To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the reform of local government finance.

I announced our outline proposals on the reform of local government finance to the House on 21 March. We shall be issuing a consultation paper shortly.

Will the Secretary of State tell us his thoughts on who is to meet the cost of care in the community? That is something that the Secretary of State for the Environment did not mention in his statement on 21 March. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of concern among local authorities about how the mentally handicapped and mentally ill patients coming out of institutions are to be cared for and paid for? I should like to know the position.

The hon. Gentleman has identified a subject of great importance, to which the Government have given a great deal of attention. He will be aware of our developing plans in that area. The consultation paper that is to be published and the statement that has been made are primarily concerned with the way in which local government finance is collected and the contributions made to it by local residents.

Will the Secretary of State deal with the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the matter is of supreme importance, especially to regional and island authorities that have to deal with the problems of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people and their carers? Those authorities' budgets are being cut and they want to hear more from the Secretary of State today than they have heard to date.

I urge the hon. Gentleman to table a question on that subject. The question that I am answering is about the Government's consultation paper and the statement on the reform of local government finance. Our record on the funding of community care is second to none and substantial improvements in the handling of that matter are under way.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that finance and the structure of local government must go hand in hand? Does he accept that in the review of the structure of local government, the issues relevant to Strathclyde will be very different from those relevant to Dumfries and Galloway? I hope that he will be flexible in his arrangements so that we can find the best method for each region in Scotland.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I agree that the funding and the structure of local government should be considered together. The Government propose to consult widely on possible developments for the structure of local government. When we bring forward proposals in due course, we shall take careful account of the varied and diverse nature of Scotland, and that will be reflected in the structure on which we decide.

On the specific subject of local government finance, will the Secretary of State confirm that he now believes that a local government tax, essentially based on property and the rate poundage and paid by householders, is preferable to the poll tax? Can he explain why he greeted that very same proposal, when it was made by the Labour party, with scorn and contempt? He now appears to be prepared to endorse it.

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to anticipate the publication of our consultation paper. He is not going to draw me on that, other than for me to repeat that in our statement we made it clear that we are proposing a new local tax. It will be a single tax with a property and personal element. I think that he will find that it is rather different from the Labour party's proposals. At the next election, the electorate will have a choice—our new, fair, local tax or a return to rates under Labour.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the criteria used for the appointment of non-executive members of Scottish health boards.

The criteria for the appointment of non-executive members of Scottish health boards were that they should have the qualities and abilities necessary to make an effective contribution, individually and collectively, to the boards' new role.

Will the Minister admit that there is only one criterion for selection to health boards in Scotland: membership of or affiliation to the Conservative party? Does he realise that Renfrew district, the biggest centre of population in the Argyll and Clyde area, does not have a single representative on that area's health board? Is he telling us that there are no able Conservatives in that area? If so, I agree with him.

I suggest that the hon. Lady has a word with her hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), who suggested two members of health boards who were appointed by my right hon. Friend. I do not think that the criterion applied in their case was the one that the hon. Lady has in mind.

Does not the Minister realise that that answer is most unsatisfactory and does not fit the facts? The criteria for appointment of members to health boards are that people should be supporters of the Conservative party or card-carrying members of it. Does he not realise that his reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) was disgraceful?

No, I do not. The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer; I refer him, too, to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South. The criteria that have been applied are to establish whether people have the necessary qualities. Many members of health boards who are not members of the Conservative party and who work hard on behalf of the health service will take considerable offence at questions of the kind asked by the hon. Gentleman.

Why is it, then, that of the 15 chairmen of health boards, 11 represent either Conservative or business interests, two are from the National Farmers Union and only two do not fall into either category? Are not my hon. Friends correct to say that the only criterion for becoming a chairman of a health board or a non-executive member is to be a member of the Conservative party or a supporter of it?

