To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to locate a centre for climatic and other environmental studies in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently announced the Government's intention to set up a United Kingdom centre for the prediction of climatic change.

The north of Scotland has outstanding centres of scientific excellence. Do Scottish Ministers back the proposal that the EC Environmental Protection Agency should be located there or do they back the Prime Minister's proposal that the centre for the prediction of climatic change should be located there? Both would be welcome.

The hon. Gentleman raises two separate issues. It is likely that the centre for climatic study will have close links with the Meteorological Office near Bracknell. That is still to be confirmed. We ane spending £1 million on environmental studies. With regard to a centre for environmental studies in Scotland, we always support locating the headquarters in Scotland. The attractions of Aberdeen and Edinburgh were carefully considered, but eventually the choice fell on Cambridge, for the simple reason that several factors were of influence, including the fact that the world conservation monitoring centre is located there.

Does the Minister recollect that I wrote to him to advise him of Grampian's bid for a European environmental agency to be sited in Aberdeen? He replied that it was too early to have a meeting on the bid, because the matter was still under discussion. A couple of days later, we discovered that it was proposed to site the centre in Cambridge. Has not the Minister fallen down badly on the job? Should he not have allowed us to push the case? Why did he abandon his responsibility in such a cavalier manner?

Ten per cent. of the British population live in Scotland. We compete with the rest of the British population for European institutions. All the factors are weighed on their merit collectively by the Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while the location of any centre to examine climatic change is important, it is more important that changing climatic conditions in Scotland are carefully noted? In particular, such matters as the short days in the winter months and changes in lighting-up time—and, indeed, the time when anything else happens—are important. We do not want dayrise to occur at 10.30 am, as the proposals put forward by the European Commission envisage.

We particularly note my hon. Friend's point on lighting-up time and changes to summer time. With regard to cold weather payments, we have a common test throughout Britain, which starts at 0 deg C. People living in areas where cold weather is more prevalent stand to benefit most.

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

I met the chairman of British Steel on 26 October. We discussed a number of matters of current interest affecting the steel industry.

Is the Secretary of State aware that that answer will be a bitter disappointment to thousands of steel workers and their families? Is it not about time that he faced up to his responsibilities? Will he make a start today, first by joining me in congratulating the workers of Clydesdale on their productivity efforts and, secondly, by making it plain to British Steel management that a failure to reward that effort with the necessary investment will be a gross betrayal of the workers and of the promises the management made to them? Thirdly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a public pledge to the people of Scotland that, if any one of the three Lanarkshire steel plants goes, he will do the honourable thing and go at the same time?

I do not know why it should be a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman that I met with the chairman of British Steel on 26 October. As he well knows, since then, I have been in correspondence with the chairman following the productive meeting that I had with the Ravenscraig shop stewards.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the substantial investment in Ravenscraig has been fully justified by the results—all credit to the work force? Will he impress upon British Steel that it would be inconceivable that it should start to run down the industry in Scotland after 1994, and that, were it to do so, there would be universal opposition to that decision?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is significant that, in the two years since the privatisation of the steel industry, British Steel's operations in Scotland have never been so fully worked, and the work force at Ravenscraig and elsewhere have been fully occupied. I share my hon. Friend's view that we want that to continue for many years to come.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the formal commitment to continue steelmaking until 1994 means very little if the investment is not undertaken to maintain the steelworks in a fully operational condition, complete with the cold strip mill at Ravenscraig?

Of course we welcome any investment that British Steel may think appropriate in the steel industry in Scotland. In the past, Ravenscraig has received substantial steel investment, and it is important that that should continue.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that British Steel's commitment to Scotland is not good and that we cannot have any confidence in its commitment to the future of the Scottish steel industry? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore say today that he will use his influence and authority to establish an independent Scottish steel industry with secure investment and a long-term future, which would not be subjected to the constant threats of closure?

