To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland are in arrears with mortgage payments; and how many houses have been repossessed as a result of mortgage default during the last year.

Information on the level of mortgage arrears and the number of repossessions is not available for Scotland.

How convenient for the Minister. Does he accept that mortgage default is now one of the major causes of homelessness in Scotland and that 130 people in East Lothian became homeless last year because of mortgage default? That is about 15 per cent. of the official homelessness figure in my constituency. Is he further aware that a significant proportion of such folk bought their district council houses at a discount and are now having to be rehoused by the same local authority? Will he please admit that the Government's cockeyed housing policy has now made a crisis into a disaster of homelessness for many people?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that only 4 per cent. of homelessness applications were attributed to that cause by the applicants. I stress that Clackmannan district council operates a scheme for tenants who are aspiring owners but find themselves in difficulty. Any other district council may operate that scheme if it so wishes. We have also developed a cash incentive scheme for housing associations to assist homeless families. Few people become homeless because of mortgage default and the figure is well below the number in England.

Does my hon. Friend agree that figures from the building societies show that about 96 per cent. of those with mortgages in the United Kingdom are not in default of any kind? Every trader would love to be able to present such figures. Does my hon. Friend also agree that there has been considerable interest in the extension of the rents-to-mortgages scheme, and can he tell me something about it?

Yes. First, 0·47 per cent. of all mortgage holders in Britain have been subject to repossession. That is well below 1 per cent. and the percentage in Scotland is lower because market values are lower. My hon. Friend asked me about the rents-to-mortgages scheme. We launched our publicity on the scheme on Friday, and there have been more than 4,000 expressions of interest from local authority tenants throughout Scotland. That shows that many people believe that this is the bargain of the century.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance his Department has given to agencies catering for homeless young Scots in London.

Responsibility for homeless persons in England, including the funding of voluntary agencies, rests with the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and the local authorities concerned, but the Scottish Office is making available £50,000 a year for three years to voluntary bodies to assist projects to discourage young people from Scottish cities moving to London.

That is a pathetic response. There is a problem here and now, involving hundreds of young Scots in London, of which the Minister should be aware. Half of them come from Glasgow and many of them have a social work care background. The Minister should have read the booklet that was sent to him called, "Living on the Borderline", which was published last week by Borderline, Centrepoint and Shelter (Scotland). It tells a tragic tale. The Irish Government provide £500,000 to London agencies to deal with their young homeless. When will the Scottish Office take similar responsibility for young Scots in London?

The £50,000 is designed, exactly like the Irish scheme, to discourage young persons from leaving home. The scheme's purpose is to encourage people to obtain accommodation in their home areas. We have other initiatives. Some £72,000 has been allocated to the centre for housing research in Glasgow, which will carry out a study to see how social work can prevent homelessness. We have also provided £48,000 to the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. Over and above that, we have made an additional allocation to the four cities of Scotland and we have invited bids from the towns which have most homelessness—Renfrew, Dumbarton, Falkirk and Kirkcaldy. We think that that will be of substantial assistance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the cities in Scotland were to allocate their empty council houses, that would help homelessness in Scotland?

If a substantial proportion of the 26,000 empty houses were brought back into use, that would be of assistance. The code of practice that we will issue shortly takes into account the £50,000 project which seeks to discourage young persons from leaving their home areas.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent meetings he has had with political parties in relation to the reform of local government finance.

I had a meeting on 12 February with representatives of the Scottish National party at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was present. I will meet representatives of the Scottish Liberal Democrats later today. Proposals made at those meetings will be taken into account in the current review of community charge matters.

Is not it now becoming increasingly clear, as a result of those meetings and others, that local government finance in Scotland is in a state of crisis and that the indebtedness that has resulted from the past two years of the poll tax is well in excess of £500 million? Is the Secretary of State so sanguine as to think that he can persist with the concept of the poll tax in Scotland, or will he face up to his responsibilities and recognise that, if he does not rule it out, the electorate will rule him out?

