To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the farming industry regarding the future of beef production in Scotland.

My right hon. and learned Friend received a number of representations recently about that matter from the National Farmers Union of Scotland and other interested bodies.

Although last week's price agreement brought some welcome relief to the beef industry, interest rate increases over recent months more than cancels it out. The Minister may be aware that beef producers in my own constituency are concerned that the new beef premium should be paid on farm; that in specialist beef herds it should be extended to include heifers; and that the suckler cow premium should be increased—which is something that the United Kingdom Government can do off their own back, because it does not have to be negotiated. What progress has been made with each of those three measures?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remark that the scheme has been well received by beef farmers. The green pound devaluation and the phasing out of monetary compensatory amounts will certainly be beneficial. As to the headage payment, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the 90 limit is an improvement on the proposed limit of 75 and on the limit of 50 that previously applied in other countries. I understand the problems of farmers in Orkney. My right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have undertaken to review the practicability and cost-effectiveness of moving to an on-farm basis for slaughter. Meanwhile, prices are holding up well, including those for heifers.

In view of the overall fall in hill farmers' income in recent years, will my hon. Friend particularly bear in mind the headage payment on beef? It would be much better if the 90 limit, which we welcome, were paid for cows on farm rather than at slaughter. Will my hon. Friend do everything possible through the proper channels to ensure that the suckler cow premium is raised to the maximum limit?

My hon. Friend will have heard my reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I particularly note his comment about the suckler cow premium. I, like him, think that it is a good deal for farmers, adding about £15 million to £20 million to farm incomes in Scotland at low cost to the taxpayer and at negligible expense, in terms of prices, to the consumer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last visited the parliamentary constituency of Midlothian.

My right hon. and learned Friend visits the hon. Member's constituency from time to time, both officially and privately.

Is it not strange that when the Secretary of State for Scotland has a question put to him, he is not prepared to answer it at the Dispatch Box? I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that since he decided it was politic to visit Longannet, and since Bilston Glen and Monktonhall collieries are in very close proximity to his constituency, would it not have been equally politic to have visited them? As the men at Bilston Glen and Monktonhall decided by a majority to resist the closure of those collieries, will the Secretary of State consider visiting them, especially since, on the basis of the article that was published in the Edinburgh Evening News on Monday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman regards himself as the representative and defender of Scottish interests in the Cabinet. It is disgraceful that the Secretary of State did not answer my question.

My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments. As is the normal practice, he shares his responsibilities fairly, evenly and sensibly with his ministerial colleagues.

It is not that long since Ministers were bending the law to get miners through the gates of Bilston Glen colliery. Now they are standing back and allowing those gates to be closed for ever, if British Coal has its way. Is it not sheer, wanton vandalism to allow the Lothian coalfield to be closed down, with more than 100 million tonnes of low sulphur, high quality coal in its reserves, when any sensible appraisal of the world energy scene must confirm that those reserves will be required?

It is, of course, a source of regret when such a mine is closed. However the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the financial losses at Bilston Glen last year were £20 million and have been £50 million in past years. Production is averaging less than two thirds of target, and in those circumstances British Coal has had to take a commercial decision. It is now subject to the review procedure, and I am glad that, in the event of closure, miners at the pit will be offered enhanced redundancy terms.

Does the Minister accept that another important matter for the coal industry in Lothian is the agreement on coal-burn between British Coal and the South of Scotland Electricity Board? He will remember that such an agreement must include agreement on all the essentials of the contract. Does he accept that there is nothing more essential than price, which still appears to be a stumbling block? Does the Minister recall that the Secretary of State said that he was as confident as he possibly could be that an agreement would be reached? Is the Scottish Office still confident that the five-year agreement will be delivered? Given its importance to the Scottish economy, and the 3,000 jobs at stake, will he ensure that the agreement is concluded and that it sticks?

The bulk of Bilston Glen's output goes to industrial and domestic users, but we hope that agreement will be reached on coal-burn between British Coal and the SSEB. However, it must be a matter for commercial negotiation between those parties.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I propose to raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity. It is disgraceful that the Secretary of State is here but not—

Order. The hon. Gentleman can raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the construction of a bridge to the Isle of Skye.

The two firms which suggested that a bridge might be built as a private sector project have provided the information requested. The Scottish Development Department is now considering it and will be consulting the Highland regional council.

