburgh will have to close, and as a result patients' choice will be diminished.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. When he has had the opportunity to do his homework he will realise that the cash uplift is about 4 per cent. for all boards in Scotards in Scotland. The overall cash uplift is 5·8 per cent. The 4 per cent. goes to all boards, plus an additional I per cent. which is being redistributed on the SHARE formula. In addition, there is a further £12 million that has not yet been distributed to health boards, so it is premature to pronounce on their allocations.

Given the widespread interest in Scotland in the recommendations of the Griffiths report, is the Minister satisfied that within the small increase in the budget for health boards it will be possible for the boards to implement many of those recommendations?

We are giving careful consideration to the Griffiths report, which involves funding not just by health boards but by local authorities. We have made substantial increases in funding for health boards and social works depts of local authorities, and we shall certainly consider the recommendations carefully. Resources are not the problem. We must address ourselves to joint planning and organisation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency; and what matters were discussed.

My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairman and board of the agency on 16 May to discuss strategic issues which might be reflected in the agency's planning and budgeting process, and other matters.

Did my hon. Friend have a chance to discuss the increasing success of the Scottish electronics industry, which has increased its output threefold since 1979? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish people can now deploy their well-known and traditional qualities of doughtiness, courage and entrepreneurial flair in pursuit of economic growth? Is it not a shame that those qualities are so little apparent: on the Opposition Benches?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The growth of the electronics industry in Scotland has been a major contribution to the development of a broader based and more secure economic environment in which prosperity can spread more widely.

The Minister will be aware that Teachers whisky announced over 200 redundancies last week, in addition to the many other redundancies that have taken place in Springburn. Will he involve SDA officers in bringing work, rather than closures, to Springburn?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the agency is engaged on a large number of initiatives in local areas in Scotland, and I am sure that it will note his remarks.

Will the Minister consider providing extra funding to Locate in Scotland in order to boost Scottish preparation for the single European market in 1992? What is his Department doing to encourage seminars and projects throughout Scotland to maximise Scottish employment and success in that market?

We are already heavily involved in seeking to prepare companies in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, for the single European market. Part of the great success of Locate in Scotland in attracting inward investment to Scotland over the past few years is because it is perceived as being a good base for European manufacturing operations, particularly in electronics, but also in other industries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding a Scottish Assembly since 5 May.

I have received two letters in favour of an Assembly and two against.

I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the district election and the general election results, and that he did a somersault on devolution. He will also be aware that he bestowed on himself powers under the Local Government, Planning and Land (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981 and thereby eroded democracy in Scotland. Is he aware that the only way getting rid of totalitarian demagoguery is by abolishing the poll tax and establishing a Scottish assembly?

I am aware that at the local elections the Conservative vote in my constituency increased from 39 to 46 per cent. and, indeed, that in Edinburgh the Conservative vote was greater than the Labour vote for the first time in five years. I doubt whether the Scottish public believe that a tax-raising Assembly would be in the interests of the Scottish economy or the other economic requirements of Scotland.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Scots have seen through the flawed proposals that have been put forward for any type of Scottish Assembly? Does he agree that the proposals, as they now stand, would have no chance of passing through the House, whatever its political complexion, because eight out of every 10 people in English constituencies would not want their Members to vote in favour of it?

As almost every Labour Government since the war required Labour Members of Parliament from Scotland and Wales to provide them with their United Kingdom majority, it is increasingly puzzling why the Labour party should wish to adopt a constitutional solution that will result in a substantial reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster and the end of any effective voice for Scotland in the United Kingdom Cabinet.

The Secretary of State knows full well that many people in Scotland have strong views on a Scottish Assembly. Does it not occur to him that it is a bad thing that only four bother to write to him—mainly because they know that he will not listen?

On the contrary, since the election the Labour party and, indeed, the Social and Liberal Democratic party have been unable to demonstrate any substantial demand in Scotland for constitutional change. I recollect that when the Labour party called for a great rally on Glasgow Green for Scottish democracy, fewer people turned out for that than the number who voted Conservative in the Glasgow, Garscadden constituency.