At the time of the privatisation of the steel industry, British Steel said that, in the event of not wishing to continue its steel operations in Scotland, it would be open to making the steelworks available to any other interested purchaser. At the present time, British Steel says that it has every intention of continuing its steel operations in Scotland. If that ever ceased to be the case, the alternative option would have to be seriously considered.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that everyone accepts the importance of a steel industry? My right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to that steel industry is well known on the Conservative Benches. Does he also agree, however, that Opposition Members are practising a gross deception on the Scottish people if they suggest to them that any industry can have the guarantee of remaining in operation for ever, regardless of commercial conditions, especially bearing in mind the fact that the vast majority of the steel produced in Scotland is not used in Scotland?

It is certainly the case that the future of any industry depends upon the demand for its product. It is also true that, when the previous Labour Government were in office, employment in the steel industry in Scotland fell by some 5,000 and a number of Scottish steel plants were closed. That shows that, at the end of the day, it is economic considerations that are important. I believe that Scotland deserves to have a steel industry for a good number of years to come, and I believe that the work force at Ravenscraig have shown that they can be competitive with steel workers elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

While the pledge about steelmaking to the end of 1994 is important, does the Secretary of State agree that the key to the long-term future of Ravenscraig and the industry is investment? Will he join me in publicly pressing British Steel to implement the realistic £10 million investment package for the strip mill at Ravenscraig, which will improve our competitiveness and do wonders for morale in the plant? Does he accept the urgent need, and importance to the Scottish economy, of modernising the mill at Clydesdale so that Scotland can continue to supply the North sea tubes industry? If he does, what specific steps is he taking to fight for that investment and ensure that, when considering where to place any plate mill built by British Steel, full weight is given to the claims of Dalziel? Will he assure us that, now that the industry has been sold off, it will not be a case of Scottish Ministers simply shutting their eyes, crossing their toes and hoping for the best?

I can give the hon. Member a complete assurance on the last part of his question; our activities over the past couple of months are clear evidence of that. We have already made it clear to Sir Robert Scholey and British Steel that the Scottish Office would welcome further investment by British Steel in the Scottish steel industry. We would also expect it to consider the claims of Dalziel in relation to the future of any new plate mill in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of Scotland whether he will review the disabled students allowance given to SED-funded students in higher education.

Yes. The level of the disabled students allowance for the session 1990–91 will be reviewed together with other supplementary allowance rates.

I am grateful for that answer, but I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would give a statement about the amounts today. Is he aware that my constituent, Caroline Munro, a profoundly deaf young lady, has been funded until this Christmas by the charity of an Edinburgh business man who read of her plight in The Mail on Sunday? What advice can the Minister give Caroline Munro? Should she look for more charity or do a lower-level course which the Strathclyde region can fund if his Department will not?

The hon. Lady might like to know that the level has risen from £180 in the last year of the Labour Government to £765 now—a substantial increase. The constituency case to which the hon. Lady referred involves a student who is profoundly deaf and needs special help. The young lady might like to apply to Strathclyde regional council's social work dept, which is able to help people with deafness problems.

The Minister must know that we are talking about a small group of students at universities and further education colleges in Scotland. Given the size of that group, can the Minister give a guarantee that, when students are unable to obtain outside support, he will ensure that they have the necessary support to continue their courses?

I can give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that we shall review the levels, which will be increased in line with available resources and the needs of the students involved. We have already made a substantial increase from £180, during the last year of the Labour Government, to £765 now.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of homeless people in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available.

Some 9,500 households were assessed by local authorities as homeless during the year ending 31 March 1989.

I am sure that the House will be horrified by those figures, which are probably an underestimate. Will the Minister give serious consideration, perhaps over Christmas when he spends time with his young family, to those young homeless who are out on the streets with nowhere to go? This growing army of modern Oliver Twists have a nomadic life and no respite from their troubles. Will he try to match the money that has been given to England and Wales, so that the authorities can start to lay the foundations to provide somewhere for these young people to live?

The answer is yes. We have ensured that Scottish local authorities have an increase in net capital funding allocations of £64 million, which we have announced. We shall announce the individual allocations to local authorities this week. In those we shall have taken into account the incidence of homelessness. We are revising the code of guidance on homelessness, as it urgently needs updating. I debated this in the early hours of this morning with the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).