Can the Minister give some further indication of Scottish Office thinking on the vexed question of tolls being used to finance any possible private sector project, given the great concern on the island about the level of tolls, and the principle that if such a fixed link is established, as I hope it will, it should be part of the ongoing trunk route which will require the upgrading to trunk road status of the Kyleakin to Uig road? What is the present status of the application from Caledonian MacBrayne in regard to the replacement of the existing ferries used in the Kyle of Lochalsh to Kyleakin route, which is clearly of great relevance to the consideration of the bridge?

CalMac is carrying out an investment appraisal on replacing the existing ferries and is considering a number of options, including refurbishing the existing vessels or replacing them with newer, larger ones. Obviously the possibility of a bridge has to be taken into account. The decision will involve the Highland regional council and the Secretary of State and I hope that it will be forthcoming in the relatively near future. No decision has been made as yet on a bridge or tolls, but a tolled private crossing in place of a ferry might provide a permanent crossing sooner than would otherwise be possible. Although no decision on tolls has been made, and I cannot speculate, I presume that travellers will prefer to pay to cross without delay at any time of the day or night than to continue with the ferries.

I wish to question the Minister on precisely that latter assumption. Does he agree that the Eilean a'Cheo—the misty isle—should not be used as a front to slip in the precedent of privatising the public highway system in Scotland? Will he give an assurance that local communities' views will be binding and that a high-toll bridge will not be imposed? Will he give an assurance that improvements in the public highway and bridge system will continue to be funded from general taxation and that there will be no more nonsense of private enterprise roads and bridges?

The amount of toll will depend on proposals made by the private sector. Public spending on trunk roads has risen to £162 million this year. There are precedents for private expenditure in other parts of Britain, such as the Dartford bridge across the River Thames, which is a private sector project.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants that Scotland has received from the European regional development fund since its inception.

Scotland has received awards of just over £800 million since the regional fund's inception.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the Scottish people are aware of the size of assistance that the Scottish economy receives? If not, what is he doing further to publicise it?

Over the years, the Scottish Office, local authorities and others, have succeeded in winning for Scotland a substantial share of the regional fund. The money is used for a series of crucial projects affecting Scottish infrastructure. I believe that the benefits of the support are well understood.

How much more would have been spent in Scotland if European regional fund grants had been additional to and not in place of Scottish Office money?

The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that whatever funding is given to the United Kingdom, the contribution that the United Kingdom taxpayer makes to the Commission must be taken into account. These are not new resources invented from air; they are taxpayers' funds, whatever the source may be.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Bruce Millan disagrees fundamentally and basically? What response has the Scottish Office given to Bruce Millan on additionality?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that when Mr. Bruce Millan was Secretary of State for Scotland, the rules on additionality were exactly the same as they are now. It is odd for him to change his mind because he has become a Commissioner in Brussels.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed with representatives of British Rail the case for improvement of train services (a) in Scotland and (b) between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

My right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of the British Rail (Scottish) board, Mr. John Cameron, on 26 April 1989 and discussed various matters concerned with rail services in Scotland and between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Will the Minister assure the House that he will not allow British Rail's plans for Scotland to go ahead unless it applies stricter safety measures? Does the Minister realise that since 1973 there has been a 126 per cent. increase in fires? Is this because of unmanned railway stations?

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the chairman of British Rail. Safety is an extremely high priority, as it should be. We shall take seriously into account the results of the inquiry into the accident at Belgrove.

Has the electrification of the line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen been discussed with senior representatives of British Rail? If not, will my hon. Friend impress on the chairman of British Rail the importance of electrification, especially given the huge sums of money being spent south of London on the Channel tunnel?

Since 1979, £3·7 billion has been invested on railways throughout the United Kingdom, £300 million of which was spent on the electrification of the east coast route. British Rail takes the view that electrification of the route to Aberdeen is not justified because north of Edinburgh passenger volume is much less than in other parts of the country. It is proceeding with the £300 million east coast main line project and substantial parts of the network in the west of Scotland have been electrified.

The Minister will know that to achieve better safety on the railways skilled engineers must be employed to carry out the work. Will he speak to British Rail about the lack of apprentices being taken on? It is shameful, when we have such high unemployment, that we are not planning for the future. Will he ensure that more apprentices are trained in the skills that the industry needs?