Did any of the four letters received by my right hon. and learned Friend address itself to what has come to be known as the West Lothian question? Does he agree that if Scottish domestic issues are to be reserved to a specifically Scottish Assembly it will be difficult to justify Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster retaining their right to vote on and debate the full range of English domestic issues?

My hon. Friend has raised a genuine and serious problem that the Labour party must consider. The Labour party and, for that matter, the Social and Liberal Democratic party, are, by instinct, as Unionist as the Conservative party, yet they have failed to appreciate that the constant adapting of nationalist rhetoric is incompatible with the Unionist position that they have upheld since they were formed. They cannot at the same time argue for a Scottish Assembly unless they are prepared to provide an adequate and credible answer to the question that was so effectively raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who then represented West Lothian.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman not spent too much time recently in that painfully unrepresentative gathering, the Scottish Conservative party conference? Is there not a clear wish for some form of constitutional change in Scotland? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not quite recently say that there was at least a preference for devolution in Scotland, although he still argued whether it was a priority? Is it not a dangerous exercise in obstinacy to try to go back on that, as he is now apparently doing? Has not the message about the Government's unacceptable social and constitutional policies been proclaimed loud and clear this morning in the unanimous decision of the Church of Scotland not to invite the Prime Minister to the General Assembly next year? [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman may laugh at the Church of Scotland, but that will not do him a great deal of good in Scotland. Clearly, the right hon. Lady's sermon made few converts, and unacceptable policies remain unacceptable, however cleverly disguised. Is it not time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought again on devolution and an Assembly, as on many other policies?

I am amused, and it is significant, that, given the nature of the hon. Gentleman's questions, he clearly considers the General Assembly to be more important to Scotland than his proposals for a Scottish Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received an extremely warm and genuine welcome from the General Assembly, and the efforts of a tiny minority of the commissioners of the General Assembly, led by a commissioner who is also a Labour councillor on Glasgow district council, were seen to be totally unrepresentative of the views of the vast majority. Of the 1,200 present, only five, including that Labour councillor, showed the discourtesy that is so untypical of the Church of Scotland as a whole.

rose——

Order. I appreciate that we are about to debate the spring Adjournment motion, but I hope we can have less of a holiday atmosphere at Question Time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of registration for the community charge.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to what proportion of registration forms for the community charge have been returned properly completed to the registration officer for each of the regional authorities in Scotland.

Detailed information on the progress of community charge registration is not available centrally, but it is clear that in many areas very high rates of return of forms have been achieved in the initial canvass. There is every reason to believe that the registration process is going smoothly.

Will the Minister assure the House that he will seek a detailed statement of the progress of the registration from the poll tax registration officers, because there is evidence in some areas that the registration process is failing substantially? If some areas can achieve only 80 to 90 per cent. registration rates from direct returns from the public and therefore have to pad out the registrations with information from their own resources, will that not lead to registers being substantially appealed against after October, and will that not cause much delay and time-consuming and expensive administrative procedures?

I have every confidence that the registration officers will be able to fulfil their statutory duties without any interference from me. At the moment we are only a quarter of the way through the period for compiling the register, yet the signs from published figures are that the returns are in the region of 75 to 90 per cent. If anything is failing dismally, it is the Labour party's campaign to launch a "Return to Sender" campaign.

Is the Minister aware that in my post this morning I received an invitation from the Secretary of State for Scotland to witness the retreat of the bands of the Royal Marines? We have already witnessed the retreat of the Tory party from Scotland, and the cries of anguish were painful indeed.

Those figures are not returned to the Government. They are compiled by the registration officers, and they announce the figures if they so wish. I hope the hon. Gentleman shares my view that the most effective way to get the community charge system to fund local government successfully is to spread it as widely as possible across the adult population. If not, those who complete the form and end up on the register will pay a higher share than would otherwise be fair.

