To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to make a statement on the progress being made by the Scottish assessors in their talks with the Inland Revenue valuers about harmonisation of valuation practices for business premises.

Good progress is being made in the discussions between the Scottish Assessors Association and the Inland Revenue valuation office on harmonisation of valuation practice. These discussions are expected to result in significant progress towards harmonisation for the vast majority of subjects in 1990.

That is the sort of waffle that we have had for months on end when we ought to have a statement about the progress being made. Does the Minister agree that there will be a widening difference in business rates between Scotland and northern England after 1990 and that we shall continue to have a situation in which a marina at Largs pays five times as much as a similar marina in Hampshire? Does the Minister agree that the uniform business rate for Great Britain, which includes Scotland, will not be implemented until 1996 or after?

The hon. Gentleman calls it waffle because he does not like the fact that we are making progress on this. The Labour party contributed to the situation through high local government spending and when the Labour Government were in office they did nothing to put it right. We are making progress step by step. I have already said that a large measure of harmonisation will be introduced in 1990. Further progress will be achieved thereafter and we expect to achieve close harmony within a short time.

Can my hon. Friend offer any comfort to those with business premises, including farmers, food processors and other small businesses in relation to water charges in the coming financial year? Is he aware that in Grampian the charges are increasing by nearly 100 per cent. and are a heavy burden on industry in the area?

As my right hon. Friend knows, these are matters for the regional councils, which have decided on the formula to apply. We have sought to ensure that the cost of water is borne more directly by users in relation to the cost of its delivery. That has meant substantial savings to many small businesses around the country.

Is the Minister now able to make a positive response to the recent representations that he received from the Chemical Industries Association about industrial valuations?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, most of the plants are valued on the contractor's principle. As a result of an appeal, the decapitalisation rate has been reduced for many such subjects. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have taken powers to prescribe a common decapitalisation rate if they so wish. If that is done, it will also be an advantage to the chemical industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, because of indexation, the business rates for the coming year will be substantially less than they would have been in normal circumstances, bearing in mind that local authorities have increased expenditure by vast amounts—perhaps up to 30 per cent.—which would have made business rates exorbitantly high this year?

My hon. Friend is right. The average increase in spending planned by regional councils is 14 per cent. for next year and it is much higher for district councils. We have given the business community the protection that it needs from the depredations of high-spending local authorities. It would have been a considerable advantage if it had had that protection over the past five or six years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has had concerning persons with Alzheimer's disease paying the poll tax.

I have received a number of representations about this issue, including a letter from the director of Alzheimer's Scotland.

I note what the Minister says, but does he agree that people suffering from Alzheimer's disease who wish to rebuild their lives in the community should be given every encouragement to do so? The additional pressure to find extra money to pay the poll tax from their already meagre and stretched resources will mean that many of them will end up returning in desperation to the hospitals that they recently left. Would it not be a small price to pay for that already vulnerable group to be exempt from this immoral and unfair tax?

Because of the gradual onset of the disease, many people suffering from degenerative disorders seek to play a full part in the community, which includes contributing to the cost of local government. If they are entitled to a rebate on financial grounds, they will be eligible to claim that rebate and I expect that many of them will do so.

As the Minister defends his decision not to grant exemption on the ground that there are difficult medical choices to make, is he aware that there are two principal benefits for which medical and clinical judgments are the only criteria? I refer to mobility and attendance allowance. If such criteria are good enough there, why cannot the Minister show at least some compassion for people suffering from Alzheimer's disease?

I have great compassion for people suffering from that disease. That is why I do not seek to make political capital out of it. The disease has a gradual onset, leading to a progressive decline in all aspects of mental functioning. The difficulty is one of diagnosis to establish precisely at which point any exemption should be made. During their last five years in office, the Labour Government made no attempt to exempt people in that condition from domestic rates.

Does the Minister accept that many people such as those in the Alzheimer's Disease Society regard it as offensive that an arbitrary distinction is being made between patients who, in practical terms, present the same level of disability, some of whom are being excluded simply because in their case the root cause is Alzheimer's disease? If the Minister is arguing, as I understand that he is, that general practitioners cannot be expected to assess the degree of impairment in patients with Alzheimer's disease, will he at least consult general practitioners or their representatives before slamming and locking the door in such an inhuman way?