I dare say that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will be astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman assuming that everyone with a business background is a supporter of the Conservative party—although to judge from what the Labour party produced yesterday I am sure that that will shortly be the case.

rose—

Order. As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) has been mentioned, I call him.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on accepting the two nominations that I put forward on behalf of the Labour party and the trade union movement in Ayrshire. Those two representatives, Angela Dunbar and Joe Cahill, have served the Ayrshire and Arran health board well in the past and I am grateful that they have been re-elected.

I wish to make it absolutely clear that the reason why those two people were appointed had nothing to do with their support for or membership of the Labour party; it was simply because of their record of service on the board and the contribution that they can make to it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange to meet representatives of the Scottish Constitutional Convention to discuss their proposals for a Scottish Parliament.

A meeting with the Scottish Constitutional Convention would serve no useful purpose since its proposals, which I have considered carefully, are irrelevant to the basic concerns of the Scottish people and unlikely to be of benefit to Scotland.

Why is it that the Secretary of State for Wales is prepared to discuss the possibility of a Welsh Assembly and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is prepared to discuss the possibility of a Northern Ireland Parliament, yet the Secretary of State for Scotland refuses even to discuss with the convention its proposals for a Scottish Parliament? Does he not realise that unless he responds positively to the overwhelming wishes of the people of Scotland before the next general election, he may, after that election, join the likes of Mr. Graeme Souness looking for another job in England?

I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales would not contemplate a tax-raising Welsh assembly any more than I would contemplate a tax-raising Scottish assembly. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Scottish division of the Institute of Directors whose views have been characterised as:

"If such an assembly were set up with these powers, we would move company headquarters out of Scotland."

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having nothing to do with the Scottish Constitutional Convention? It is organised by church men and freaks who, if they had paid some attention to their calling, might not have empty churches. If Scotland were treated to the sort of things that they want, they would empty our nation of its people as they have emptied their churches of congregations.

My hon. and learned Friend makes his point in his inimitable way. The Scottish Constitutional Convention is certainly a self-appointed and self-designated body and has been described as the Labour party at prayer. Certainly, the Liberal party went along for the ride and ended up being taken for a ride. The Scottish Constitutional Convention does not speak for Scotland and has produced nothing of any relevance to Scotland's future.

If the constitutional convention were prepared to return to its founding document, "A claim of right" and put the matter of constitutional change directly to the Scottish people in a referendum, would the Secretary of State have the guts to put his proposals to the people in the referendum? What is the argument against having a referendum putting the choice of independence, devolution and the status quo, and letting the Scottish people decide?

At least I have in common with the hon. Gentleman that neither he nor I have been interested in taking part in the Scottish Constitutional Convention—I, because I believe that it goes too far in nationalism, and he, presumably, because he believes that it does not go far enough. It is not a representative body, it has produced no realistic proposals and it has addressed none of the fundamental issues affecting the constitutional future of Scotland.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Constitutional Convention spent months talking, yet failed to address the Goschen Barnett formula, the West Lothian question and the number of Scottish Members of this Parliament? Because of that, any proposals from that source would have no hope whatever of getting through Parliament to be implemented and, therefore, they are fraudulent and flawed.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the proposals emerging from the Opposition for tax-raising Scottish assemblies would be immensely damaging to the future of Scotland. They would drive away inward investment, destroy investment at home, damage the future prospects of economic growth and destroy jobs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met COSLA to discuss the future of local government finance in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scotland Local Authorities to discuss the poll tax

My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Local Government and I met the convention on 8 April to discuss a number of local government finance issues, including the community charge.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House when he changed his mind, and what or who made him change his mind about the poll tax?

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the Government have been considering the funding of local government finance for a long time. We have recognised that the community charge is not operating effectively and has not gained general acceptance in Scotland. Therefore, after a relatively short period of time and after very thorough and careful scrutiny of the options, we have decided on a new local tax which has been announced to the House as to its fundamentals and on which a consultation paper will appear shortly.

Given that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents, can we now expect the Secretary of State for Scotland to evangelise Scotland for a property tax, and will he bring Missionary zeal to that work?

The hon. Gentleman must wait and see what our new tax is all about. The Opposition are worried not that our new proposals will not work but that they will work.