I shall certainly mention those points to the chairman of British Rail. I stress that Scotland will be a major beneficiary of electrification of the east coast main line. In addition, the Scottish Office has agreed to provide a 75 per cent. grant to Strathclyde regional council towards the £40 million of new rolling stock. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's point about apprentices.

Will my hon. Friend bear carefully and closely in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said about the Edinburgh to Aberdeen section? It must be electrified if the north-east of Scotland is to compete effectively and efficiently with the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe after 1992. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the rail lines to Prestwick must be upgraded and a station and high-speed link provided so that people in the east of Scotland as well as Glasgow can get to Prestwick quickly?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. British Rail will co-operate in the provision of information to groups interested in the electrification of the railway line to the north, although it has formed another view, which I have mentioned. Obviously, we should have excellent communications with the Channel tunnel. There are plans to ensure that there are excellent arrangements for bypassing London through the west to ensure that trains get through speedily.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had about the collection of unpaid poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

None. It is clear from their own budget proposals that regional and islands councils do not expect non-payment to be a significant problem.

Does the Minister realise that people are on income support because they do not have enough money to survive without it? Will he discuss with his colleagues in the DSS the standard of living that is likely to be endured by people on income support whose benefit is deducted, leaving only 10p of income support? Clearly, such a standard of living is extremely poor. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his policies are harsh and oppressive and will he repeal the statutory instrument that creates this problem?

As the hon. Lady knows, people on income support will be eligible for a maximum rebate. In addition, income support has been increased to help meet the remaining 20 per cent. of the charge.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the campaign of mass resistance, which was constantly predicted by the Opposition, has failed to materialise? Is it not the height of irresponsibility for certain Labour councillors in Edinburgh to announce the highest community charge rate in Scotland and subsequently declare that they will not pay it?

My hon. Friend is right. Campaigns of non-payment are futile and irresponsible. It is shameful that people in elected offices should encourage others to break the law.

How does the Minister justify a case which has been publicised of a schizophrenic woman with a mental age of seven who is just recovering from a cervical cancer operation and who has no capacity to earn? How does he justify applying a poll tax to her, and how will he get the money out of her?

If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about that case and if the person is his constituent, I shall look into it. The Scottish National party's campaign to generate a phantom army of 100,000 non-payers is futile and irresponsible. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, even if the SNP succeeded in finding 100,000 such non-payers, local authority revenue would be reduced by less than 0·5 per cent.

Assuming that the lady who has been described by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) previously lived alone, how would she have paid her rates?

My hon. and learned Friend has made a fair point. I have offered to look into the case if it concerns a constituent of the hon. Member for Govan. Perhaps I may leave the matter there.

Does the Minister accept that many people will not pay the poll tax because they cannot understand the rebate system? What steps has he taken to prolong the period during which they may apply for rebates? On the question of non-payment on principle, is not there an honourable tradition in democratic countries of resisting unjust and unfair taxes and withholding what is felt necessary?

Many people who thought domestic rates grossly unfair continued to pay them. We have now replaced them with an infinitely fairer tax that spreads the burden more evenly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a young constituent of mine who is attending a Scottish university has been informed that he is not eligible for a community charge rebate because his parental home is not in Scotland? Will all British students be entitled to rebate regardless of where they happen to live in the United Kingdom?

Students are not eligible for rebate; they are entitled to an exemption from 80 per cent. of the community charge. If my hon. Friend writes to me about his constituent, I shall certainly be happy to clarify the precise position.

Is it not clear already that the rebate system is in such a mess and so complicated and difficult that the 56-day period is quite insufficient and should be extended? Will the Minister confirm that the most chicken-hearted leaders of all are the leaders of a political party who will not suffer themselves if they do not pay the poll tax but who are calling upon others who cannot afford to do so not to pay it?

I think that the talk of "chicken-hearted leadership" was used by the Scottish National party about the Labour party. It is not my purpose to intrude in a family squabble between Socialists.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those who recommend selective obedience to the law are producing a recipe for anarchy? Does he also agree that it is scandalous that hon. Members should threaten not to pay a tax duly authorised by the House? Does he further agree that if the policy of non-payment succeeded, it would serve only to reduce local authorities' cash flow and restrict the services that they can provide, thus hitting those on the lowest incomes rather than somewhat self-satisfied Labour Back Benchers?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes his point extremely well. Fortunately most local authorities have not only assumed that at least 95 per cent. of those liable to pay will pay but the anecdotal evidence suggests that payments are flowing in well, although it is a matter for them.