Our attitude is not just to Alzheimer's disease but to all degenerative brain disorders of that kind. We have given careful consideration to representations from several sources, including medical interests. The balance of medical advice that we have received is that it is impossible to establish a method of assessing precisely at which point an exemption could be granted without creating more anomalies than would be removed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the president of the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities; and what matters he intends to discuss.

I hope next to meet representatives of COSLA on Friday 28 April, to start consultations on the revenue support grant settlement for 1990–91.

Given that today is the tenth anniversary of the referendum on devolution, will the Minister, through COSLA, organise a genuine referendum giving people a choice between the status quo, devolution, or independence within Europe? Why is he afraid to offer the Scottish people any real choice in their constitutional future?

One thing that COSLA has not wished to discuss with me or with my hon. Friend the Minister of State at any previous meeting has been the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

When the Secretary of State next meets the president of COSLA, will he ask Councillor Milligan about the recent trip to Brussels and the European Community institutions and what was the reaction to the idea of an independent Scotland? Is he aware that the temporary attractiveness of that deluded scenario has been caused only by the Government damaging the real needs of Scotland and that credence for that pantomime will continue only if the Government continue their high-handed indifference to the real needs of the people of Scotland?

I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am indifferent to the second, and I disagree with the third.

When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets representatives of COSLA, will he talk to them about the benefits of competitive tendering in local government services? Will he remind them that that process offers the opportunity to provide better local government services at less cost to the community charge payer, and that it is an opportunity that they should grasp firmly?

My hon. Friend is correct. The whole point of competitive tendering, whether in local authorities or in the National Health Service, is that it enables the same quality of service to be provided to the public and releases resources for other services. I believe that that is why people are increasingly seeing the validity of that approach.

When the Secretary of State meets the president of COSLA, will he explain why he has failed to ensure a debate in the House on the order that he laid some weeks ago about exemptions from poll tax, or is he afraid to allow us to discuss it in view of his uncaring and unfeeling attitude to people suffering from Alzheimer's disease?

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, debates in this House are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and for the usual channels to discuss.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many conservation projects are currently being promoted by the Forestry Commission.

The Forestry Commission is currently promoting more than 170 major conservation projects on its own land. In addition, each of the 65 forest districts has a conservation plan which tyically indentifies a wide range of sites where smaller conservation projects are in hand.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Forestry Commission plays a vital role in the conservation of our wildlife and should be wholeheartedly encouraged in that role?

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. He may be interested to know that projects which the Forestry Commission is currently supporting include regenerating native pine woods, constructing ponds, erecting bat boxes, managing rides for butterflies, creating clearings for lizards, planting broad-leaves for diversification and even building homes for otters.

If a mere commoner may be allowed to interpose himself in this somewhat aristocratic exchange, may I ask the Minister to give the House a categorical assurance that the Government have no plans to privatise the Forestry Commission during this Parliament?

The Government have no plans to privatise the Forestry Commission.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Forestry Commission owns large tracts of land in my constituency, much of which is in an area constantly eyed by property developers who seem to have cash registers in place of eyes? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in future when the Forestry Commission is approached directly by property developers seeking to buy land he will instruct the Forestry Commission to make the relevant local authority aware of the approach and give it the opportunity to acquire the land in the first instance?

Sales of Forestry Commission land are governed by guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State in a letter to the chairman of the Forestry Commission on 28 May 1981. That letter was published in the Forestry Commission annual report, which is available in the Library. Planting must be carried out in an environmentally sensitive way. Contentious planning cases are ultimately referred to Ministers for decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to introduce a Bill to create a Scottish assembly.

The Government believe that the present constitutional arrangements provide for Scotland's interests to be fully respected and recognised. The Government therefore have no plans to introduce legislation to create a Scottish assembly.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government cannot continue to introduce legislation which is plainly contrary to the wishes of the people of Scotland and that if he replies by saying that Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom he will be inviting dissolution?

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view, but he sits in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in which there is a majority in support of the Government elected by the electorate of the United Kingdom.