While I believe that it would be quite wrong for the Secretary of State to speculate in any way on what announcements may be made in the next week or so, does he accept that if we return to a form of property taxation, it is very important that the basis of valuation and revaluation of property is the same north and south of the border?

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about valuation and revaluation. It is an issue which we have considered with great care and I hope that he will not be disappointed when the consultation paper is published.

In view of the commitment to the poll tax shown by the hon. Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and of their long-standing opposition to any form of property tax, can the Secretary of State tell us whether the two of them will still be Ministers following the announcement next week? Can the Secretary of State guarantee that when he publishes the consultative document next week it will contain figures that I can take to my constituents to tell them exactly how much they will pay under the new tax? Or shall we have to print posters next week to put up around Scotland saying, "Ian, where's your figures?"

I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) will be in the Government, not only next week but next year and the year after and the year after that. [Interruption.] And my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton).

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the number of students in higher education in Scotland.

The numbers of students in full-time higher education have increased by about one third to 90,000 since the Government took office. Part-time students have also increased by about one fifth.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which is good news for the people of Scotland and especially for the individuals involved. Does he agree that it demonstrates the Government's commitment to the cause of higher education and to the creation of an opportunity society?

Yes, indeed. When the Government took office, about one in six school leavers went on to higher education. Today the figure is about one in four and by the end of our next decade in office, the figure will be one in three.

I am sure that the Minister knows, but is forgetting, that many rejects from the public school system in England are given certain rights to come to Scotland—and especially to Edinburgh university—at the expense of ordinary, working-class individuals. That was exposed recently. What is he doing to ensure that there is equality of opportunity in Scotland for both English and Scottish working-class individuals and for youngsters who have every right to higher education? The Minister must know about that problem because it was highlighted in The Scotsman some months ago and he clearly reads that newspaper.

If the hon. Gentleman says that it appeared in The Scotsman, I suppose that it must be so. However, if he considers our record he will find that participation in higher education in Scotland has already gone beyond the target set for England by the end of the century. We have a participation rate of about 25 per cent. That is an excellent record, but we are not complacent about it. As I said, we have set ourselves high targets and the decisions taken on higher and further education will enable us to achieve our objectives.

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

Current expenditure per pupil in 1989–90 has increased by 50 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation since 1979 in primary schools. The latest figure is £1,385 before taking account of the costs of local authority administration, school meals and transport, which are substantial.

Can my hon. Friend say how those figures square with claims that there have been cuts in primary education in Scotland during the past 12 years or even claims that there has been underfunding of primary school education?

The Opposition make those claims from time to time. The figures show that expenditure per pupil has increased by one half over and above price rises. Any talk of cuts is simply nonsense. The effects of that expenditure can be seen in the improved performance in our schools.

Will the Minister make similar comparisons of the expenditure per pupil in primary schools in 1978–79 and now on party political propaganda, such as that used to support the school boards and now to promote national testing? Nothing was squandered from the education budget on such propaganda 10 or II years ago, but now hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent ramming down the throats of pupils and parents in Scotland propaganda to support a system for which they have no sympathy—national testing. Would not it better to spend that money on much-needed learning support so that pupils benefit, rather than the Conservative party?

We have already made a commitment to find a way of channelling further resources into learning support. The hon. Gentleman mentioned school boards and party political propaganda. Strathclyde region spent more to promote school boards than the Government campaign overall. This aspect ceased to be a matter of difference between the parties only when the Labour party changed its position on school boards.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many volunteer fire brigades are operated by local authorities in Scotland.

There are 140 volunteer fire units in Scotland, mostly in highland and islands areas.

Does the Minister agree that volunteer fire units provide a vital service to island communities and remote areas? Is there any danger that substantial numbers of those units will be disbanded because of difficulties in applying the health and safety regulations in full'? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that was the reason given by Labour-controlled Northumberland county council for disbanding the Holy Island fire brigade, one of the few in England? Will that problem arise in Scotland or will the hon. Gentleman find a solution to it?