I wonder whether the Minister watched a programme on television which showed a typical example of a homeless person who came from Aberdeen to London? He made only £50 a day in the tube stations and preferred, despite the advice of his mother, to remain in London making it, paying no tax and living in a cardboard box, rather than return to Aberdeen where he could have got a proper job.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) spent the night looking into these matters last week It is significant that his advice was that young people should not come to London unless they have accommodation or are going to a certain job. Often that has not happened in the past.

Can the Minister explain why, during the progress of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, he refused to give any responsibility for homelessness to Scottish Homes and insisted instead that responsibility should go to local authorities? Why, in the time since then, has he increased Government support in real terms for Scottish Homes, while cutting it in real terms for local authorities? Is that not evidence of the Government's betrayal of tens of thousands of homeless people in Scotland?

I specifically told Scottish Homes board members, whom I saw recently, that they should give priority to homelessness projects in co-operation with local authorities; but we have given substantial funding to local authorities by increasing their net capital allocations by £64 million. Scottish Homes will be coming forward with a cash incentive scheme to enable residents in its housing to move out into home ownership, so as to enable homeless families to move in.

How many council houses in Scotland are lying empty, and how long does it take to refill a council house when a tenant moves? Can my hon. Friend give some estimate of the number of homes that are vacant in the private sector because people do not believe that the housing legislation allows them both to let their houses and to get them back when they need them?

I most certainly can. There are about 25,000 empty council houses. Many of them are needed for decanting, but at least 4,000 of them have been vacant for more than three months, and I urge local authorities whenever possible to bring them back into use.

When will the Minister stop being so cruelly complacent about homelessness in Scotland, and recognise that the true figure of 30,000 homeless people there represents a major crisis for him, for Scotland and for all whom he represents? Why does he—unlike his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—not realise that there is such a crisis and allocate as much money to Scottish homelessness as his right hon. Friend has given to England and Wales? Will he announce today that he is giving £30 million to deal with the problem of homelessness in Scotland?

First, it is up to local authorities, when spending the extra £64 million net capital allocations, to decide on their most pressing needs. I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider the fact that the problems of London are not exactly reproduced in Scotland; most of the £250 million funding goes to London and the province of the south-east. I believe that local authorities should have the discretion to choose their priorities; projects against dampness and provision for the disabled might be given higher priority in certain areas.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed hill farming with the National Farmers Union of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

My noble Friend the Minister of State and I met the National Farmers Union of Scotland on 25 October to discuss hill farming.

I welcome the increase in suckler cow subsidy, but is my hon. Friend aware that the true hill farm depends on the amount of hill livestock compensatory allowances? Will he do everything possible to ensure that payments in 1990 and 1991 will be every bit as high as in 1989, in order to help that particular sector of the rural economy?

I recognise the importance of the hill farming sector in Scotland. Hill livestock compensatory allowances totalling almost £45 million have been paid annually. We shall make a statement concerning 1990 shortly. As to 1992, we voted against the proposals made in Brussels, and eventually had them moderated—but they were eventually adopted by a qualified majority. We shall bear in mind the points that my hon. Friend made, as we are aware of the importance of the allowance to conservation, the environment, jobs and the sturdy way of life in which hill farmers are involved.

There are many hill farmers in my constituency, which has a large farming community. Is the Minister aware of the great alarm felt among the farming community at the lack of availability of anthrax vaccine? Many farmers who are crying out for vaccine for their herds are discovering that it cannot be obtained. Will the Minister say what advice I can give the farmer who visited me recently, Mr. William King of Hawksland farm in Lesmahagow, who lost a herd in the 1970s through anthrax and who is now concerned that, because of the lack of the vaccine, he may lose more of his stock?

I shall follow up the hon. Gentleman's inquiry and will write to him as soon as possible.

If there is to be a headage limit on HLCA payments, that will represent a limit on the European Community contribution, as I am sure the Minister will agree. As HLCAs were devised by the United Kingdom Government and are widely recognised as a most useful form of support for the hill farming industry, will the Government undertake to meet any shortfall from the European Community?

That proposal will come into operation in 1991, and it would be premature to make a statement about rates now. We secured agreement to have the headage limits reduction set at £2·5 million instead of 4·8 million ecu. As I mentioned earlier, we voted against the Agriculture Council as we thought that the headage limit proposals discriminated against hill farmers such as those to be found in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We made a firm stand.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to abolish the system of warrant sales in Scotland.