Does the Minister accept that, with income support set at bare subsistence level, there is genuine cause for concern about the indefensible principle of deduction of benefit without the consent of the individual involved? Will the Minister explain why that system has been introduced? Does he also accept that there is genuine concern—I suspect on both sides of the House—about the impact of a raft of changes affecting those on low incomes, on fixed incomes and on benefit? That includes the housing benefit changes and rent increases as well as the poll tax. Will the Minister commission an independent survey to assess the impact on those people? I ask that in the hope that the evidence which I think it will produce will persuade even him to think again.

The deduction from benefits is a well-established precedent which has been used by previous Governments. Income support has been increased by up to £2·30 a week for a couple, which, in many parts of Scotland, is more than enough to meet the 20 per cent. level of community charge. It would be more than enough in even more parts of Scotland if some local authorities had not levied such a high rate of community charge.

Is the Minister aware of the anger and concern being voiced by many people in rural parts of Scotland, particularly in Easdale in my constituency, at the fact that they must pay a flat-rate poll tax for unequal services? People in Glasgow pay the same amount, but the people of Easdale have no pavements, lighting, roads or libraries.

By implication, the hon. Lady is suggesting that people should pay only for what they get. The vast majority of local authority costs fall on the education budget, yet a great many people have no children. The important point is that local authority costs should be spread around the adult population of a region and district. Apart from anything else, it will encourage them to take a closer interest in the work of their local authorities and demand better, more relevant and efficiently delivered services.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect the abolition of the national dock labour scheme will have on employment prospects in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

I believe that the abolition of the dock labour scheme and the lifting of its restrictions will attract new investment and jobs to scheme ports and port areas in Scotland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the dock labour scheme is extremely good news for Scotland? More investment will go to Scottish ports and, as a direct result, along with the ending of restrictive practices in the ports, increased job opportunities will be created. Will not the abolition of the dock labour scheme make a significant contribution to the increasing regeneration of the Scottish economy?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A study recently commissioned by the National Association of Port Employers estimated that abolition would create up to 50,000 new jobs in scheme port areas. I should like to be confident that Scotland will share in the 50,000 new jobs.

The Minister will know that, at 3 o'clock this morning, during the deliberations of the Standing Committee on the Dock Work Bill, the Secretary of State for Employment said that he decided to abolish the Training Agency. Following the abolition of the dock labour scheme, Mr. Bill Hughes will have sole responsibility for training in our docks in Scotland. Exactly what experience has Mr. Bill Hughes had of loading and unloading ships?

Mr. Bill Hughes is an experienced man of many parts. I have considerable confidence in a great deal of what he says. One need only look at the contrasting records of Aberdeen and Peterhead to see the benefit that the abolition of the dock labour scheme will have.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Grangemouth, where the docks are being fully automated and no dockers are required, a registered dock worker is provided with a Portakabin, a colour television and a microwave oven so that he might overcome boredom? Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members who think that there is nothing wrong with ghosting are only defending the indefensible and leaving Scottish industry to fall behind the rest of Europe?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is significant that business has fallen sharply at dock labour scheme ports. It is interesting also that non-scheme ports have good conditions of employment which compare favourably with those of registered dock workers.

When the Minister considers Aberdeen and Peterhead, will he compare like with like? He is not speaking of a major fishing port in Aberdeen. Will he accept that Aberdeen port has had a record year in terms of throughput, profit and investment and is looking forward to future progress, and that that progress will be damaged because of the Minister's activities?

On the contrary. Aberdeen will benefit considerably from the abolition of the dock labour scheme. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that, between 1977 and 1987, business through Aberdeen fell by 20 per cent. Over the same period, the number of fish landings at Peterhead rose by 84 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he is making in the reduction of ferry subsidies.