Does the Secretary of State recall his excellent speech in the House in December 1976 in support of a Scottish assembly? What facts in that speech have altered since then?

I have always believed that any system of devolution or decentralised Government which does not apply throughout Great Britain is bound to weaken rather than strengthen the Union. What has changed in the past 10 years is that I and many others allowed ourselves to believe that there was an irresistible demand from the people of Scotland for a devolved system of government whereas the referendum showed that the people of Scotland were as divided on the issue as the House of Commons is and always has been.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the long-standing farce surrounding the so-called "constitutional convention" has been a joy and a delight to all those who like a good free laugh on a continuing basis? Does he further agree that those shenanigans have shown merely—and overwhelmingly— that there is no consensus against the Government on constitutional reform?

My hon. Friend is correct. We had always assumed that the so-called "constitutional convention" would end in tears, but we never expected that it would begin in tears.

Given that in the referendum 10 years ago the proposals for a Scottish assembly were supported by a majority of those who voted—including, we are led to believe, the Secretary of State himself—what has happened since then to buy him off?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that two thirds of the people in Scotland did not vote in favour of the Scotland Bill. I recall saying in public on the day after the referendum that I believed that there was not sufficient support in Scotland for devolution, given that two thirds of the people of Scotland had either voted against or abstained. That was my view the day after the referendum and it has remained my view ever since.

Is the Secretary of State aware that what has changed in the past 10 years has been the Scottish people's 10-year experience of what "unionism" really means and of what the price of unionism really is? May I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the legal definition of Scotland independent within Europe that he gave in 1984 and refer him for legal reading to the 1978 Geneva convention on the succession of "states"—in the plural?

What has changed in the past 10 years is that the hon. Gentleman has moved from his second party to his third. The hon. Gentleman chose to refer to my remarks about Greenland's status some years ago. I am somewhat astonished at the comfort that the hon. Gentleman takes from that incident as on that occasion Greenland was involved in three years of difficult negotiations with the Community, and the end result was not independence in Europe but independence outside Europe. If that is of comfort to the hon. Gentleman, it shows that he is easily satisfied.

Given the confusion between the Socialists in the Labour party and the Scottish National party on this issue, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that only the Conservative and Unionist party offers the people of Scotland a sensible and coherent policy and delivers the results?

My hon. Friend is correct but it is not only the Conservative party that describes itself as "unionist". The Labour party, the Democrats and the Social Democrats are all unionist parties. The nationalist party is outside the Scottish consensus, which overwhelmingly believes that Scotland's interests are best served by full participation within the United Kingdom.

May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for his concern and assure him that my cheeks, at least, are not tear-stained?

I bet they are not.

The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware that dinners have been arranged in London and Edinburgh to celebrate—if that is the right word—the fact that 10 years ago, despite a majority "yes" vote, the Scotland Bill was not implemented. May I congratulate him on not attending those functions, which is a welcome sign of grace on his part?

I believe strongly that if those who are unionists, like the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, want constitutional change in the United Kingdom, that matter is of common interest to all parts of the United Kingdom. Such a decision cannot simply be based on a diktat from any one part of the kingdom, be it England, Scotland or Wales—[Interruption.] I am sure that there are no tears on the hon. Gentleman's face as a result of the ending of the prospects for an all-party constitutional convention. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman could barely suppress his delight at that outcome.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that throughout the United Kingdom—in the regions of England, in Wales and in Scotland—there is no demand for an additional tier of government? In fact the move is towards single-tier local government rather than regional government. It would be a disgrace if we spent even more money on even more levels of government which would end up being subsidised by the rest of the United Kingdom.

Although some interest in constitutional change is evident in certain parts of the United Kingdom, my hon. Friend is right that it is impossible to point to any strength of opinion which would justify the constitutional upheaval implied by the proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss employment prospects in Scotland.

I am due to meet the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and a number of his colleagues on 13 March.

When Scottish Labour Members met the Secretary of State this morning to discuss the coal-burn dispute and the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made optimistic noises suggesting that the matter was likely to be resolved in the boardrooms rather than in the courts. As he is aware, the STUC is taking a lead in the issue because up to 6,000 jobs in Scotland could be lost if the deep-mining part of the coal industry were obliterated.