Does my hon. Friend agree that registration for the community charge will take time, as we expected? Does he also agree that it is interesting that Angus district, which is run by the Scottish National party, and Perth and Kinross, where there is a Scottish National party provost, have clearly declared that people should register, comply with the law and pay the community charge? That is contrary to what Scottish National party members have been saying.

I commend the attitude of Angus district council and I hope that its views will percolate through to its parliamentary representatives.

In his obviously carefully prepared initial answer the Minister referred to published figures. Where are they published, and what are they? As far as I am aware, there has been only some speculation in The Sunday Times, which is virtually a Conservative party house journal. Given the depressing spectacle in another place earlier this week of reactionary hereditary power being marshalled cynically to frustrate the views of public opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—what advice would the Minister give to Scots who recognise and oppose the unjust nature of the poll tax, but who are faced by a Government whose definition of democracy does not involve listening to the electorate?

That was obviously a very carefully prepared question. The published figures to which I referred were published in the press. The press will note with interest the disdain with which its published articles are treated by the Labour party. My advice to members of the public who are opposed to the legislation is to accept the rule of law. In that respect they will differ from the Labour party.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed the proposals for privatisation of the electricity industry with the chairmen of the Scottish electricity boards.

I last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board on 1 March and the chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board on 3 March to discuss privatisation of the electricity industry in Scotland.

The Secretary of State has often said that once privatisation has taken place he would wish a substantial number of shares to be retained within Scotland. Has he given any thought to proposals to ensure that that happens, given that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, has said:

"We shall be placing on the American market a proportion of the stock we shall be selling in the existing companies."?

In previous privatisations those who are both employees and consumers of a nationalised industry have often been given preference in the acquisition of shares. In respect of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, almost every consumer, with the sole exception of those living in Berwick-upon-Tweed, lives in Scotland. Therefore, if the Scottish public are interested in acquiring a substantial stake in the ownership of the two companies, they will have a preferential opportunity to do so.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman met the chairmen of the electricity boards in Scotland, was he able to assure them that a separate Scottish Bill would be published and that the proposed privatisation would not be hived off on to the Bill that is being submitted for the privatisation of electricity in England and Wales?

So far neither of the chairmen has expressed any preference for a particular form of legislation. Whether electricity privatisation should be part of a United Kingdom Bill or dealt with by separate English and Scottish Bills is a matter still to be resolved.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, apart from leading to wider share ownership, privatisation of the Scottish electricity industry will lead to lower prices to the consumer and greater job opportunities in manufacturing industry?

My hon. Friend is correct. There is no reason why the privatisation of both companies should not have the same benefits for the public as all previous privatisations, despite predictions to the contrary by the Labour party.

Will the Secretary of State now answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)? What guarantees will he put in the legislation to ensure that, in the months and years following the privatisation of the two electricity boards, control will remain in Scotland?

I cannot guarantee that the Scottish public will use the opportunities that the Government provide. The Scottish public will have a unique opportunity to acquire shares and therefore to acquire the ownership of the companies. Whether they wish to take advantage of those opportunities will be for them to decide. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that that would be a responsible position to adopt.

The Secretary of State has said that he cannot guarantee continued Scottish ownership of the Scottish electricity industry. Can he give the House any guarantee that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board will have a social clause that is meaningful to the north of Scotland with regard to reconnections, repairs of lines and other aspects of its activities?

The original reasons for the social clause were not those raised by the hon. Gentleman. Those reasons were to ensure that the remote rural areas and island communities had access to the benefits of the board's activities—that has already been achieved—and to achieve common tariffs throughout the area. In the White Paper we have already made it clear that we intend to ensure that there will be common tariffs throughout the board's area.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the most recent average weekly earnings figures for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates in Scotland in April 1987 are estimated to have been £214·6 for men and £139·9 for women. In both cases, only the south-east of England had higher earnings.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that that demonstrates the enormous success and well-being of Scottish people and economy? Therefore, does my hon. Friend accept that in future the Scottish people will look less towards the public sector and more towards their own great economic success? Will my hon. Friend confirm, however, that earnings from self-employment are still disappointingly low, and can he give us any goods news or optimism for the future?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, in that the Scottish economy is responding well to the encouragement of enterprise and the stable economic base generated by the Government's policies. He is quite right also to identify self-employment as an important sector in the Scottish economy. We wish to encourage its growth. I am glad to say that since 1981 the numbers of self-employed have risen by 45,000, whereas in the previous three decades there had been no increase at all.