The system of warrant sales was reformed by the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. Those reforms removed the most resented and harsh aspects of the procedure. Those reforms were welcomed by the Opposition.

The Secretary of State's answer is pathetic and disgraceful, and he should be thoroughly ashamed of it. Despite the change made in 1987, warrant sales are degrading and humiliating. The practice belongs to the middle ages, not the 1990s. Does the Secretary of State not appreciate the urgency of the situation, when the Government's iniquitous poll tax is forcing thousands of poor people into utter destitution? Will he not reconsider even at this stage? Is it not legalised theft to allow sheriffs' officers to value goods worth many hundreds of pounds at a mere pittance? There are other methods of dealing with the matter. Why will not the Secretary of State use them and abolish warrant sales once and for all?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Law Commission examined the matter, and as an independent advisory body pointed out that the system enforced in Scotland is similar to that permitted in virtually every other country of whose practices it was aware. The hon. Gentleman referred to non-payment of community charge. One year ago, when the question in Scotland was of non-payment of domestic rates, Strathclyde region issued summary warrants against more than 77,000 people—but at the end of the day, there were only two warrant sales. It is very much open to the hon. Gentleman's own Labour-controlled regional council whether or not it wishes to adopt warrant sales.

Does the Secretary of State accept that Opposition Members believe that such an outmoded form of debt collection should be abolished? They will be introducing a Bill to that effect later today. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Scottish National party finance convenor for Grampian regional council preferred to lose his post rather than condone the continuation of the warrant sales system?—[Interruption.]

Order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the hon. Lady is criticising the Labour party, which I have no doubt that she is entitled to do, she might also inquire into the practices of the only local authority controlled by the Scottish National party—Angus district council—which I understand is properly carrying out its legal obligation to implement the community charge. I congratulate the authority and commend it for taking what is clearly a more responsible attitude to its legal obligations than the hon. Lady seems to wish.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that four SNP councillors in Midlothian who had promised not to pay the community charge are now paying it? Does he share my hope that the habit is contagious and that Labour Members of Parliament who have refused to pay the charge will soon do so, because by not doing so they are restricting the extent of local authority service and hurting those in greatest need?

I am happy to say that the vast majority of members of the public are paying the community charge—up to 98 per cent. in the Borders and more than 90 per cent. in Fife. As for those who say that they will not pay, it will soon be brought home to them that if they succeeded in their objective they would simply impose an increased penalty on the other 90 per cent. of the population, for which they would not be thanked. As I have said, the vast majority are carrying out their legal obligations, as Parliament would expect them to do.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the great majority of Scottish local authorities, especially Labour authorities, have an excellent record in not pursuing warrant, sales? Does he accept that the new pressures on local authorities derive entirely from the imposition of the poll tax, to which virtually all Scottish local authorities of all political persuasions were opposed? Will he guarantee that the Scottish Office will take no punitive action against councils which, on grounds of human decency, do not use the abhorrent weapon of warrant sales?

It is for the Commission for Local Authority Accounts, not the Scottish Office, to examine any allegations made about individual local authorities. The level of payment of the community charge is broadly comparable with domestic rate payment levels at this time a year ago, when local authorities were issuing tens of thousands of summary warrants against domestic ratepayers. More than 77,000 were issued in Strathclyde region. There has been no change in the procedure, or in the legal rights of local authorities, and I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me about that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has had recently concerning employment in Renfrew district; and if he will make a statement.

I recently met a deputation of local councillors and trade union representatives led by my hon. Friend when we discussed the economic situation in general in Renfrew district, and in particular the possibilities for protecting jobs at Armitage Shanks in Barrhead.

I thank my hon. Friend, and congratulate him on his immediate acceptance of the proposals put to him at that meeting by Renfrew district council, the trade unions and the shop stewards. Does he agree, however, that there are a number of disturbing features in what has happened—for example, the attempt by senior management just after the announcement to provoke industrial action by locking out of the factory honest, decent people who simply wanted to go to work as usual? Will he emphasise to the holding company, Blue Circle Industries plc that a positive response to constructive proposals would be in the interests not only of the work force and the community, but of the shareholders of this large, profitable and well-known company?