Shipping subsidies in total are falling. Lower oil prices and higher carryings have reduced the deficit subsidy of Caledonian MacBrayne in recent years. P and O's fare subsidy has been increasing with increasing traffic, but for the current year has been limited in real terms.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Isle of Wight has some of the highest unsubsidised ferry fares, if not in the EEC certainly in the United Kingdom. Having visited St. Kilda and read the sad history of that Scottish island, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that the British taxpayer is subsidising the Scottish Highlands and Islands to ensure that that sad history is never repeated? Will he drive home that point to the petty Opposition parties which are intent on destroying the Act of Union?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging that there are approximately 100,000 persons living on 75 Scottish islands, which is considerably fewer than the number of people who live in his constituency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with Scottish general practitioners with regard to the new Scottish contract of service.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote on 16 March to all general practitioners in Scotland inviting their views. He, I and officials have met representatives of the profession in Scotland on several occasions to discuss the new contract.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposed contract is very good for rural doctors? Will he also agree that doctors will maintain their income without increasing their lists, and will have adequate time to deal with patients both at home and in surgeries? Will he try to remove the misunderstanding between the general practitioners and the community, perhaps caused by publicity provided by the BMA, and try to reduce the alarm unnecessarily caused to constituents?

The specific proposals for rural doctors in Scotland have been warmly welcomed by the medical profession and, indeed, by many individual doctors. Of course, there are matters affecting the United Kingdom as a whole that are part of the BMA's negotiations, which are continuing. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that these matters can best be dealt with on the basis of what is in the White Paper and not by misrepresentation of the White Paper.

How does the Secretary of State explain away the fact that everything that he and his hon. Friend do in the Health Service is greeted with complete disapproval by the Health Service professionals, and the latest episode is just another example? Does he not think that the time has come for him and his hon. Friend to pause and reconsider the Government's actions in the light of opinion being expressed within the medical profession?

I would be more worried by the reaction from certain quarters if it were based on a clear understanding of what is in the White Paper. So many allegations have been made in documents, such as that issued by the BMA, that have no foundation in truth. There seems to be a deliberate attempt to scare elderly people in particular by implying that in future they would not be entitled to treatment under the National Health Service. It is important indeed that those who represent the general practitioners put their arguments forward clearly and concisely. If they wish to criticise the Government, they are free to do so, but they should not criticise the Government for what is not in the White Paper. That is the weakness in their ultimate position.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the enhanced number of women general practitioners in Scotland and of the vital role they often play in preventive medicine. Would it be possible for the Scottish Office to discuss the implications of the White Paper with these women doctors, since so many of them are on part-time contracts and their careers may be damaged if the proposals went through unamended?

I take the hon. Lady's point; that is one of the considerations we had in mind when proposing, for example, in rural areas that payments from the rural practice fund would be based on average and not on personal list sizes, and we are prepared to consider a similar approach towards practices in urban areas as well.

Is it not the height of arrogance for the Secretary of State to accuse doctors of scaring old ladies? Is he not aware of the fact that many general practitioners in Scotland and throughout the whole country are extremely concerned at the prospect of being forced to increase their list size and of having to become accountants and to regard elderly patients, in particular, not as patients to be treated on the basis of need but simply as overheads or non-profit-making units? Does he not understand that general practitioners are concerned about the Health Service? They use it and live with it, unlike Conservative Members.

As one who uses the National Health Service, I repudiate entirely what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has inadvertently emphasised that he, too, has not read the White Paper.

I have.

If he has read it, he certainly has not understood it, because he began by proposing that general practitioners would be forced to take on more patients in order to maintain their income. No general practitioner will be forced to take on more patients to maintain his or her income and although taking on additional patients might lead to an increase in income, that is a very different proposition.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a substantial number of doctors in my constituency are concerned about the misleading propaganda that has come out of London? Is he also aware that they have pointed out to me that under the provisions of their new contracts and because of the way in which they will be given the opportunity of choice about how to run their practices, they might be able to allocate funds from their own resources to save hospitals such as Blairgowrie cottage hospital and Forfar infirmary because the additional cash could be directed in that way?

That is entirely true. Of course, additional resources that do not need to be used for one purpose within the National Health Service will continue to be available within the NHS to improve the quality of provision in both general practices and hospitals. That is why the proposals deserve to be welcomed.

Although the Secretary of State may have read the White Paper, he certainly does not understand it because if he did he would realise that the new GP contracts contain an incentive to increase list size. Will he accept that neither general practitioners nor patients can understand how a GP seeing more patients can somehow improve the quality of care? Will the Secretary of State reconsider his position on list sizes and on incentives to increase list sizes because then and only then can agreements be reached on GPs' contracts for the benefit of all patients?