Is the Minister not astonished that a leading free market entrepreneur such as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) does not seem to be aware that the private sector Reward Group in its recent study discovered that the cost of food, transport, household goods and even drink in Scotland are considerably higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom? Does that not explain why the hon. Gentleman represents Mid-Worcestershire instead of Mid-Strathclyde?

I do not think that we need lessons on inflation from the Opposition, given the record of the last Labour Government between 1974 and 1979, when the cost of living more than doubled. It is precisely our great success in bringing down the rate of inflation in Scotland as elsewhere that has helped us establish the strong economic base that is leading to the growth of prosperity in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many major hospital building projects are under construction and at what cost; and what were the comparable figures for 1978–79.

Ten major hospital building projects are currently under construction, estimated to cost some £97 million. Comparable figures for 1978–79 are not available, but provision for the health capital programme increased by 23 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1987–88.

Bearing in mind the complete failure of the Labour Government in the 1970s, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the capital programme is the biggest ever in real terms? Does he also agree that the increase in nurses' salaries and the very substantial future changes in the structure of the nursing profession must hold tremendous prospects for the National Health Service in Scotland?

My hon. Friend is quite correct. The hospital building programme in Scotland is the largest in the history of the National Health Service in Scotland. Since 1979, 53 major new hospital developments have been completed and there are 33 major developments currently in the programme, of which three are being commissioned, 10 are under construction and 20 are at the planning stage. That shows the commitment of the Government to ensure that Scotland has hospital facilities that we can be proud of and that will last into the next century.

Is it not the case that the hospitals that the Secretary of State was talking about were approved by the last Labour Government? Will he say how many approvals for new hospitals have been given since 1979?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is desperately trying to retrieve the situation, but he knows perfectly well that the hospital building programme was cut under the last Labour Government——

How many?

We measure Governments not by their claims but by their deeds. The hon. Gentleman has to live with the fact that the Government whom he supported cut the hospital building programme, while under this Government we have the biggest ever hospital building programme.

While welcoming the real and demonstrable commitment of the Government to new hospital building in Scotland, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that health boards use properly those facilities that they have available? Will he bear that particularly in mind in the consideration that he will shortly be giving to the proper provision of maternity services in rural areas in Grampian, where there are good facilities which are wanted by the local community and which the health board is trying to close?

My right hon. Friend is correct. Given the vast resources that health boards have at their disposal, it is particularly important that they ensure that they get the best value for those resources in the interests of patients.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to proposals for the building of a district general hospital on the site of Strathclyde hospital in Motherwell.

My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any proposals from the Lanarkshire health board for a new district general hospital.

Is the Minister aware that the Lanarkshire health board has recently discovered mining subsidence on the site of the Law hospital, which makes it quite unsuitable for modernisation and development of that wartime emergency hospital on which Motherwell and Wishaw have depended for the past 40 years? Is he also aware that the Strathclyde hospital site has long been designated as a site for a new district general hospital? Will he tell the Lanarkshire health board to get on with it?

I thought that it was the position of Opposition Members that I should not tell the health boards to get on with anything. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Lanarkshire health board, as part of its general review of its long-term acute services strategy, is examining the case for a new district general hospital for the Hamilton-East Kilbride area. If it were to submit a proposal for a new hospital it would need to be backed by a full and detailed option appraisal. I await the board's proposals with interest.

Is the Minister aware that the saga of the Motherwell district general hospital has been drifting on for about 25 years? Is he also aware that the huge Motherwell-Hamilton conurbation is seriously ill served in acute hospital services? When he considers the allocation of capital for hospital building, will he consider the desirability of building a new district general hospital for the Hamilton-East Kilbride area?