My hon. Friend's concern about, and involvement in, the company's problems are well known and I pay tribute to them. The decision must be a commercial one for the management of Armitage Shanks, but I am very pleased that the Scottish Development Agency is to participate in a feasibility study of employment opportunities in the area. Which I consider to be a constructive move. I have written to the chairman of Blue Circle Industries plc the parent company, urging him to defer the redundancies until the study can take place.

I thank the Minister for his prompt action. Does he not agree however, that the parent holding company, Blue Circle Industries plc, is indulging in downright grammatical inexactitudes in trying to allege that the decline in industry in Barrhead is due to the fall in the lira, which it claims has led to the dumping of sanitary ware in Scotland and in Britain as a whole? Does the Minister agree that the real reason for the decline is undiluted greed on the part of a company which made £231 million last year?

I cannot agree with the argument to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He mentioned the Italian lira and imports of products from abroad. In fact. the movement of the lira in the past 12 months has helped domestic production and reduced the threat of imports.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Wildlife Link about his proposals for the future of the scientific capability of the Nature Conservancy Council.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Wildlife Link both stressed the need for cohesive scientific advice on an all-Britain basis. I am happy to confirm that the proposed reforms will ensure that this is achieved.

Why has the Secretary of State refused the eminently sensible request of his Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), for an independent chairman of the science co-ordinating committee?

The hon. Gentleman must not jump to conclusions with regard to that proposal. The proposals on nature conservancy have been warmly welcomed in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman knows, by the Scottish council of the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Scottish Green party and more than 90 other organisations and individuals. We broadly welcome the proposals from the Nature Conservancy Council United Kingdom headquarters for a joint committee. I believe that the proposals were constructive and helpful.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory non-answer to that question, I shall raise the matter at 5.30 am tomorrow in the Consolidated Fund debate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to effect further reductions in waiting lists in the Scottish Health Service.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to effect further reductions in waiting lists in the Scottish Health Service.

Following the success of our waiting list initiatives, I will make £7 million available next year to make further progress in reducing waiting lists.

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply, and for what it augurs for the people of Scotland. Does he agree that while the decreases in waiting lists have been primarily associated with Government initiatives, the increases have been critically associated with trade union strike action? Does he agree that the best thing that the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees could do to improve the Health Service is not to posture on television, but to earn the sobriquet of the caring profession by encouraging their members to stay at work?

My hon. Friend is right to point to the effects of industrial action on waiting lists. In-patient waiting lists in Scotland currently stand at rather more than 60,000. The industrial action in 1982 added about 20,000 people to the waiting list and industrial action in 1978 did the same. It is important for everyone who supports strikes in the National Health Service to realise that it is the patients who are the victims.

The figures that my hon. Friend has given to the House will be welcomed by everyone. Will my hon. Friend compare and contrast the excellent record of the Conservative Government in Scotland with the truly lamentable record of the last Labour Government?

My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the record of the last Labour Government. I am sure that they did not mean to do badly with the Health Service. They cut the Health Service because they failed to manage the economy. Because of the economic success that we have enjoyed, we have been able to invest in the Health Service and bring waiting times down.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my colleagues and I recently met the Lothian health board, who informed us that it had to make cuts of £6 million this year and that one method was not to reappoint staff? If one does not reappoint medical staff, how does the hon. Gentleman believe that one can deal with the patient waiting list?

I am somewhat surprised at the hon. Gentleman's account of the meeting with Lothian region.

Is the Minister aware that, only this morning, I was on the telephone to the Edinburgh royal infirmary about a constituent who was told in August that he would have to wait two or three months for a heart bypass operation, who was then told that he must wait an extra six or eight weeks and who was told last week that he will have to wait until February? When I spoke to the doctor this morning, he said that people are waiting 15 months for heart operations in Edinburgh. We are getting to the point at which the queue is self-limiting because people die before they can have the operation. Does the Minister accept that that is a tragic and scandalous state of affairs, and will he take action to see that something is done about it?