There are various ways in which general practitioners can increase their income, sometimes significantly, by providing better and extra facilities to their patients. The point at issue is whether they need to increase their list size to maintain their income. That is the allegation that has been made by the BMA and repeated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), and that allegation is totally unfounded.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies he has commissioned into the likely impact of the integrated market after 1992 on the Scottish economy.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State is chairing the single market committee of the Scottish Economic Council which is examining the effects of a single European market on Scotland. In addition, a number of studies have been commissioned.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the two reports that were published last month, one by Peat Marwick McLintock and the other by the CBI Scotland, and of yesterday's words from Professor Neil Hood of the Scottish Development Agency which confirmed that Scottish industry is singularly ill-equipped and feels that it has inadequate backup to meet the major challenges of 1992? Is it not time that the Secretary of State cast off the south-east England bias of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and conducted some more detailed studies about the impact of 1992 on Scotland's manufacturing base?

Many Scottish companies are ready to meet the challenge; others are not. Our objective must be to ensure that the challenge is fully realised—[Interruption.] Labour Members seem to be more interested in the relevance of a slogan than in the content and substance of the point being made. The committee that has been set up under the Scottish Economic Council includes representatives from industry, the trade unions and others concerned with this matter in Scotland, and they will examine the important point that the hon. Gentleman has properly raised.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the removal of the Scottish economy from the United Kingdom, which is what some anti-Unionists would have us bring about, would damage the whole of the British economy and does he further agree that if the Scottish economy tried to work on its own with such a heavy dependence on the oil industry, that would be damaging to Scotland? Does he also agree that all studies have demonstrated that trying to run those economies separately would damage the industries of both countries and would be the death of the 1992 spirit?

It is certainly the case that irrespective of political institutions the people of Scotland and the people of England are geographically destined to share the same small island. A consequence of that is bound to be a highly integrated economy and it has been shown over the years to be in the interests of the people of Scotland and of England that they share that economic destiny.

Has not the Secretary of State been far too complacent about 1992? Is he aware of the labour force survey figures released for 1988 which show that of the 1·6 million jobs created between June 1983 and June 1988, 700,000—40 per cent.—were created in the south-east, but only 30,000—2 per cent.—were created in Scotland? Does he agree that we need an effective regional policy, investment in infrastructure and a low interest rate policy? If those policies are not adopted, Scotland will not benefit from 1992.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the latest report from the Fraser of Allander Institute suggests that the Scottish economy is growing faster than that of the rest of the United Kingdom. If that is the view of the institute, it should be a matter of satisfaction to both sides of the House.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the view of Jacques Delors, the president of the European Commission, that the open market of 1992 must be balanced by an effective regional policy or does he agree with the recent remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said at Chatham house that a regional policy can be positively damaging to the economy?

I do not believe that a regional policy is damaging to the economy and that is why the present British Government exercise an extremely healthy and successful one.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a recent poll, which shows that a higher proportion of companies in Scotland and the north of England than in the rest of Britain are intending to expand in Europe is significant? Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that the Scottish financial services sect or has tremendous opportunities for growth within the single European market?

Yes. It is extremely encouraging that a Scottish company such as Christian Salvesen is taking over a Belgian company and James Howden and Weir Pumps is acquiring continental subsidiaries. That clearly demonstrates that a number of the most effective Scottish companies appreciate the opportunities offered by the single European market.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people have successfully completed a Manpower Services Commission training course in Scotland during the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

Information is not available about total completions over the past 10 years, but I can say that 522,328 young people between the ages of 16 and 18 entered training programmes during that time.

Does the Minister agree that many trainees never finish their courses because of accidents? Has he ever heard of James McCormack, a young constituent, who died in 1985 as a result of injuries sustained in a company called MacGregors Quayside Mills, which is based in Leith? Does he appreciate that that family, as well as their son, suffered greatly? Has he ever understood that compensation was denied to that family? Does he appreciate that a court in Sheffield ruled only recently that the Manpower Services Commission is legally responsible for the accidents to and the death of MSC trainees? Will that English ruling prevail in Scotland? Will compensation —not that money is important—be paid to the McCormack family to make amends for what went wrong in the past? More important, will he ensure that such individuals—they are called trainees—are properly protected in the future? It is about time that the Minister spoke.