The term "crisis" is hardly appropriate to a system in which 98 per cent. registration has been achieved and in which 95 per cent. collection is anticipated for the first year of the charge. Nine out of the 12 levying authorities have already collected 95 per cent. Their task would be eased considerably if Scottish National party Members would adopt a more responsible approach to the funding of local government. It is disgraceful that those who seek to make laws in this place should seek to break them when it comes to funding local authorities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the additional support for capital allocation projects that he announced yesterday and which was welcomed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will be extremely beneficial and will allow many local authorities to get ahead with valuable projects in the coming financial year?

My hon. Friend is right. I was particularly glad to be able to allocate more than £500 million in capital allocations to local authorities with particular emphasis on the improvement of school buildings, on general services, including the provision of factories where they are needed, and on the improvement of water services and sewerage, in respect of which we plan to increase funding by almost two thirds during a three-year period.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the growing problem caused by people who have hitherto paid the poll tax but who say that they intend to deduct from next year's poll tax the amount that is attributable to non-payment? In those circumstances, and bearing it in mind that my party has encouraged its members to pay, will he further acknowledge that the sooner the Government announce the abolition of the poll tax, the easier it will be to remove the problem of non-collection?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is grossly unfair that those who have paid their community charge should be expected to pay an SNP surcharge to cover non-payment by others. I urge everybody to make a full contribution to local government and not to break the law. We are reviewing the community charge and considering possible methods of funding local government and I look forward to my meeting with the Liberal Democrats later this afternoon to carry those discussions further.

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating both the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on coming to the conclusion that a property tax is a better idea than a poll tax? Is not it the case that the property tax is electorally attractive, as was demonstrated in last year's regional elections when the Labour party won a considerable victory, and that if we introduce such a tax it will leave the Minister of State looking something of a lulu?

I do not know how it will make the hon. Gentleman look when I remind him that, according to the opinion polls, the Labour party's roof tax proposal was more unpopular than the community charge has ever been and that fewer than 20 per cent. of the Labour party's own supporters supported it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lesson of councils such as Eastwood is that Conservative councils provide efficient services with a relatively low community charge? Is not it a great pity that not more councils in Scotland are controlled by the Conservative party so that the poll tax could be lower?

My hon. Friend is right, for that is the lesson to be learnt from the outrageously high tax that is imposed in places such as Edinburgh, where the community charge is £584. The lesson for Edinburgh's residents is to vote for a Conservative administration in next year's district council elections, which will produce better government and a lower community charge.

Did the Secretary of State have time this week to study the admirable article by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who was until recently Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he argued that the poll tax

"is a tax so fundamentally flawed that no amount of tinkering or refinement, of amendment or reform, can make it acceptable. Abolition is the only course."?

I remember when the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) were used almost verbatim to criticise the domestic rating system, which led us to introduce the community charge when my right hon. Friend was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore a senior member of the Government. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) invites me to speculate on the outcome of the review. I will say only that we are considering carefully all the options and will present our solutions in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of education funding within Highland region, with specific regard to the needs of building repair and refurbishment.

Schools throughout Scotland will benefit from a 19 per cent. increase in resources for building and repair, making a total of more than £73 million. Highland region's share will be £3·8 million—an increase of 36 per cent.

Will the Minister acknowledge that, based on the region's submission to the Scottish Office last November, that increase—however welcome—is still less than half the amount that the region identified as the bottom line expenditure required over a five-year period, to bring the condition of its schools up to a tolerable standard? The funding provided does not take account of population growth and higher new-build costs on the west coast—which is of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Does not he accept that the overall expenditure pattern will fail woefully to provide schools in the Highland region that are protected against the wind and rain? What will he do to change that?

The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that if Highland region wants to spend more, it is free to do so. Although I do not carry figures around in my head with great accuracy, I believe that I am right to say that the funding provided is almost £1 million more than the region was expecting and represents a substantial increase in resources. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged the failure of some local authorities to tackle such problems in the past and they are now being tackled as a consequence of the priority that he set.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss housing in Scotland.

I expect to meet representatives of the housing committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in September.

When the Minister meets COSLA's representatives, will he listen to them this time, and reinstate housing support grant in Scotland? That would give Renfrew district council in my constituency a grant of £16,289,000 at 1979 levels, which would enable it either to reduce rents by £3 a week or to take on board a more extensive housing repair system.