There is no significance in the date, as it is on 13 March and not 14 March that I am meeting the STUC. The meeting is taking place at the request of Mr. Campbell Christie, general secretary of the STUC, and I look forward with interest to hearing the points that he wishes to raise.

When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the general secretary of the STUC, will he point out that 16 major Japanese firms now in Scotland plan to create 2,500 jobs there? It was interesting to note that in the last quarter of 1988 4,160 new jobs were planned by a large number of firms in Scotland. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the general secretary that the reason for those jobs being planned is that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and a member state of the EEC, and that any withdrawal from the United Kingdom would put the jobs in danger?

There is no doubt that Scotland is seen as a prime location for inward investment by both the United States and Japan, and that that choice has been made because of the market that is available throughout the European Community for products manufactured in Scotland. [Interruption.]

Order. I should point out to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who is shouting at me—which in any case is unmannerly—that he reserves the right to be called at Defence Question Time and on other questions as well.

When the Secretary of State meets the general secretary of the STUC, will he discuss his concept of—[Interruption.]

Order. The whole House is interested in Scotland.

This is a farce.

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman contain himself, please?

It is a farce, and you know it.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. It is bad manners of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) to insult Conservative Members such as myself who are interested in Scotland and take the trouble to attend Scottish Question Time.

Order. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has been insulted; if anyone has been insulted it is me.

I think that I have forgotten my question—[Laughter.] When the Secretary of State meets the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress will he try to explain his concept of competition by comparison with the electricity supply industry? Does he believe that that council is likely to agree with me that that is as daft a concept as an independent Scotland in Europe?

I am rather sorry that the hon. Gentleman remembered his question. It is clearly desirable in any system of near monopoly that the industry in question should he exposed to comparisons, which enable the consumer and the regulator in the public interest to be satisfied that either the tariffs being levied or other practices of the industry are fair and acceptable in the circumstances.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland; and what matters were discussed.

I am in frequent touch with the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland on a range of matters affecting the Scottish economy. I look forward to a continuing exchange of views.

I am grateful for that reply. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the state of the Scottish economy is such that, in the past two years, there has been a 84,000 reduction in unemployment and that, in the past 10 years, the rate of productivity in the Scottish economy has been the highest of seven major OECD countries? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although it is pleasant for the Scottish people to bask in some kind of Socialist ideals, it is great to have the strength of Tory economics behind them?

That is so. It is interesting that the CBI's latest survey shows that business optimism in Scotland remains firm although it has diminished elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is a mark of the growing strength of the Scottish economy.

The CBI may talk about business optimism, but will the Secretary of State discuss with it its attitude and his attitude to Shell's proposal to construct a pipeline from Grangemouth to the midlands of England to export the ethylene manufactured at Mossmorran? If Scottish jobs go down that pipeline are we not entitled to expect that the first Scottish job to go should be the Secretary of State's?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful observation. As I understand it, there is a pipeline from Grangemouth to England already and the proposal is for a second pipeline. That proposal will involve a planning application and therefore it will be for the planning authorities to consider the merits of it.

When will the Secretary of State discuss with the CBI how many jobs it thinks will be lost as a result of the declared redundancies at the Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory? When will the Secretary of State offer a genuine lifeline to those folk who are desperate to work and who have sent letters to him asking for work? Will he ask the CBI to find out how many jobs will be lost as a spin-off from those redundancies?

We all share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the loss of jobs in Bishopton. The Scottish Office stands ready to make available the normal support in an area of high unemployment to assist those who wish to create new employment or to seek alternative employment in that locality.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend discussed with the Scottish CBI what would happen were there ever to be another Labour Government who implemented their alternative to rates—that is, a property tax and a local income tax—and how damaging that would be to Scottish industry?

Only the Labour party would propose to replace domestic rates, which is one unpopular tax, with two unpopular taxes.

Does the Secretary of State agree with Mr. Bill Hughes, chairman of the CBI in Scotland and one of the Government's industrial advisers, who said at a recent meeting of Conservative students in Edinburgh that the Scottish Development Agency had failed to do anything about Scottish business?