It is true that, this matter has been under consideration for some time, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the board decided to give priority to new schemes at Kirklands hospital, Udston hospital and Hairmyres hospital shortly after 1978. Those schemes are now coming to fruition and they reflect the SHAPE priorities and the priority that has been given to services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has assessed the likely impact on Scotland of the Cecchini report on the single European market; and if he will make a statement.

The Cecchini report supports the view that the internal market will create major opportunities. I have no doubt that the Scottish business community will rise to the challenge of 1992.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent speech by Mr. Hamish Morrison, chief executive of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), in which he said that he resented the fact that Government advertising on this issue represented Scottish business men as introspective bumpkins? He went on to say that British industrial policy did not match the realities of 1992 More important, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the implications of the Channel tunnel and the need for infrastructural development? Is he also aware of the lack of regional policy and of the tremendous contribution made to Scotland by the financial services sector in Edinburgh? If he is aware of all those aspects, will he prepare a report on 1992 so that the Labour party can take advantage of the opportunities, as the Labour party wants to do, unlike the Conservative party, which is complacent and seems to be uninterested in Scotland benefiting from the single European market?

I welcome the Labour party's latter-day conversion to the EEC because, with almost the sole exception of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the Labour party campaigned against Scotland's membership of the EC and was thoroughly repudiated by the Scottish electorate when the referendum on the Community took place. I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's passionate support for the Scottish financial sector. It would be nice if his Labour colleagues could show the same spontaneous enthusiasm for the development of financial institutions in Scotland as a means of creating employment and boosting our Scottish economy. I agree that the internal market will be in Scotland's interests if we can prepare ourselves in a suitably professional way. For example, it is encouraging that it was a Scottish company that acquired the contract for the initial work on the Channel tunnel. Anything that enables our exports to reach continental markets more quickly and effectively can only be in the interests of the Scottish economy.

As one of the Labour Members of Parliament, numbering 69, who voted for the Heath Government's White Paper, I have reasonable credentials to enable me to speak on Britain's membership of the EC, and I have the scars to prove it. However, this is a serious matter. The Secretary of State surely has an obligation to report particularly on the economic implications for Scotland of the 1992 proposal. Will he also take into consideration the fact that the economic effects of 1992 are likely to strengthen the case for a Scottish Assembly as a counterpoise, in terms of political decision-making, to the over-centralisation of the United Kingdom decision-making process in London?

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's European credentials and his entitlement to speak with some authority on matters involving the EC. However, I must disagree with his latter observation, because I cannot see, in the context of a European internal market, why a Scottish Assembly, with the power to impose additional taxes on Scottish industry, could do anything other than weaken Scotland's ability to compete effectively within that European market.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend also welcome the Labour party's conversion, not just to the idea of Europe, but to the idea of a market? How does he square the Labour party's new-found enthusiasm for the single European market with its constant wittering about the need for a closed Scottish economy?

My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the fundamental inconsistencies of those who argue on the one hand that Scotland must be protected by law and by Government from any action of the market, while on the other they expect Scotland fully to benefit from that same market. The Labour party must identify where Scotland's interests truly lie. Few people in the modern world would argue that some form of siege economy could be anything other than intensely damaging to Scotland's economic future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest estimates of the number of Scottish houses which are (a) damp and (b) below tolerable standard.

Returns submitted by local authorities indicate that at 31 March 1987, 38,100 local authority dwellings required treatment for dampness alone, 78,400 required treatment for both dampness and condensation, and a total of 53,000 dwellings were below the tolerable standard in Scotland.

Is it not disgraceful that more than 100,000 Scottish homes suffer from dampness and that more than 50,000 dwellings, most of them in the private sector, are below a tolerable standard? Why is it that the Secretary of State for Scotland rejects a house condition survey when the Secretary of State for Wales has just spent £1·6 million on such a survey so that he may be better acquainted with the housing problems of Wales and produce a programme for the future? Does not the ignorance of the Secretary of State for Scotland about the problems of Scottish housing and his failure to plan for the future ill fit him for his office?