During the past 10 years, we have targeted housing benefit directly at the individual, rather than make huge sums of housing support grant available. We have made sure that the cost of hostel provision and the deficits are covered by housing support grant. A considerable number of councils have come into housing support grant as a result. Scottish Homes is undertaking considerable expenditure in Ferguslie park, in the hon. Lady's constituency, which will total at least £3·6 million next year. That will help.

One housing item for discussion, which should be of interest to the Minister when he meets the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, is the level of house building. Does he realise that, had the Government maintained the level of house building which they inherited from Labour in 1979, there would be more than 50,000 additional new houses in which to house the homeless and with which to reduce waiting lists? Is not his failure to maintain that level of building absolutely disgraceful? Since he cannot possibly defend such a record, will he now take the only honourable course open to him and tender his resignation, along with the rest of that broken-backed crew on the Front Bench?

Since 1979, 220,000 houses have been built in Scotland. If housing association units are counted in with the public sector, almost 60,000 units were built in the public sector. In 1989–90 more than 1,200 local authority houses were completed. If Dundee district council wants building more council houses to be a priority, it can be, provided that it is a priority within the council's allocation.

When my hon. Friend meets COSLA to discuss housing, will he also discuss the needs of ex-service men and their families, who have had great difficulty finding accommodation—especially accommodation to buy—when they leave the services? Will he try to impress upon local authorities the fact that they should give more priority to them? If he cannot make progress in that direction, might he be prepared to involve housing associations more?

I am in touch with the Ministry of Defence on that matter at present and I am interested in the suggestion that my right hon. Friend has made. I shall certainly follow it up in discussions with the Ministry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which bodies were consulted before appointments were made to the 15 reconstituted health boards in Scotland.

The bodies consulted on appointments to the reconstituted health boards were all health boards, local health councils and local authorities, various trade unions, universities, health service professional bodies, voluntary bodies and a number of leading Scottish firms.

It seems from what the Secretary of State says that democracy has gone out of the window for the health service in Scotland and that there is a clear and urgent case for a portion of health board members to be directly elected. What criteria were used for the election of health board members to the reconstituted boards? Was election based on ability or knowledge of the health boards, or was it—as it appears to us—based on affiliation to the Conservative party? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many members of health boards are card-carrying members of the Tory party or hold office in that party?

The hon. Lady demeans herself. It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that appointment is based on political affiliation. In the vast majority of cases the political affiliations of members of health boards are not known. They are chosen for what they can contribute to the good running of the health boards and that is why we consult so widely with all the bodies that I mentioned.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anxiety felt throughout Falkirk district council about the absence of any residents of Falkirk district on the new Forth Valley health board, and that that anxiety is shared even by leading Tories such as Bill Hughes and Councillor Malcolm McNicol? In view of the blatant political bias, as well as the geographical bias, will the Secretary of State now take steps to try to achieve a better balance, instead of allowing his colleague, the Minister responsible for health, blatantly to abuse his political power to appoint his friends, such as Mrs. Isbister and a lot of other Tory party hacks who seem hell-bent on trying to wreck the national health service when they should be defending and improving it?

As I have already said, members of health boards are not chosen for their political affiliations, which are not known in most cases. They are chosen for what they can contribute to the work of the health boards, based on the advice of a wide range of bodies. Geographical representation is not a relevant factor in the appointment of health boards. The proper means to represent interests of that type is through health councils.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives are planned to improve patient care in the national health service in Scotland.

New initiatives such as heart-lung transplant surgery, the helicopter ambulance service, the provision of nuclear magnetic resonance scanners and the introduction of a cochlear implant service are some of the examples of innovation in the health service to build on the Government's outstanding record.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the substantial extra funding awarded to the Dumfries and Galloway area health board will enable it to improve patient care substantially in the coming year? Will he congratulate the board—and, in particular, Dr. Christopher Isles—on the introduction of a new renal dialysis unit in Dumfries, which will benefit local patients enormously?

I agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work being done by the board. I had the opportunity to meet some of its staff recently. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the progress being made in bringing kidney dialysis to patients in rural areas. That is part of a general policy that has been implemented in the Borders, preventing patients from having to travel long distances.