During the past few years I believe that the SDA has made an important contribution to the Scottish economy and I believe that it has a continuing role to play in line with the Government's proposals in the recent White Paper.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish firms have gained contracts from (a) the Channel tunnel project and (b) recent Scottish public works contracts; and if he will make a statement.

Twenty Scottish companies have so far been successful in gaining contracts worth about £65 million from Translink, the contracting consortium for the Channel tunnel. Information is not held centrally on Scottish public sector contracts.

I understand from members of the Neath and Edinburgh chambers of commerce—august members of the capitalist system—that, in the main, Scottish contractors have been ignored for both the main and the smaller contracts. Is that not a disgrace? I say that not because I am anti-English but because clearly Scottish jobs are involved. If the tunnel is to mean anything, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the contracts should have been made available to Scottish contractors on a competitive basis? There has been discrimination in this matter and the Scots people have a right to be annoyed. Once the tunnel is completed it will have a hoover effect on enterprise, business and companies. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not only Scottish companies but companies in the north of England will suffer?

The hon. Gentleman must have framed his supplementary question before he heard my answer, in which I told him that 20 Scottish companies have so far been succesful and secured contracts to the value of £65 million. That is a higher proportion of companies than from any other part of the United Kingdom. Howdens, for example, gained the contract for the four boring machines and, as a result of that, has gained another contract for tunnelling machines in Denmark. As for the hon. Gentleman's comments on the capitalist private sector, I must point out that the Channel tunnel is being built and funded by the private sector.

Is it not to the credit of Scottish enterprise that so many contracts have been gained— [Interruption] Is it not to the credit of Scottish enterprise that it has won these contracts, which will be of enormous benefit to the Scottish economy in the short-term? Will the Minister also consider the longer-term benefits? Does he agree that it is essential that we have the best possible transport links, in particular rail links, between Scotland and the Channel tunnel? Will he put pressure on British Rail to continue the electrification of the east coast line beyond Edinburgh to Dundee and Aberdeen?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole of Scotland benefits from the contracts. The north of Scotland benefits in the form of Brown and Roots Survey and R. B. Farquhar Ltd., PSS Ltd., Racal Survey UK Ltd., and others. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of rail transport. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I had a meeting with the chairman of British Rail and I have also had meetings with the general manager of ScotRail to underline that important point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the progress made since 1979 in transferring Civil Service posts from London and the south-east to Scotland.

Since 1979, 1,930 Civil Service jobs have been relocated from the south-east to Scotland, which represents 35 per cent. of the jobs moved. Six weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that a further 430 jobs would be relocated to Glasgow.

At least the Secretary of State appears to support the idea of moving Civil Service jobs to Scotland, unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) who said that London can keep its civil servants. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the past 10 years, less than 6 per cent. of jobs above executive officer level have been located outwith London? Does he agree that one way to redress the imbalance between the south-east and Scotland would be to move 600 policy posts out of the 700 posts in the Overseas Development Administration in London to the administration offices in East Kilbride?

Specific proposals are obviously a matter for the individual Departments concerned. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that more than 34,000 posts in various Government Departments are being reviewed for location or relocation away from the south-east. Clearly, Scotland, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom, hopes to obtain a proportion of those posts. I believe strongly that jobs that do not need to be in the centre of London should be moved outside it. Scotland, particularly East Kilbride, is an attractive and suitable place in which to establish a new post.

The Secretary of State for Scotland gives us the impression that he favours a regional policy. Does he agree with the recent speech at Chatham house by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that there was no place for regional policy, either in the European Community or domestically?

I am not aware of the Chancellor having made such a remark. The Government have a regional policy and intend to continue having one.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with outside bodies and their representatives since June 1987 on child care provision in the public and private sectors.

Scottish Office officials have undertaken extensive consultations with external interests on a wide range of issues relating to the provision of services for children, including child care law and measures to protect children from abuse.

Has the Minister any plans to ask the Scottish Office to pay an agency to conduct a telephone survey of Scots women in their homes to ask them whether they have ever had any experience of child care provision in the public sector, or is he frightened of the answer that those women might give him?