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman on his last point. Obviously accidents at work are to be deplored and should be guarded against. I know that the greatest care is taken by the MSC, now the Training Agency, to try to ensure that accidents to young people on training courses are kept to an absolute minimum and, if possible, avoided at all costs.

For the sake of the McCormack family—

Order.

Mr. Speaker, I—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that all young people in Scotland have the opportunity to benefit from training schemes, especially disabled young people? Can my hon. Friend give the figures on the number of disabled young people who have completed such training courses? Can he also reassure me that steps are taken to ensure that access to training places is suitable for disabled people?

I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend figures without notice, but he is right to emphasise the importance of training for disabled people. I am particularly encouraged by the high proportion of Scottish companies that are successful in the fit for work awards. Only last week I presented one to IBM in Greenock, a winner for the third year in succession.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has commissioned into the impact of a uniform business rate in England and Wales on Scottish business; and what are its findings.

The introduction of the uniform business rate in England and Wales in 1990 will be phased in gradually over a number of years. It is our intention to move towards a common rate on the same time scale in Scotland. I do not therefore think that research is required.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his 100 per cent. record; for about the 20th time he has failed to answer the question. What research has been conducted into the impact on Scotland of a uniform business rate in England and Wales? No research has been conducted. It is a gross dereliction of duty. Scottish business will be damaged by the impact of a uniform business rate in England and Wales. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no research has been done?

I actually said that in my original reply, if the hon. Gentleman had taken the courtesy to listen to it. I pointed out that the reason is that we intend to introduce a common rate poundage in Scotland over the same time scale. Therefore, by the time the uniform business rate is in operation there will be a common rate poundage throughout the United Kingdom. I can keep repeating the point if it helps the hon. Gentleman. I can give him information, but I cannot give him wisdom.

By controlling the rate of increase in the non-domestic rate, the Secretary of State for Scotland ensures that the poll tax payer has to pay more than would otherwise have been the case. What will happen to the poor people who cannot afford inflated poll taxes? So far the Secretary of State has given them no advice. The only alternative that the Government have offered to them is to escape liability by removing their names from the electoral register. Is that what the Secretary of State wants?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that does not lead to their escaping liability for community charge. I trust that he is making that clear to his constituents, because that is the legal position. The hon. Gentleman also knows perfectly well that those on low incomes can receive up to 80 per cent. rebate on the community charge for which they are liable.

On the substance of the question, does the Secretary of State believe that phasing of the introduction of the uniform business rate will be to the advantage or disadvantage of Scottish business? What calculations has he made?

It would be to the disadvantage of Scottish business if nothing of a similar kind were happening in Scotland over the same period. I have emphasised that the introduction of a common rate poundage throughout the United Kingdom will take place over the same time scale north and south of the border.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Scottish business expects to have an advantage compared with the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he also bear in mind the position within Scotland and ensure that businesses in low-rated authorities, such as Kincardine and Deeside, do not suffer averaging up at the same time as others benefit from averaging down?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is precisely for that reason that we are moving towards a common rate poundage throughout the United Kingdom and not seeking to introduce a UBR that involves the pooling of rates income and its redistribution. It is precisely to protect local authorities such as my right hon. Friend has referred to.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the number of vessels which Caledonian MacBrayne expects to order over the next five years.

Caledonian MacBrayne's corporate plan over the next five years includes proposals to replace two major vessels and six minor vessels. All these proposals for new ships will need to be subject to a detailed economic appraisal and review in the light of Caledonian MacBrayne's requirements before any order can be approved.

Given that in the light of the Transport (Scotland) Bill the Secretary of State might soon be given the sobriquet of Mr. CalMac, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman advance one of the contracts and give it to Fergusons of Port Glasgow in order to ease the parlous circumstances of that yard?

rose—

One moment; I have waited a long time for this question. May I point out to the Minister that bids for that yard were submitted to British Shipbuilders over a month ago? Since then we have heard nothing. The uncertainty is creating anxiety. It is a disgraceful state of affairs. When will the Secretary of State for Scotland show some concern for the people of the lower Clyde? [Interruption.] Be quiet, silly old fool.

Order.

Order. I did not hear anything out of order. Let us get on with it.