I welcome the medical innovations described by the Minister, but why is he putting all that at risk by persisting with the completely discredited policy of allowing hospitals to opt into the NHS trust system? Will not the finances of trusts effectively be controlled from the centre? Their only freedom will be to seek permission to spend money from the Scottish Office, rather than deal with the matter locally through the health boards. Why, despite the widespread and total rejection of the scheme, do the Minister and the Government persist in acting against medical and public opinion?

Every time the hon. Gentleman says that there is no interest in the scheme, we seem to receive another application. Six hospitals throughout Scotland have now expressed interest. The proposal for Forresterhill in Aberdeen has come from consultants and management, because they believe that it will result in improved patient care. Once the Scottish Office has received a proposal, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will examine it and decide whether to give it the go-ahead on the basis of whether it will improve patient care.

I welcome any news from my hon. Friend about the extension of dialysis treatment for kidney patients. Is he aware, however, that a kidney patient on dialysis who is given erythropoetin will become almost as well as a normal man? Can he assure me that Scotland has enough funds to provide that drug for every renal patient who could benefit from it?

I know my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks. Notwithstanding reports that have appeared in some sections of the media, the position is clear: if a consultant believes that the drug should be prescribed, it should be prescribed, and the resources must be found to pay for it. I have corresponded with the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) about this, and the position is on record.

Was not the Minister entirely wrong to say that expressions of interest in trust status are coming from hospitals? In fact, they are coming from a small clique within those hospitals. Has the Minister not read what was said recently by John Cooper, chief executive of the Royal Free hospital, an opting-out hospital, in London? He said:

"All elements of financial management are being effectively controlled centrally. The only freedom we have is freedom to ask permission, and we can do that already."

I am interested by the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question. I take it that, if self-governing status indeed means that decisions are made at local level, the hon. Gentleman will support it. I am happy to assure him that there is no question of self-governing hospitals' being managed centrally. The whole point is that they will have contracts with the health boards and will remain a part of the NHS, and that doctors and management will have an opportunity to run them locally. What I said earlier was that the proposals for NHS trusts were coming from doctors and management who believed that it would improve patient care. I believe that those proposals should be evaluated on the basis of their merits, not on the basis of Labour party dogma.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to promote development and enterprise in the Borders.

The Government are putting in place specific arrangements to give local control to the promotion of development and enterprise in the Borders.

Does the Minister think that adequate cash or investment programmes are available to local and statutory authorities in the Borders? Is he aware that the Borders local enterprise council made a bid for £12·6 million, to invest in capital developments but was awarded only £8·5 million which represents the biggest cut for any local enterprise company in Scotland? Is he further aware that Borders regional council asked for £4 million for future capital development but was awarded only £1 million? How can statutory authorities buy the necessary sites, set up advance factories and support local industry if they have inadequate resources to enable them to do so?

The allocations represent a significant increase. The allocation to Borders Enterprise represents an increase of 27 per cent. over comparable spending in the area this year and Borders Enterprise will have grant powers to encourage the provision of advance factories. It is keen to use those powers rather than to provide the property itself. District councils in the region received capital allocations totalling £1·8 million, an increase of £260,000, and Borders regional council received an allocation of £1·2 million, which was an increase of £350,000. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman and we recognise the need to provide premises for alternative sources of employment to diversify the local economy. The increased allocations reflect that. In addition, local enterprise companies will have authority to commit up to £250,000 on any project and discretion to devise specific initiatives to reflect local circumstances. Those matters can be followed up with the companies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the reforms to the licensed trade following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer.

Implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommendations is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I confirm, however, that the orders made by him under the Fair Trading Act 1973, in response to the MMC report, apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that although the MMC report and the subsequent legislation cover the United Kingdom, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 does not cover Scotland? As a result, licensed trade tenants in Scotland are dealt with less favourably than those south of the border. That is particularly serious in view of the haste with which brewery managed and tenanted houses are being exchanged in order to fulfil the MMC's requirements. Will my hon. Friend undertake to meet representatives of the licensed trade in Scotland to hear how, in practice, the MMC report is leading not to increased choice and competition or cheaper beer but to a raw deal for licensed house tenants?