No, we have no such plans. The provision of services for children under five is a matter for local authorities. If the hon. Lady is criticising the conduct of Labour-controlled local authorities in Scotland, I suggest that she takes that up with them.

Did the Minister take the opportunity while visiting Hungary to study its child care provision? Did he note that Hungrary provides significant child care services for children aged up to three, that it allows mothers to stay at home with substantial child care allowances and that it provides five months' maternity leave for women who want to return to work? Does he know that 78 per cent. of three to five-year-old children in that country attend kindergarten and that 80 per cent. of the creches are state-run? What does he intend to do to help the women of Scotland to be provided with that sort of service?

I took the opportunity while I was in Hungary to discuss developments in education there. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Hungarians expressed considerable admiration for the emphasis that we place on increasing competition in our education system, and that their plans include greater emphasis on provision by the private sector and on competition.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board; and what subjects were discussed.

My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board on 6 February and discussed progress on the Electricity Bill and other matters relevant to the Scottish electricity industry.

Does the Minister acknowledge that the remarkable expansion of profitable opencast mining in Scotland in recent years has been facilitated not only by the Government but by the Labour party, whose councillors—often in the face of strong local opposition —have facilitated planning permissions on the basis that opencast mining will help to sustain the deep-mining industry? Does he recognise that the optimism on this subject that Ministers—and the Secretary of State only this morning—have encouraged will be justified only if the coal-burn contract provides for the continuation of the Bilston/Monktonhall complex and the Longannet complex? That must surely be the irreducible minimum requirement for deep-mine coal in Scotland.

lf Labour councillors are responsible for the growth of opencast mining in Scotland I am glad that they recognise the valuable contribution that it can make. If coal is to have a substantial future in Scotland it must be competitive, and opencast mining helps towards that end.

Would the Government have allowed the SSEB to put thousands of jobs at power stations and pits in Scotland at risk and to threaten the future of a vital sector of the Scottish economy if a directly elected Scottish Parliament with the authority to speak for the people of Scotland had existed?

What worries me is that such a Parliament might have taken up the suggestion of the Scottish Nationalist party, which was that Torness, one of the most important generating stations in Scotland, should be sold to an English company, with the result that Scottish industry might have had to buy back from England electricity generated in Scotland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of electricity gives the Scottish electricity industry a real commercial opportunity to export power to England and Wales? Does he further agree that it gives Scottish industry more control over its own affairs, instead of control being exercised from London?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It reverses the decentralisation which nationalisation always creates. In the 1940s, when Scottish electricity enterprises were nationalised, a whole raft of decision-making was removed from Scotland to the south. We are reversing that process to help regenerate enterprise in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek further medical advice on the nature and course of dementia, particularly in relation to Alzheimer's disease.

No, but my right hon. and learned Friend keeps in touch with a wide range of medical opinion. We give financial assistance to Alzheimer's Scotland and Scottish Action on Dementia, which provide help and support for people with dementia. We are also supporting the establishment of the dementia studies development centre at Stirling university and are funding research into care in the community of the elderly with dementia.

Does the hon. Gentleman share the view expressed in, or feel any sense of shame at, the statement made by the Minister of State that Alzheimer's disease is of a fluctuating nature? What consideration has the Minister given to the view of Dr. Robert Hill, consultant neurologist at Edinburgh western general hospital, that Alzheimer's disease is progressive and that remission does not occur? In view of the fluctuating nature of medical opinion on this matter, the whole issue should be re-examined. It is a shame and a disgrace that 'fie Government are forcing the tragic people who suffer from these conditions to pay the poll tax.

The hon. Gentleman will see, if he looks at what my hon. Friend said, that his account is wrong. The hon. Gentleman talks about shame and the need for sympathy for people suffering from Alzheimer's disease. I suggest that he contacts his friends in the Labour party in councils such as Stirling who are refusing, out of spite and to make a political point, to provide a collection service for the community charge. If Labour Members are concerned to provide help for the handicapped and others in meeting their obligations to pay the community charge, they should show that concern by arranging for collections, as they have done in the past in respect of rates.