I am concerned to hear about that case. The hon. Member is right to draw attention to increasing waiting times for heart surgery, but, in fairness, he should also mention the substantial extra number of patients being given cardiac surgery and the substantial resources that we have made available for that. He knows from the statement that we made last week that we are looking into how we can expand cardiac surgery. We have provided the resources to achieve that. I remind the House of what my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) said —that industrial action in the Health Service makes the task of getting waiting lists down even harder.

Can the Minister explain why he is so insecure in his stewardship of the Scottish Health Service that he has to arrange for planted dolly questions from English Tory Members to protect him from Scottish Members? Is not the Scottish Health Service exactly the type of subject which should prpperly be examined by a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? If the subject received such examination, does the Minister think that anyone in Scotland would regard the Health Service as safe in his hands?

I note the hon. Gentleman's appeal for a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. I served on the last Select Committee, which examined the hospital building programme and I am studying its findings. Members of the Scottish National party refused to serve on that Select Committee because they regarded it as a waste of time. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of being accused of having double standards. As for the accusation about planted questions, it is a sad testimony that the SNP is not interested in the progress being made to reduce waiting times for patients.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is the only Scotsman on the Government side who has risen.

I am obliged for your protection, Mr. Speaker. On matters of dress I take my orders from the Prince of Wales and give my orders to you. [Interruption.]

Order. Let us get on with it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's success in the reduction of waiting lists in Scotland is just another reflection of the success of their economic policies, which have increased expenditure on the Scottish National Health Service from £1 billion in 1979 to £3,000 million in 1989? Is it not marvellous that we spend £550 on every patient in Scotland while £450 is spent on every English patient? Should not Opposition Members be proud that we have made in Scotland the best health service in the world?

You will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for observing that my hon. and learned Friend was being barracked while he spelled out the record of success in the Health Service. He is right to say that expenditure in cash terms has been trebled. Expenditure on the Health Service in Scotland now represents £550 per year for every man, woman and child in Scotland. That is an increase, over and above inflation, of more than one third. That is a record to be proud of and one which none of the Opposition parties came close to approaching when they were in office.

As the Under-Secretary of State on occasion takes an embarrassingly close interest in broadcasting, may I congratulate him on the obvious care that he has taken to get the right camera angle today? I know that he is aware of reports that one in five heart operations at the sick children's hospital in Glasgow have had to be postponed, sometimes at very short notice, even at a few minutes' notice.

I have looked into the matter fairly carefully and I understand that the use of intensive care beds at the hospital averages about 76 per cent. There are peaks at particular times of the year and there have been problems with the management of the beds. It is a matter not of resources but of the management of resources. I have asked the Department to find out the detailed position and if additional resources are required to prevent operations on children being cancelled at short notice, we shall certainly seek to provide them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that is not acceptable for something like one in nine operations to be cancelled at short notice and we shall certainly look into that. I do not think that it would be appropriate to publish a report setting out the position in detail. Most people are concerned that the children should get their operations when they need them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to shorten courses in the central institutions in Scotland to meet the impact of a student loans scheme.

Unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by 32 per cent. over the past three years and by over 14,000 in the last year alone—

Wrong one!

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Lang.

I always defer to my right hon. and learned Friend.

I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on his performance in the first Scottish Question Time this Session. The Minister to whom my question is directed must be aware that all Scottish universities and central institutions which responded to the White Paper on student loans, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland outlined their opposition to the proposal because they realise the detrimental effect that it will have on the fourth year of study in Scotland. They are quite clear that it will have a detrimental effect on the Scottish system of education. Is the Minister really saying that they are all wrong and that, as usual, only the Government are right?

I see no evidence at all that the top-up loan system should be detrimental to the four-year degree course. Scottish students enjoying a four-year degree course are receiving grants and maintenance for four rather than three years, but not all Scottish degree courses are for four years and not all courses south of the border are shorter than four years. It is important to find the best method of financing students in higher education. I believe that top-up loans are a very useful adjunct to the fees and maintenance grants which are continuing to be paid.