My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable on these matters, rightly says that there is a legislative difference between north and south of the border. The purpose of the Landlord and Tenant Act was to bring pub tenants in England and Wales in line with other business tenants. It does not apply to Scotland, but Scottish licensees are on a par with other business tenants under the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently unemployed in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

In January 1991, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland was 201,300. Despite the small upturn during the past quarter, unemployment in Scotland has fallen by almost 140,000. It is now 40 per cent. lower than four years ago.

Does the Secretary of State realise, despite his phony figures, that Scotland has been devastated by unemployment? In my constituency, for example, GEC Ferranti has closed a plant and is paying off many of its employees, and the same thing is happening at the Rank Hovis McDougall Caledonian mill. On top of that ICI is closing, or intends to close, Scottish Agricultural Industries, which produces fertilizers, because of Government opposition to the Kemira takeover bid. That is clearly a tragedy for the Scottish economy and for the local economy of Leith. Will the Secretary of State ask his Tory friends at ICI to hold fire in the meantime? Will he meet me to discuss the local problems of my constituents who clearly want to defend local skills and local industries, which the right hon. Gentleman's Government do not intend to do?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the answer that I gave to the main question when I explained that unemployment, far from rising, had fallen by 140,000 in the past four years. In the year to September 1990, manufacturing employment in Scotland increased by 9,000, and the civilian work force has increased by 200,000 over the past three years. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, unemployment has fallen by no less than 43 per cent. in the past four years, with a total fall of 3,000.

On behalf of Glasgow Labour Members, I wrote to the Secretary of State seeking a meeting with him to discuss unemployment in the city of Glasgow, where more than 48,000 people were idle in January. Does he accept that his reply, which was received today and stated that the level of unemployment in the Glasgow travel-to-work area—not the city of Glasgow —is better than that of many other areas in Scotland and that the time is not appropriate to meet us to discuss unemployment, is an unbelievably callous answer? Just what level does unemployment have to reach in the city of Glasgow before the right hon. Gentleman will agree to meet us? Is he still not aware that the eight constituencies with the highest levels of unemployment in Scotland are all in Glasgow?

Of course unemployment in Glasgow is still too high, but the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that it has fallen substantially in the past four years—by between 2,000 and 3,000 in every constituency in Glasgow. That is reflected in the overall figures which show, as I have said, that unemployment has fallen by almost 140,000 in the past four years. What I look forward to seeing in Glasgow, as elsewhere throughout Scotland, is Scottish Enterprise and the new local enterprise companies getting down to tackle the problems in each local enterprise company area and going about their business with their budgets which, in total, including Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, exceed £0·5 billion, to tackle the problems in ways which relate directly to the individual problems of each area.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend heard the reply that was recently given in the House by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when I asked a question about the activities of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which are leading directly to the closure of the factory in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), and which could have a knock-on effect in my constituency by bringing to an end the viability of the only potash mine in this country. That would adversely affect the country as a whole, our balance of payments and unemployment in both Scotland and England. It is still not too late to pull this one round, but it would mean a Secretary of State who arrogantly said that no Minister had ever gone against the recommendations of an MMC report for the first time standing up, being a man in his own right and refusing to accept the MMC's recommendations.

My hon. Friend may wish to pursue that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I am sure that he will agree that one of the merits of the MMC is its arm's-length method of operation. The MMC looked closely at all the implications of the decision before reaching its conclusions.

All Opposition Members are deeply cynical about the way in which the Secretary of State uses dates. I remind him that the Government have been in power for 12 years, not four, and that unemployment has mounted over that time and is rising again. As we enter a recession which is affecting Scotland, why are local enterprise companies being faced with a cut in their budgets which means that less will be spent in each area in Scotland this year on the functions of the Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency than was spent last year? Why is it that in Lanarkshire, of all places, when a bid was put in for £50 million, in real terms only £30 million was allocated?