I deplore the cheap political points that the Under-Secretary made. Is he aware that for thousands of people who discover that their spouse, husband or wife, is suffering from Alzheimer's disease or senile dementia, that is a terrible discovery and that they have to live with it? The Government should not inflict the full force of the poll tax—of £200, £300 or more—on these disabled people. The Government should, even at this eleventh hour, recant and ensure that they do not have to pay the poll tax.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, people on low incomes will benefit from rebates. We are indeed showing concern for people suffering from Alzheimer's and other disabling conditions. We are increasing the benefits payable to the disabled by no less than 90 per cent. or £7·3 billion. That is in stark contrast to what Labour Members did when they were in Government.

The Government's behaviour in this matter is disgraceful and callous. We are talking about a very disadvantaged group of the population. The Government continue to hide behind medical advice. I put it to them that their medical advice in this matter is wrong and should be reconsidered—[Interruption.] I have had some experience of this. The Minister of State talked about Alzheimer's disease being a disease of gradual onset and progressive decline. Patients suffering from this condition are no different from others suffering from dementia. The advice that the Government have on this is wrong and should be reconsidered. In other words, the Government should get a second opinion.

In all of that the hon. Gentleman did not ask me a question—[Interruption.] The Government's advice has come from the Chief Medical Officer and others and it has been carefully considered. I note that the hon. Gentleman did not offer to ask Labour-controlled councils to help the disabled with a house-to-house collection in respect of the community charge. I also note that when his party was in power it had no proposals to exempt from the payment of rates people suffering from Alzheimer's and other disabling conditions. I also note that as part of their policy review, Opposition Members plan to force people who suffer from Alzheimer's and other conditions to pay towards local government by assessing the capital value of their houses.

My hon. Friend will know that I first raised the subject of Alzheimer's disease on an Adjournment debate five years ago. Since then there has been greater public awareness of the disease, and that is manifestly clear from my hon. Friend's reply outlining the research that is taking place. Nonetheless, does my hon. Friend concede that those who are responsible for caring for those with that debilitating disease do not receive sufficient consideration? Will he at least give thought to the idea that the Government should give more consideration to the carers, who are bound in honour and love to people with whom they have lived for many years, and who suffer from Alzheimer's disease?

My hon. Friend is asking me to stray outside my sphere of responsibility. However, I am very much aware of his concern for people suffering from Alzheimer's disease. If he heard my answer to the original question, he will be aware of the considerable support that we have given to organisations such as Scottish Action on Dementia and Alzheimer's Scotland which are providing help and support to the families who have to cope with that difficult and debilitating disease.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last made a speech outlining the Government's position on the constitutional status of Scotland.

I last commented on constitutional matters in a speech to Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale Conservative Association on Friday 10 February.

Will the Secretary of State elaborate on his speech at Melrose and explain why he argued that whereas independence was a matter for the Scottish people to decide, devolution was a matter for the United Kingdom and for Parliament? What is his reaction to the point made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in last month's Radical Scotland that

"To all intents and purposes, Scotland is an occupied country in which the ruling power depends for its support on a power base which is outside the country."

If the hon. Gentleman's Budget proposals, which we were told about last Friday, are anything to go by, that seems to be the view of the SNP. When we heard about the hon. Gentleman's Budget proposals, my officials contacted the headquarters of the SNP, but were told that nothing was known about them. When we examined the details, we discovered that according to the hon. Gentleman, the defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would represent about 5 per cent. of current United Kingdom expenditure to defend some 35 per cent. of the land mass of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it seems that the Scottish Nationalist party either would want to leave an independent Scotland defenceless, or would wish to depend upon the English Government to defend Scotland after independence. What price independence then?

Is it not a breathtaking effrontery for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to ask the Government such a question when the SNP is conspiring with the Government to paralyse any possibility of constitutional progress in Scotland? Is it not the case that the Government and the Scottish Nationalist party are two sides of the same coin and that Scottish constitutional progress is caught between the hammer of Thatcher unionism and the anvil of SNP sectarianism?

Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first invite to join the SNP.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in response to the National Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients".

My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of positive responses to the White Paper "Working for Patients". We will shortly be publishing six working papers setting out in detail how the White Paper proposals are to be implemented in Scotland.

Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that a White Paper which will give patients more choice and a faster service should be opposed by Opposition Members? Does he agree that their only vision for the future of the Health Service is a Health Service run by COHSE and NUPE for the benefit of COHSE and NUPE?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but he is not being entirely fair to Opposition Members. I note that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) has offered to abandon his political convictions and to favour the idea of the Falkirk district infirmary becoming a self-governing hospital if proposals for its closure were ever implemented. As neither the health board nor the Government have any such proposals, it is an interesting response to our White Paper.

Does the Minister appreciate that at the time when I considered the proposals from the consultants I was unaware of another option—closure, as the Minister himself says, over his dead body? If that option is still available, we will take it.

Even if the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to defend the interests of his local hospital in Falkirk, we certainly are, which is why we have invested so heavily in it with new maternity and geriatric facilities. I am not sure that my dead body in exchange for the hospital would be a good deal for his constituents.

Is it not the case that many general practitioners are deeply concerned about the inadequacies of the White Paper? Is it not the case that many general practitioners fear a diminution in the quality of the treatment given to patients if these proposals are implemented? Does the Minister agree that, where Scotland is concerned, the authors of the White Paper know little or nothing about medical practice in general and nothing at all about general practice in particular?

I think I can follow that question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to accept the invitation to attend the Scottish constitutional convention.

No, Sir.

Does the Secretary of State not realise that he is doing a grave disservice to the ordinary people of Scotland? Is he aware that they are crying out for democracy and that the only relief that they can get from the social injustice thrust upon them by Thatcherism is by some kind of directly elected assembly, even if it has only limited powers? Does he not recognise that the poor and the elderly who suffer from social injustices need a voice at the convention to argue for such a directly elected assembly?

The individual citizen in Scotland has exactly the same democratic rights as individuals elsewhere in the United Kingdom. All live in a democratic society.

Can the Secretary of State tell us any other issue on which in the past 10 years he has done such a complete and utter U-turn as on the question of the Scottish assembly? Is it not the simple and sad fact that he has abandoned his principles for his promotion prospects? Does the Secretary of State really believe that the people of Scotland have so readily abandoned their principles, or been bought and sold for Treasury gold? If he does, why does he not put their principles to the test by having a referendum on devolution as soon as possible?

My views remain exactly as I have explained. Any system of devolution for one part of the United Kingdom that does not apply elsewhere is likely to weaken rather than strengthen the union in which the Labour party also believes.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that some of us on the Government Benches think that perhaps he ought to go to such a conference. if only to remind the Labour party of the total opposition of its leader to the whole concept of devolution when it was last on the agenda, and also to stress that if, by chance, a devolved assembly were set up, many of us on the Government Benches would want to see drastic changes in the composition of the House so as to reduce the current gross over-representation on a numerical basis of Scotland at Westminster?

It is certainly the case that the leader of the Conservative party pays more attention to the subject of devolution when she is in Scotland than does the leader of the Opposition when he is there.

The Secretary of State has said yet again that he thinks that devolution in any one part of the United Kingdom without devolution all round would weaken our unity. Is that a definitive statement of policy on behalf of the Government with particular reference to the future government of Northern Ireland?

In terms of Scotland, England and Wales, Scotland continues to benefit from the existing structure of government. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Northern Ireland example is sui generis and that it would be unwise for anyone on either side of the argument to draw conclusions from that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the period of the Stormont Government there was a substantial reduction in the number of Irish Members in the House of Commons and that the United Kingdom Cabinet did not contain a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

I would not go so far as to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be sorely missed when. the convention first meets at the end of the month. If he did turn up at least he could explain to the convention why he has introduced the poll tax in Scotland to make local councillors more accountable to Scottish voters while he plans to do nothing whatever to make Scottish Ministers in any way accountable to Scottish voters.

If I turned up at the proposed convention I would have no difficulty about finding a seat because it appears that very few people will be there. This is a spurious attempt to try to generate interest in a subject when such interest has not otherwise been forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the constitutional convention was invented by an organisation that produced a document with a blatantly nationalist tone. If he and his hon. Friends are as unionist as they claim to be they should have nothing to do with it.

rose—

Order. I shall take points of order after the statement.