Does my hon. Friend agree that international comparisons suggest that access to higher education is rather better in countries with combined grant and loan systems than it is in Britain? Does he further agree that there is no evidence that top-up loans will be a disincentive to any Scottish four-year course? By definition, those who argue that it would be a disincentive are arguing that students themselves place a very low value on the fourth year of that course. If that were the case, it would raise a major question about why the taxpayer should continue to fund them.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have the most generous student funding arrangements of any industrialised country in the world. Most countries that have far more substantial student loan arrangements than we are contemplating also have higher student participation. In Scotland 20 per cent. of students come from south of the border. Clearly they do not regard a four-year degree course as a disadvantage.

We should pause for a moment and condemn the Minister of State's announcement yesterday on student grants. Increasing the grant by only 5 per cent. was a further imposition of a cut in living standards for students in Scotland. That means that there has been a cut of nearly 25 per cent. in the value of the grant since 1979. If it had been maintained at its 1979 level, it would have been worth £1,600 more over a four-year degree course. We are particularly worried about the length— [Interruption.]

Order. I think the House is anxious that the shadow Minister should ask a question.

Does the Minister agree that the cut will be particularly damaging to women, single parents and low wage earners who are considering a career change, because they will have to pick up the bill for a four-year Scottish degree course? Who will make such a change when it means debts of thousands of pounds?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. In the United States, where loans play a far greater part, women students at university are in the majority. It is important to get the balance right. We must decide whether it is fair to ask taxpayers—most of whom earn less than students will once they have graduated—to continue to bear the huge burden of higher education. It is entirely fair to ask students to bear a burden of 7 to 10 per cent. of the total cost of their education.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will be taking to reduce unemployment in Glasgow.

I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by more than 32 per cent. in the past three years and by more than 14,000 in the past year alone. The full range of employment and training services will continue to be available to combat unemployment in the area, and I look forward to the establishment there of a local enterprise company under our Scottish enterprise proposals.

The Minister must know that the unemployment rate in Springburn ranks about the fourth highest in the United Kingdom. He gave a complacent answer. He knows that 6,000 people are unemployed, 30 per cent. of whom have been unemployed for more than a year. Young people in almost every street in places such as Haghill, Jermison and Possil Park have not had a decent job since they left school. If the Minister will not do anything about that, he should resign.

Not only are we as concerned as the hon. Gentleman clearly is, but we are doing a great deal about it. More than 8,000 youngsters in Glasgow are benefiting from the youth training scheme, which will enable the majority of them to gain employment. The hon. Gentleman is normally fair, and I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by more than 14,000 in the past 12 months. That includes several thousand people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. If he wishes to be balanced, he should give credit where it is due.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that setting up the student loans company in Glasgow will bring new job opportunities?

A number of initiatives have led to new employment in the Glasgow area in the public and private sectors. The fact that Glasgow is increasingly being regarded as an attractive location for work which was previously done in the south of England shows the growing effectiveness and attraction of the Scottish economy.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the close relationship between the Glasgow economy and that of Lanarkshire? Is he aware of the recently published Scottish Trade Union Congress document, which showed the potentially devastating domino effect down the Clyde of any loss of steel capacity in Lanarkshire? When the Secretary of State met the chairman of British Steel on 26 October, did the charman tell him that the company was purchasing a second-hand mill from Japan and storing it at Lackenby? If not, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we cannot trust British Steel? Will he give an assurance on behalf of the Government and not just the Scottish Office that the Government will make an unequivocal demand that if there is to be a single plate mill strategy it will go to Dalziel and Motherwell and not to Lackenby?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the north of England and Scotland will be concerned to get future investment in the steel industry. I appreciate that as a member of the Scottish National party he has no interest in what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom. He will also appreciate that the visit by his party to steelworkers in the north of England was seen as a most inopportune initiative which did no good service to steelworkers in Scotland. Of course, we would welcome investment by British Steel in Scotland and, in particular, hope that it will give favourable consideration to the claims of Dalziel for a new strip mill.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the financial effect on police officers in provided accommodation arising from the recommendations of the police arbitration tribunal.