No. We are not convinced of the case for a national house condition survey as opposed to the requirement for local authorities to fulfil their statutory responsibility to assess the needs in their own areas. We support local authorities undertaking their own house condition surveys, as Glasgow has done.

Is it correct to say that when the Minister was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs investigating housing conditions he not only supported its call to the Government for a housing condition survey but voted for one?

The hon. Member has a very good memory. We do not rule out a national house condition survey on principle. [Interruption.] The matter is under consideration. We strongly support the principle of local authorities undertaking their own surveys, as Glasgow has done, which will assist both the authorities and their communities.

How many of the councils responsible for housing that is below a tolerable standard are controlled by the Labour party?

I would think a considerable number. However, we expect substantial progress to be made. In the early days there was a great deal of demolition, but now houses will be renewed and rehabilitated, so that families may continue to live in them.

Does the Minister agree that if the Government are not to be accused of double standards public housing in Scotland should be brought up to at least the standards enjoyed by the governor general seated next to the Minister, who has an official residence in Edinburgh named Bute House? Is it true that £100,000 was spent on Bute House last year? If so, how can the Minister justify that expenditure?

It is important that more should be spent on public sector housing in Scotland this year. The final housing revenue account capital allocations for this year total £58 million more than the provisional allocations and are more than £34 million up on last year.

In this week of scriptural references, is the Minister aware of the words of Matthew 15:

"if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch?"

It certainly will not be a question of the blind leading the blind, because we are issuing to authorities a handbook of guidance on the conduct of local house condition surveys. One of the difficulties about a national house condition survey is that the sample might be relatively small. In our view, it is more effective at this stage for local authorities to carry out their statutory responsibilities by making certain that they know the precise details of their own housing stock.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were unemployed in Scotland in June 1983 and March 1988; and if he will make a statement.

Seasonally adjusted, the number of unemployed claimants was 308,000 in June 1983 and 300,000 in March 1988. Latest figures show a further drop to 295,000 in April, continuing the firm downward trend.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his reply. Has he noted the figures for unemployment in the long term, which were published yesterday, showing that in Scotland over the past 12 months there has been a reduction of 36,600–16·5 per cent.—in the number unemployed for six months, and a further 28,800–15·6 per cent.—reduction in the number unemployed for 12 months? Does that not vindicate the Government's economic policy and show that it is working in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the good news that long-term unemployment is falling in Scotland as well as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I agree with him that that is a result of sustained commitment over a period of years to our economic policies, which are now delivering more increased prosperity.

Will the Minister now tell us the whole truth about the Government's track record on Scottish unemployment, which is that there has been an increase of 97 per cent. since that woman got the keys to No. 10 in May 1979?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's confusion over the matter, because no Labour Government have ever experienced the phenomenon of sustained falls in unemployment. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that in his constituency unemployment has fallen in the past year by 1,022.

Order. My attention was distracted, but I remind the House that we should refer to each other by our constituencies or offices in this place.

Does the Minister accept that in "Just Sharing", the book published by the Church of Scotland, unemployment is given as one of the main reasons why poverty in Scotland has nearly doubled during the years of this Conservative Administration? What steps do the Government intend to take to address themselves to that fundamental question of poverty in Scotland?

The best way of countering poverty is by increasing prosperity, and that is what we have been doing in the past few years. We now have falling inflation, falling unemployment, increasing prosperity, increased investment and a rising standard of living for the vast majority of Scots.

Does my hon. Friend agree that last year's record level of business registrations in Scotland, and the considerable growth in self-employment, not only pay tribute to the growth of the enterprise economy in Scotland but will contribute greatly to further reductions in unemployment?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures for self-employment that I gave earlier this afternoon show the growth of enterprise in Scotland. It is also encouraging that employment during the last quarter of 1987 rose by around 7,000, and that business surveys from such bodies as the CBI and the Fraser of Allander Institute demonstrate that that growth is continuing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what categories of assistance or grant his Department has paid to Scottish and Newcastle Breweries in respect of its Scottish operations since 1979.