I agree that volunteer fire brigades have performed an extremely valuable role in Scotland. Volunteer units can render initial cover in advance of the arrival of full-time or retained fire-fighting crews. I envisage volunteer units in Scotland remaining an important part of the Scottish fire service, because volunteer units give confidence to people in remote areas and the islands in a way that is effective and provides value for money.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to reduce delays in bringing prosecutions against people charged with offences.

My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate sets targets for the average time that should elapse between receipt of a police report by a procurator fiscal and the service of a complaint on an accused. Latest figures indicate that the overwhelming majority of procurator fiscal offices meet these targets.

Are not the targets woefully inadequate? Over the past year, people pleading and going to trial faced delays of up to 26 weeks in Scotland. That does nothing to help the morale of the police force, trading standards officers and others who enforce the law. Are not the Government's inaction and the lack of will to tackle these serious delays the reasons why we have a crime wave?

Steps have been and are being taken to speed up cases coming to court. A standard style of police report has been introduced which should reduce delays. A joint working group comprising the Crown Office and chief constables recommended that the fiscal should have a report within, at the latest, 28 days of the accused being cautioned and charged by the police. It is important that, both in sheriff and district courts, the target in non-custody cases between pleading and trial is 10 to 14 weeks. The number of permanent and temporary sheriffs in Scotland has been increased by 70 since 1983 and that, too, is important. We are also introducing more and more computer technology into the courts.

God help us!

God help the criminals, because we shall have a more efficient system to deal with them. The fingerprint technology will bring many more of them to trial. A number of reviews are taking place and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall follow them through with vigour.

May I remind the Minister that delays in bringing prosecutions in cases involving allegations of child abuse or sexual abuse can be extremely distressing, affecting not only those charged with such offences but, more importantly, the victims of such crimes? Surely the utmost speed must be impressed upon those with authority in relation to such dreadful cases. The children involved must be treated humanely and compassionately and not subjected to unnecessary delays.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be speaking to social workers on that subject on Friday. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Lord Advocate, as I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern on this matter.

May I remind Opposition Members that Scotland is unique in the world —

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman should seek to remind the Minister or, better still ask a question.

I remind the Minister that Scotland is unique in the European Community because we have a system of justice that requires prosecution within statutory times and we achieve those statutory times with regularity and excellence. When I was a Law Officer, at a meeting of Ministers in Switzerland, the Ministers, most of whom were socialists, were happy to take the view that four years was quite a generous time for a prosecution and the mildest time to occur in any European state, so let us blow the trumpet on Scottish justice instead of blasting it.

My hon. and learned Friend was a prominent and distinguished Law Officer and I congratulate him on getting the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill through its Committee stage this morning.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Grampian health board to discuss reorganisation of the health service.

I hold regular meetings with health board representatives to discuss issues affecting the NHS in Scotland.

Is the Minister aware of the grave disquiet throughout the Grampian health board area about the handling of the Foresterhill opt-out, whereby overwhelming medical and public opinion was overruled by what appeared to be Stalinist tactics at St. Andrew's house? Can the Minister define for the House the importance that he attaches to democratic expression of opinion? This matter greatly concerns my constituents because West Grampian unit is also currently undergoing a consultation process and it seems clear from the Minister's previous actions that consultation is meaningless and that his own views count more than anyone else's.

I am sorry that the hon. Lady should seek to politicise the matter. The initiative to look at national health service trust status for Foresterhill has come from management and medical people who believe that there will be an opportunity to improve patient care. I understand that consideration is also being given to the possibility of trust status in the West Grampian district, although I have no detailed knowledge of that as the initiative comes from the local districts. Should an application come to my right hon. Friend, as I understand that we expect it will, a three-month period of consultation will be required. I hope that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and others will apply only one criterion in assessing the application —whether patient care will benefit—and that party politics will be set aside.