With regard to the budget for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, as I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, whose figures are largely speculative and widely inaccurate for the most part, the combined budget of the two new bodies will exceed £500 million. On training we are spending about six times what the Labour Government spent 12 years ago. Far from the Government having a bad record on unemployment, we have seen a dramatic improvement in the last few years as we got away from the after-effects of the Socialist Government and all the damage that they did to the Scottish economy. Unemployment in Scotland is now below the EC average. Long-term unemployment continues to fall; it fell by 12 per cent. last year—the sharpest fall anywhere in the United Kingdom—as a result of the improvements in the economy brought about by the Conservative Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of warrant sales to enforce poll tax payments in Scotland.

I am satisfied that the powers available to local authorities in Scotland for the collection of community charge arrears are adequate for that purpose.

Will the Minister explain why he is always misleading the House on percentages? He has referred to a collection rate of 92 per cent. in quite a number of local authorities throughout Scotland. He knows very well that since 31 January Strathclyde regional council, the largest local authority in Scotland, has collected only £247 million —less than 60 per cent. of the £457 million for which it sent out poll tax bills? It has cut the final notices to 38,000 and sent out 754,000 warrants. Surely the Government must recognise that the poll tax will not work. Local authorities are still jackbooting the most vulnerable people in society by operating warrant sales.

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Local authorities have collected, or expect to collect, 95 per cent. of their budgeted income for last year. Strathclyde has failed to use warrant sales so far and the comptroller of audit has rightly criticised the performance of authorities in failing to implement collection procedures in accordance with the statutory timetable.

As has already been mentioned, there is a deep resentment among those who pay and obey the law as regards those who will not pay. Is my hon. Friend aware that the resentment is compounded in areas such as Kincardine and Deeside, where the percentage collection is good, but where next year people will have to pay more than a proportion of what is uncollected in that area because other district councils, such as Aberdeen, have collected a lower proportion of the community charge that is due? Is it fair that community charge payers in Kincardine and Deeside will have to pay more, not just to compensate for those who fail to pay in their own area?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. A tide of outrage is sweeping Scotland among law-abiding citizens who have to pay the SNP surcharge. I can perhaps reassure my right hon. Friend about the position in Grampian. He may have seen an article recently in The Scotsman headed,

"Labour rift as warrant sales approved".

"It would be asking too much of us to condone illegal acts by people who evade the poll tax in a way that is to the detriment of other poll tax payers."

In the last months of the poll tax, will the Minister finally seek to bring some common sense to at least some parts of its operation? Will he relieve local authorities of the need to pursue this blunderbuss approach in the legislation which means that the poorest people in the land, who are in arrears on a proportion of the poll tax of up to 20 per cent., have to be pursued in exactly the same way as the wealthiest people in the community who default voluntarily, with which I have no truck whatever? Will the Minister bring to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the possibility of getting rid of the 20 per cent. minimum payment? Does he agree that if the poorest people in Scottish society, who are being hounded for 20 per cent. of the poll tax, were taken out of the equation much of the administrative shambles, chaos and misery that surround the poll tax would disappear with them?

There will be no amnesty. The community charge benefit is widely available to assist those on low incomes. Some of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers may have built up a large level of debt. In many cases, the fault lies not with the Opposition Front Bench but with many of the hon. Members behind him and with the Scottish National party.

Surely the effectiveness of warrant sales must be called into question, bearing in mind the large number of Scottish Members of Parliament who still have not paid their poll tax. What does my hon. Friend the Minister think of a party which aspires to law-making but condones so much law-breaking in its own ranks?

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was referring to the Labour party or to the Scottish National party. Almost certainly, he was referring to both. Of course, he is absolutely right. Scottish local authorities have failed so far to use warrant sales and they have been consistently criticised for the delay. In some authorities, such as Borders and Fife, payment levels are extremely high. If Borders and Fife can do it, so can Lothian and Strathclyde.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the educational pack "Taking Up The Challenge", funded by the Scottish Education Department, and published by the Committee on Special Educational Needs in January 1991; and if he will make a statement.

"Taking Up The Challenge" is part of a concerted effort by the Government to provide additional help and support to children with moderate learning difficulties.

On two occasions in the past 10 days the Minister has said that he will make available additional funding for learning support in primary schools. Will he spell out exactly what he means by that increased level of support? Will it mean additional teachers or additional resources? How much money is involved? When will it happen? Or is this just a smokescreen to draw attention away from national testing?