To order an earlier than planned replacement of a CalMac ferry would be more costly, and orders cannot be directed to particular yards. I assure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that any yard capable of building a CalMac ferry will be given the opportunity to tender when CalMac seeks to place orders. The hon. Gentleman's second question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. British Shipbuilders has received several bids for the yard which are still being evaluated. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is keeping in close touch with the matter.

In the interests of the comfort of the passengers travelling on CalMac ships, will my hon. Friend ensure that the ships are built to take into account the fact that the weather can be rough on the west coast of Scotland? None of CalMac's present steamers seem to take account of the fact that it is often rough.

My hon. Friend speaks from personal experience of countless voyages to Isla. At Christmas I went on a CalMac ferry which was enormously impressive and the highest standard of service was being given.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect that the poll tax has had on electoral registration in Scotland.

Since electoral statistics in 1989 show increases in the number of electors in some local authorities and decreases in others, it is not clear what effect, if any, the advent of the community charge has had on electoral registration.

The Minister must know that registration officers are using the valuation roll and the electoral register to impose the poll tax. Given that 25,000 young Scots are no longer on the voters' roll, will he now admit that that was one reason why the Government imposed the poll tax in Scotland.

There is no conclusive evidence. I shall give the hon. Gentleman three reasons for change. First, a general elect ion is certainly not imminent. Secondly, there have been changes in practice by electoral registration officers. Thirdly, there have been changes in dual registration which has taken place, quite legitimately, for example, by students and second home owners. In a considerable number of authorities, the number of electors has increased. That has happened in 19 districts and in two regions and two island authorities.

Does not the Minister realise that in a well-heeled district where residents will gain from the poll tax they will, of course, register. In areas such as mine, Kilmarnock, many people are caught in the poverty trap. I can well afford to pay the poll tax and will make a profit from it. I shall refuse to pay the poll tax, sound in the knowledge that it will be extracted at source. However,. those people who, unlike me, are unemployed and cannot pay the poll tax will, for the first time, find that the tax can be extracted from their benefits, not by negotiation or agreement, but by mandate.

If there is any grain of truth in the allegations that the drop in the roll is in any way attributable to the community charge, and that people are seeking to avoid their responsibilities, even if they receive a rebate, hon. Members who encourage non-payment of the community charge have a heavy responsibility to bear. I have a Labour party leaflet which says:

"There is a country where the right to vote was won after years of tong and bitter struggle. The present government wants to change that right. They are making all adults pay to be registered."

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had supporting the proposals for reform of the National Health Service.

Most submissions on the White Paper have shown strong support for certain proposals and criticism of others.

Surprise, surprise. I have received 600 repesentations on the proposals, and all of them have been negative. I suppose that that is hardly surprising either. One proposal that most Opposition Members would support is the one involving computerisation in hospitals. How many health boards in Scotland have the full complement of computer staff?

I would need notice of that question, but I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman is provided with the necessary information. I was surprised to hear him say that all the 600 representations that he has received were negative, because the hon. Gentleman might assist us in putting the other side of the coin. In fact, he has already done so. A rather splendid document was issued by the Labour party on 12 April and signed by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). On page 3, there is a heading: "What's good in the White Paper:" It goes on to tell us:

"Quality of care … efficiency in the delivery of care … more information available to consultants and general practitioners … further devolution of management to hospital and unit level … a flexible accounting system to reflect clinical led doctors/patient choice … audit."

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has regarding the reductions in combined rent and rate bills for tenants in the private sector following the implementation of the poll tax.

The Scottish Office has received a number of representations from tenants about the level of the their rents following the introduction of the community charge. In addition, several hon. Members, together with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and some individual authorities, have made general representations on this matter.

Do the Minister and the Secretary of State realise that thousands of landlords in Scotland are both pocketing the existing rate charges and ensuring that their residents pay the poll tax? Up to £30 million is being made in windfall gains from the collection of such phantom rates. Why does the Minister not bring in legislation similar to section 16 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 to make it illegal for landlords to charge for rates that they are not collecting?

I am glad to say that there is a remedy for all the tenants concerned. If the tenancy is regulated, the rent should be registered with the rent officer; if it is an assured tenancy, the tenant will have a written statement of the terms of the tenancy to identify any element for rates. [Interruption.] That is in the Scottish Act, and it was the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) who particularly asked for the concession to be made.