Does the Minister not realise that the decision by the Grampian health board on 7 February to recommend that an opt-out application be made seriously prejudices the board's capacity to conduct the consultation period in an objective manner? If an application is submitted, how can the Minister ensure that the consultation period will be undertaken with the public confident that it will be neutral and that the facts will be properly and straightforwardly reported to the Minister so that he can follow his own criterion and apply a non-political judgment?

The decision will be taken not by Grampian health board, but by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will do so after a period of consultation. I understand that the Labour party has plans to use the common good fund in Aberdeen to campaign against national health service trust status. It would seem that the common good of Aberdeen would best be met by people looking at proposals that have come from those involved at the sharp end of health care provision with a view to considering them in the light of whether they satisfy patient care.

Will the Minister answer two simple questions? Many people in Grampian are asking why the status quo was not an option with regard to Foresterhill. How can the people of Grampian have confidence in a health board which initially said that it had no locus in determining the result, was neutral and relied on a proposal from the hospital, but, when that proposal was not forthcoming, stated that it would have welcomed it? It now says that it will objectively consult the people of Grampian. How can the people of Grampian have confidence that the health board will take account of their welfare?

I should have thought that if the hon. Gentleman were interested in obtaining a genuine consultation period he would realise that the sort of remarks that he has made would not be helpful towards achieving that. The board's responsibility is to look at the requirements for health care in Grampian and, to the best of its ability and within the resources available, to provide for that. If the board believes that the initiative from doctors and management for NHS trust status is in the interests of patient care, I should have thought that, as a Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman would give careful consideration to the arguments put forward by the board and do his best to ensure that the consultation process is not turned into a political farce.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the criterion used to judge the success of the national health service is not the number of beds but the number of patients treated?

Indeed, I do. Some 900,000 extra patients are treated each year, compared with the number treated when the Government took power. Were NHS trust status —which is attracting interest in Grampian—to be forthcoming, it would mean that the hospital at Foresterhill would be able to take decisions at hospital level and those directly involved in the provision of care would have far more say in the decision-making process. It is ironic that those who argue for devolution on a political basis seem to be against it in the health service.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the average cost of collecting the poll tax in Scotland including extra expenses for new staff needed and for the processing of rebate applications.

Overall, Scottish local authorities have budgeted to spend £43 million on the collection of the community charge this year.

Does the Minister agree that this has been the most disastrous and costly piece of legislation this century? Can he explain why the Minister of State and the Secretary of State for Scotland let the people of Scotland down so badly by failing to ask the Cabinet and the Secretary of State for the Environment to abolish the 20 per cent. rule? Why did he not raise, on behalf of the Scottish people, the fact that we were a year ahead of England? Why did he not ask for a £280 refund? Why did we have to pay £140 more?

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that we abolished rates in Scotland a year ahead of England. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech that I made during the debate on the 20 per cent. rule. I assure both the hon. Gentleman and the House that local authorities will be fully reimbursed for the cost of administering the additional assistance to charge payers that was announced by the Government.

Will the Minister confirm that the cost of granting 100 per cent. poll tax relief to the poorest people in Scotland would be just £30 million? In all the circumstances with which we are familiar in our constituencies, how on earth can he justify the on-going campaign of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to retain this tax on poverty in Scotland?

The cost of collecting the community charge is about three quarters of 1 per cent. of total expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman is implying that local authorities should concentrate as a priority on pursuing those who are able to pay the full personal community charge but who are not doing so, I agree with him.

The Minister referred us to his previous speech on the 20 per cent. rule. As he was a diehard supporter of the unjust principle that everyone, irrespective of means, including students and those on income support, should pay something towards local taxation, are we to take it from his remarks that the Government intend to stand by the 20 per cent. rule and that the new system to be announced will contain no reprieve? The Minister is known as the truest of blue supporters of the poll tax. Can he explain why he is now prepared to endorse a property tax? He will have heard the Secretary of State say a few minutes ago that the reason for the abolition of the poll tax is that it is not working well —yet only four or five months ago the Secretary of State for Scotland described it as a remarkable success story. What in the interim has changed the mind of the hon. Gentleman and his senior colleagues?