Far from being a smokescreen, it is a response to the representations that we have received as a result of the introduction of national testing, including representations from the hon. Lady. We are currently considering how we can target resources to help children in primary schools who are having difficulties with the three Rs and who have been identified as a result of the introduction of national tests and the new five to 14 programme. We currently have a pilot scheme under way. Once it is concluded, we shall be in a position to assess the level of response and the most appropriate form of response.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the future of general hospitals in the Greater Glasgow area.

Greater Glasgow health board's proposals for rationalising and improving its acute services have been approved by my right hon. Friend following consultation.

Is the Minister aware that there is anxiety in the north of the city about Stobhill? He will know that new maternity facilities are to be built at the royal infirmary. Many people in the north end of Glasgow believe that that could be the end of Stobhill as a general hospital. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that there is a future for Stobhill and that it will continue as a general hospital?

The hon. Gentleman has been a doughty fighter for Stobhill. The proposals in respect of the maternity services are before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and are still under consideration. As the hon. Gentleman said, they include building a new maternity hospital at the royal infirmary. I can certainly give him the assurance that he seeks. Stobhill will gain additional facilities, including renal services and an additional 15 accident and emergency beds. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I know of no future proposals for changes at that excellent hospital.

As the Minister knows, in Glasgow there are hospitals which are on the hit list for the opting out procedure. I remind him that, in approaching this matter, he said that one of the tests would be a substantial commitment of those likely to be involved in the new management. Does he agree that that does not mean six persons—any six persons in any hospital? The consultants in South Ayrshire hospital voted by 50 to nine against opting out, and those in Aberdeen Royal infirmary voted by 82 to seven against. Does the Minister agree that, even in his Looking Glass world, that cannot be equated with a substantial commitment on the part of those who will be involved in new set-ut? He talks about local choice and local democracy. Does he agree that forcing opting out through on that basis would be offensive and indefensible?

No Government—not even any previous Labour Government—have taken decisions concerning the future of hospitals on the basis of votes or ballots. The criteria for the approval of applications for self-governing status are set out in the working paper, which the hon. Gentleman has seen, and they are perfectly clear. The hon. Gentleman referred to a "hit list". I regard that as a fairly offensive term. In hospitals throughout Scotland, people are looking behind the Labour party's rhetoric and seeing the opportunity to improve patient care. In the case of the South Ayrshire hospital, in respect of which an application is coming into the Scottish Office, the leading person responsible is a consultant with a distinguished history in the national health service. I do not believe that people of that calibre would do anything other than go forward with proposals that they thought were in the best interests of patients. That is the sole criterion on which my right hon. Friend's decisions will be based.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has to develop forestry within the United Kingdom.

The Government remain fully committed to the expansion of forestry in the United Kingdom, and are providing substantial grants to encourage tree planting. Woodland management grants will be introduced from 1 April 1992.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. I wonder whether, in his busy programme, he could find time to come and visit the forests in south Dorset, for which he is responsible in terms of policy. Can he given us some indication how forestry has developed in the past 10 years, and whether any changes in policy have been brought about by the farm woodland scheme and other schemes intended to take farmland out of food production?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind invitation to visit south Dorset. I should certainly like at some stage to take it up, as my responsibilities for forestry stretch throughout the United Kingdom. I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that there has been a major expansion of forestry in the past 10 years, with about 250,000 hectares of new planting. In addition, the processing industry has been revitalised, with investment of about £1 billion. The farm woodland scheme, which we are currently reviewing, has led to about 2,200 applications to plant about 15,000 hectares—a high proportion of the trees being broad-leaves. The forestry industry is in good heart and in good shape.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the timber industry based on planting in the northern part of the Highlands has been set back by the designation process of the Nature Conservancy Council? Will he ensure that the regional council gives impetus to the review of policy? Its first intervention has not produced the resolution of the dispute between the parties that was hoped for.

The hon. Gentleman knows that my predecessor as Secretary of State for Scotland gave this matter very close attention and sought a solution that would reconcile the conflicting interests of land use in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, having regard in particular to the important environmental aspects, but also to the need to generate employment through tree planting and in other ways. I hope that these matters will proceed more satisfactorily and more effectively once Scottish Natural Heritage is fully established. Indeed, our proposals on natural heritage areas, which we shall make clear very shortly, may well have considerable application to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce temperature controls on the distribution of smoked salmon produced in Scotland and posted from there.