The company received assistance from my Department under the old regional development grant scheme, which ended in 1984. It has received no assistance under regional selective assistance since 1979 or under the revised regional development grant scheme.

Was the Scottish Office consulted about the takeover of Charles Mackinlay by Invergordon Distilleries? If the Minister cannot answer now, will he undertake to write to me? Is he aware that hundreds of tenant-publicans in my constituency have been given notice to quit by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries? When Scottish and Newcastle next brings the begging bowl to the Scottish Office, will he tell it that, while the importation of Scottish and Newcastle best bitter is a bad enough imposition on my constituency, the imposition of Scottish and Newcastle's industrial relations practices is not acceptable?

I would not expect my Department to have been consulted on the takeover, but if I find that we were consulted I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman. The details of the relationship between Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and the company that it has taken over are a matter for the company and not for the Scottish Office.

Does the Minister accept that the consumption of the products of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries appears to have played some part in the ugly scenes at Wembley last weekend? Will he take this opportunity to repudiate the offensive suggestion by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that the effects were visible on one side only, or the idea that they have anything to do with the Government's support of the company?

That is very wide of the question.

I think it unwise for anybody to comment on such incidents without having access to all the facts.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is spreading despondency among the Home brewery tenants and the company although he knows full well that the National Licensed Victuallers Association has accepted the proposals put forward by the company and is putting the proposals to its tenants tomorrow?

Yes, indeed. I understand that 90 per cent. of the tenants have accepted the new rent levels from Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and that production and employment at the Home brewery has increased.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many tons of coal have been imported by the South of Scotland Electricity Board since 1 April.

The level of coal deliveries to the South of Scotland Electricity Board is a matter for the board and its suppliers. I understand from the SSEB that around 20,000 tonnes have been delivered to date.

Will the Minister join me in hoping that those figures will not in any way impede the negotiations between the SSEB and British Coal, as I understand that progress has been made on price and tonnage? Will the Minister assure us that he will give his backing to a deal that will secure jobs in the Scottish coal industry for as long as possible into the mid-1990s?

I would certainly welcome a successful outcome to those negotiations, but that outcome must be based on a realistic perception of the competitiveness of British Coal and its ability to enable the electricity board to generate electricity competitively.

Is the Minister not taking the role of a disinterested spectator in the negotiations? Is he not aware that unless the coal side of electricity in Scotland is kept up we shall have to depend more and more on nuclear energy, with all the implications that that has for price and safety?

I am not uninterested in the negotiations but I do not believe that it is right and proper that we should interfere in them. There is every opportunity for Scottish coal to contribute to the generation of electricity, provided that it is available competitively.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Scotland is fortunate to have a wide variety of fuel resources? Will he also acknowledge that if the coal industry is to invest in deep mining it requires contracts for a reasonable period or years? Therefore, will he use what opportunity may be available to him to ensure that the SSEB takes a realistic view, as the CEGB has done in the south?

I certainly hope that realism will colour the negotiations on both sides. I welcome the signs of increased flexibility over working hours on the part of miners.

It is just not good enough for the Minister to shrug off the negotiations between British Coal and the SSEB as though they were none of his business. He must be well aware of the problems and delays facing the implementation of the plans for the Torness power station. He must be well aware also of the problems at the Hunterston B power station, which is now 50 per cent. closed and must have a large question mark over its future. Surely he sees a role for the Government in promoting a strategic policy for energy production in Scotland.

I believe that Scotland is fortunate to have such varied sources of fuel for electricity generation. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government ought to indulge in the beer and sandwiches approach to the negotiations that got the country into so much difficulty in the late 1970s, I assure him that he is mistaken.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79, at constant prices.

In 1986–87, net current expenditure per pupil in secondary schools in Scotland at outturn prices was £1,764. This is 26 per cent. more in real terms than the comparable figure in 1978–79, which at 1986–87 prices was £1,403.

How do those figures square with claims that there have been cuts in secondary education expenditure under this Government?