The hon. Gentleman recognises, I hope, that he will have to await the consultation paper on the future structure of the new system of local government finance. [HON. MEMBERS: "So will you."] I should point out that collection levels are very variable. To take an example at random —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is from Eastwood district—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"], so perhpaps not chosen wholly at random. The income raised in 1989 from Eastwood district was 103·4 per cent. of estimated income. That perhaps shows the wisdom of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) who asked the main question, in preferring to continue to live in Tory Eastwood rather than in socialist Glasgow with his constituents.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of people in work in Scotland and north Tayside in May 1979 and at the nearest date in 1991 for which figures are available.

In September 1990, there were 2·25 million people in the Scottish civilian work force in employment. This was 12,000 more than in June 1979. In September 1989, there were 22,600 people in employment in north Tayside—about 1,600 more than in September 1984. These are the earliest and latest dates for which constituency information is available.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures show very clearly that a Conservative Government and Conservative Members of Parliament are good for Scotland, and certainly good for north Tayside? They show very clearly that the number of people in work is greater today than when I became a Member of Parliament, and those people are all better paid, making nonsense of the claims that people are not better off.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's general point and with his particular point about north Tayside. His reference to living standards is correct. The best measure is gross domestic product per head. Throughout Scotland, GDP is at an all-time high, having increased by about 30 per cent. in the past decade. That shows beyond any doubt the benefits that the people of Scotland have derived from Conservative government.

The Minister is being rather selective. He will know, for instance, that the whole of Tayside has been shocked by the most recent job losses, which are a direct result of decisions made by his Government. I refer, for example, to the decision to instruct health boards to consider privatising some of their services. That was compounded by a decision of a sub-committee of the full health board, by a vote of three to two. The people who voted to make 380 people redundant were the chairman, who was appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and two self-nominated members of the Conservative party, one of whom has a relative on the Government. side of the House.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to one of my relatives —or, indeed which one as there are a very large number of them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present number of police officers currently serving in Strathclyde.

As at 31 December 1990, 6,804 officers were serving in Strathclyde police. This includes nine officers on secondment, 22 on central service, and 37 serving with the Scottish crime squad.

I thank the Minister for his reply. He will know that the chief constable of Strathclyde, Sir Andrew Sloan, complained in his most recent report that he was 210 police officers below strength, despite the fact that other forces throughout the United Kingdom had increased their numbers. The chief constable is alarmed that in some cases he will not be able to answer calls at peak times. Surely a Minister representing the party of law and order should do something about that.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the matter. It is clear that Strathclyde regional council will not allocate sufficient funds to maintain the required establishment. Currently the force is 150 below strength. The Scottish Office, having approved the higher level, has properly budgeted for its share of the cost, so the problem lies wholly at the door of Strathclyde regional council. We have increased our payment from 50 to 51 per cent. The regional council's decision is extraordinary in view of the fact that theft and house-breaking have increased, as have drugs-related offences involving supply as well as those involving possession. I very much hope that the council will consider the matter again with a view to adopting a stronger law and order policy.

Will the Minister confirm that in many parts of Strathclyde only a handful of police officers are available in the evenings and at weekends to combat the activities of criminals? Is not that a charter for criminals? It is surely wrong for the Minister to lay the blame at the door of Strathclyde regional council in view of all the cuts that the council has suffered as a result of Government policies. Will the Minister give the council sufficient resources to enable it to do all that it can to combat crime?

We have paid our share of the cost in grant and we have increased the grant from 50 to 51 per cent., as I mentioned. The responsibility lies firmly at the door of Strathclyde regional council. I hope that it will take seriously into account what the hon. Gentleman has said, bearing in mind that it is the only regional council in Scotland so far below the required establishment of police officers to do the job properly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairmen of the local enterprise companies in order to discuss the number of people suffering from mental handicaps who require training places and the number of employment training places available to such people in 1991–92.

Discussions with the chairmen of local enterprise companies about operational issues of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman refers are matters for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I am satisfied that the training resources available to Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies are sufficient to cater for the employment training aim and guarantee groups. Those groups include mentally handicapped people.