The effect on police officers would vary according to the level of the relevant community charge, the amount of the proposed force housing allowance and the rent charged for the accommodation provided.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the rent charged for police provided accommodation can be higher than the housing allowance payable? Is he further aware that officers in Scotland will have to pay rent, the community charge, income tax and an 11 per cent. contribution towards their pensions? Is he also aware that new entrants to the force will be substantially worse off than serving officers in post on 31 March 1990? What does he think that the effect of that will be on recruitment and on the maintenance of law and order in Scotland?

My hon. Friend represents the Police Federation and I am aware of the factors that he mentioned. The regulations will come into effect on 22 December. They will backdate the rent allowance for Scottish police officers, which will be popular with those concerned. My hon. Friend should be aware that we have today received the recommendations from the police negotiating board, but there is a difficulty with the police arbitration tribunal decision about officers occupying provided accommodation who would have to pay more rent than they would receive in housing allowance and that would be a less favourable position than at present. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will give urgent and careful consideration to the recommendations.

Is the Minister aware that that has been going on since April this year? I am asking my question in the interest of my constituents who are in the police force and not because I am being paid by the Police Federation. It is a simple matter to separate that part of the rent from that part of the rates given to police officers as their allowance. That would deal with the problems that have arisen for police officers who live in provided accommodation and which have been caused by the imposition of the poll tax in Scotland. I wrote to the Minister some months ago about this issue and he has had plenty of time to sort it out. It is an absolute disgrace that police officers are still suffering.

The regulations come into effect on 22 December. I am glad that Opposition Members have not prayed against them. The backdated sums will be paid out by many forces before the end of the year. Another problem about the police arbitration tribunal was that it recommended the right to buy for all police houses. In certain remote areas, such houses are not surplus to police requirements and we are duty bound to look into the implications of these matters.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the house waiting lists for each of the five Scottish new towns.

The numbers on house waiting lists in the five Scottish new towns are as follows:

Is the Minister aware that those figures represent a doubling of the waiting lists in East Kilbride and Irvine, and a lengthening of the lists in the other new towns? Does he accept that the lengthening of the lists and the failure to build sufficient houses in the new towns are his responsibility and are a direct result of Government policy for the new towns? Will he tell the House what he proposes to do to shorten the lists and to provide sufficient houses within the new towns?

I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the lists should shorten. There are 4,300 public and, more importantly, private sector houses being constructed in the new towns. The development corporations' funding programmes for the current year add up to some £40 million, the figure for East Kilbride being £17 million.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he has received any recent representations from the British Medical Association on self-governing hospitals.

I was interested to see that the British Medical Association in Scotland is now responding more positively to the proposed self-governing hospitals or NHS trusts and has offered to help us with monitoring their success.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a welcome change of heart on the part of the BMA, but is it not strange that the Labour party, which believes in devolution, does not believe in devolving powers down to the general hospitals from the health boards?

I think that my hon. Friend is being a little unfair. I think that the BMA is beginning to realise the opportunities that the White Paper offers for giving doctors more say in the management of hospitals and for expanding services to patients. The only consistency that my hon. Friend should look for among Labour Members is that of always being against what the Government do, whether or not it is in the interests of patients.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet Strathclyde regional council and district councils from Lanarkshire to discuss the implications for local government services of the future of the steel industry in Scotland.

I will shortly be meeting councillor McGarry of Strathclyde regional council and others concerned about the future of Ravenscraig.

Does the Secretary of State accept that his replies to earlier questions about steel were widely at variance with the reply that I received on Thursday from his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is sitting beside him now, when she made it clear that commercial considerations alone are what matter and that the golden share will not be used by the Government in defence of steel industry jobs? Does the Secretary of State accept that if he fails to persuade the Cabinet to fight for the future of the Scottish steel industry, he has a clear duty to offer his resignation?

The hon. Gentleman is, uncharacteristically, totally confused. The golden share to which he referred is an opportunity for the Government to be involved only if there is an attempt, through a proposed takeover of British Steel, to increase a holding in the company to more than 15 per cent. The golden share does not give the Government any power to involve themselves in the operational matters of British Steel. With regard to the other aspect of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Government share the hon. Gentleman's view that British Steel should keep to its commitment to continue steel making in Scotland at least until the mid-1990s.