We propose that food delivered by mail order, including smoked fish, will be exempt from the regulations requiring temperature controls for the distribution and storage of specified foodstuffs.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on making regulations after research has been done and not, as happens in England, making regulations first and then conducting the research to see whether they were needed. Does the Minister agree that the Government seem to be getting more and more neurotic and hysterical about food hygiene? Are there any known cases of food poisoning from smoked salmon, smoked cheese or any other smoked products? Will he confirm that he will ease off making regulations until thorough research has been done showing that there is evidence of food contamination or food poisoning?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome to my answer. The Government are completely committed to food safety. Such issues are never entirely black and white; we must ensure that we have controls that are practical and not disproportionate to the risk. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have commissioned research at Torry and we shall be able to review the matter once that research is to hand.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the Scottish economy and unemployment.

My right hon. Friend has received no request from the convention for a discussion of economic issues.

Is the Minister aware that my constituents are outraged at the decision to postpone yet again the upgrading of the A8 from Baillieston to Newhouse, with all the job implications that that entails? Does not he feel that his new role of looking after Lanarkshire has been specifically undermined? Does he accept that, in the past 99 days, yet another appalling decision under so-called new management means the same old story of job losses and lost opportunities for my constituents, who are anxious to get rid of the new management as quickly as possible?

Perhaps I may point out to the hon. Gentleman the progress that has been made with the M74, which is crucial to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Preparation work on the Shawhead-Newhouse scheme is continuing and is expected to be completed by 1994. I share the hon. Member's concern about jobs in Lanarkshire and throughout Scotland. That is more than can be said for the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to be going to extraordinary lengths to find some overseas appointment to enable him to avoid attending the Scottish Labour party conference at Aberdeen—but who can blame him?

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has had (a) in favour and (b) against primary testing.

Some 400 representations have been received covering a complete spectrum of views on testing.

Is the Minister aware that throughout Scotland, where parents have been balloted, an overwhelming number of decisions have been made against the tests? In my constituency, in the schools of St. Mark's, St. Columbkilles Hallside and St. Bride's, 70 to 80 per cent. of parents are opposed to the tests. It is clear that those tests are part of the Minister's promised bloody revolution for education in Scotland. Even at this late stage, will he consider withdrawing the tests and seeking consensus for the sake of our children's future?

The regulations on testing were approved by the House without opposition in debate from any Opposition Member. They place a clear duty on education authorities to administer the tests and——

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

It is the last two minutes.

We prayed against the regulations on 26 October, they appeared on 25 October and we demanded a debate on them.

Order. I am not responsible for answers given from the Dispatch Box.

The point——

Withdraw.

Order. This is unseemly behaviour.

The point that I made—that the regulations were not opposed in debate in the House—is correct. They place a clear duty on the education authorities to administer the test. Until now, the Labour party and the EIS have argued that parental choice and involvement should not extend to the curriculum and to professional matters. Their conversion is as rapid as it is unexpected. I have no doubt that, having released this genie from the bottle, education authorities will be reflecting on the implications. Are parents to be able to withdraw children from physical education, music, computer studies and the technical and vocational education initiative, for example, or to insist on the inclusion of their children in classes on a subject? Once the pilot testing round has been completed, we shall consider what further action is necessary.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the reception facilities in Scottish hospitals for service personnel returning from the Gulf.

With the rapid and successful conclusion of the ground offensive to liberate Kuwait, the need for Scottish hospitals to maintain special arrangements to receive service personnel injured in the Gulf conflict has now passed. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in thanking all NHS staff involved for the admirable way in which they have responded.

Before the Minister rises to answer the debate on 15 March on health problems in the middle east, will the Scottish Office submit some kind of memorandum offering advice as to what it can do about the appalling problems of typhoid, cholera, hepatitis and other diseases, in which we have an expertise that is desperately needed in the middle east?

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the expertise in Scotland on tropical and contagious diseases. I shall be happy to discuss with him how we can be of assistance.