Such claims, which have been made by Opposition Members, are untrue. Expenditure has increased substantially in real terms. In the current year expenditure provision for education will increase by some 9 per cent., which is a real increase well above the rate of inflation.

Does the Minister agree that his figure for expenditure per pupil reflects declining school rolls rather than increased Government expenditure? The reality in Scottish schools continues to be chronic under-funding. If there has been the British economic miracle about which Conservative Members keep talking why is it not reflected in expenditure on Scottish schools?

Expenditure in Scottish schools is considerably higher than in England. One of the reasons for that is that a substantial part of the resources is spent on property costs, including the additional burden of rates, and on the lower pupil-teacher ratio because there are proportionately more staff. Labour-controlled local authorities in Scotland have made little progress in rationalising school places. In England, since 1979, the number of secondary schools has been reduced by 10 per cent. The comparable figure for Scotland is only 1 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend give the latest pupil-teacher ratio in Scottish schools and compare it with the figure for 1978–79, when we had a Labour Government? Will he then draw the attention of the House, and that of Scotland and the rest of the nation, to the substantial improvement that has been made since then?

I shall he happy to provide that information in the Official Report. The pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools in Scotland is 13·2:1 as against 15·6:1 in England.

Why is the Minister so reluctant to address himself to the problem of falling school rolls in Scotland, particularly the fall in secondary education? Why does he not accept that such improvement as has been achieved in funding has been achieved by Labour-controlled authorities despite cuts in rate support grant made by the Government? Why does the Minister not admit to these things? Why does he not improve education at the point of use, rather than engage in this useless debate about figures that are utterly meaningless in real terms?

If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to endorse local authorities' action in rationalising school places, I should be happy to do so. It is a pity, however, that education authorities such as Strathclyde perceive rationalisation as closing full schools rather than empty ones. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about resources, he should ask Strathclyde why it cannot guarantee that any savings that it makes from rationalisation will be used to add to education provision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department has prepared an analysis of the likely effects on the administration of the Scottish public sector housing stock of the number of people in Scotland who will face reductions in income as a result of the recent housing benefit changes.

No, Sir, but there is no reason to suppose that the housing benefit changes will have any significant effect at all on the administration of public sector housing.

Is the Minister aware that many constituents have written to me and, I am sure, to many other right hon. and hon. Members, expressing their genuine fear about the housing benefit changes? Has the Minister produced any figures that show how many people are worse off as a result of the changes, and what the average loss is? Instead of preaching to these people, many of whom are pensioners, why do the Government not do something to deal with their plight?

I am responsible for the structure of local government. We believe that housing agencies will be very well able to cope. The new system will be simpler and easier to administer. The administration of public sector housing, involving such matters as management, maintenance arid allocation policy, should not be affected by the payment of housing benefit. On the same night as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) had an Adjournment debate, a letter explaining the situation fully was sent out to every right hon. and hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled.

The Minister says that the changes will have little effect on the administration of housing departments. Does he accept that the changes will have an appalling impact on ordinary people in Scotland'' How does he reconcile the fashionable preaching about morality with the cruel and inhuman changes in housing benefit, which are causing so much dismay and distress in every part of the land?

As the hon. Member knows, housing benefit is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Services. However, I can tell him that nearly 90 per cent. will gain, or will get the same amount of cash as before, when the reforms overall—involving family credit and Income support—are taken into account. It is estimated that £613 million will be spent on housing benefit in Scotland this year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representatives he has received on the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received 47 representations, mainly about the form that privatisation might take, and its practical effects.

Does the Minister recall that when the Secretary of State made a statement yesterday on the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group he said that he was not yet in a position to say what the future will hold for Caledonian MacBrayne? In view of the anxiety in the Highlands and Islands about the future of Cal Mac, will he at least give us some idea of when he can make a statement? Is it to be this year, next year, or when?

It remains under consideration. However, I am glad to confirm to the hon. Lady that we regard the services to the islands—of which she is a representative—as a lifeline. It will also continue to be our policy to keep down travel costs to the islands. I appreciate that her constituents will want to know as soon as practicable.