Is there not one Scottish Office Minister or official with an abiding commitment to the needs of those fellow citizens who suffer from mental handicap of one kind or another? Surely the local enterprise companies should be told by the Minister and his officials that they have a responsibility to such citizens. Would it not be an honourable course of action for the LECs to ensure that two or three of every 10 training places go to people with mental handicaps? Why should such people always be at the end of the queue for training and employment?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he is not up to date with the position. Last year employment training starts for people with disabilities, including the mentally handicapped, represented 6·2 per cent. of the total. This year from 1 April for the first time the disabled, including the mentally handicapped, will be part of the aim group for employment training, which effectively ensures them places in employment training. Indeed, we have relaxed the normal unemployment eligibility requirement. In effect, therefore, eligibility will depend on an individual's fitness for employment once trained and not on resources.

Given the Minister's assurances, why are 500 handicapped people who previously received a service from the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped no longer receiving that service after the employment training changes? Why has the Scottish Association for Mental Health had a cut of 140 places, and why are four or five centres to close? If there is genuinely a guarantee to the aim and guarantee group, which includes the handicapped, why has Lothian Enterprise given an instruction to all training managers that no more handicapped people or others in that group are to be taken on until further notice?

May I reassure the hon. Gentleman completely that the mentally handicapped are part of the disabled category and part of the aim group? Therefore, their eligibility depends on fitness for employment once trained and not on resources. However, I should say that the purpose of employment training is to provide training directly; it is not to provide rehabilitation, which is a social work function. As to the Scottish Association for Mental Health, I launched Tayside Enterprise earlier this week. I asked about places for the SAMH and was told that it had contracted for 2,024 training weeks in 1991 and that the figure for 1991–92 is 2,600 weeks. That is not a cut—it is an increase.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the effect of the reduction in Government funding to local enterprise companies compared with their bids on the number of training places they are able to provide in the next financial year.

There is no uniform link between the funds available to local enterprise companies and the number of training places that they are able to provide. The maximum number of training places that could be provided by each local enterprise company will be significantly influenced by the use that they make of the increased flexibilities available to them and the unit costs that they negotiate.

The increased flexibilities of which the Secretary of State talks are certainly not matched by increased funding. If Scottish Enterprise had been funded at the level promised by the former Secretary of State when it was first mooted, it would have approximately £150 million extra available for local enterprise companies. That money could be spent on much needed training schemes, which are now having to be cut. What would the Secretary of State say to my constituents—trainees as well as trainers—whose training schemes were cut at the end of last month because of the underfunding of the Glasgow Development Agency?

The hon. Gentleman underrates the substantial sums now being invested in training in Scotland. The budget for youth training in the forthcoming year is £103 million and the budget for employment training is £115 million. Those sums are substantial. When one compares them with the small sums invested in training by the last Labour Govermment —about six times as much investment is now being made in training—it is clear that the Opposition have a lot to learn from the Conservative Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the £429 million allocated to Scottish Enterprise, plus the £15 million for the Training Agency, should enable most trainers and trainees to enjoy good facilities in the coming year? Does my right hon. Friend know whether there will be a drop in the number of people receiving training in the coming year?

My hon. Friend asks a sound question. The total amount of resources going into the Scottish Enterprise training budget and the Highlands and Islands training budget is more than £240 million. Provided that the local enteprise companies use the flexibilities open to them and take maximum advantage of their negotiating position, that money should enable them to provide a substantial number of training places and to meet the guarantees that the Government have given.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for health trust status he has received; and if he will list them.

At this point formal applications have been received from the south Ayrshire unit and the Royal Scottish national hospital.

In view of the unsatisfactory answer that the Minister gave to other hon. Members who asked a similar question, and given the fact that the vast majority of well-informed local opinion is opposed to the application, will the Minister give a simple and honest guarantee to the House? First and foremost, will he undertake an objective consultative process? Secondly, will he undertake that the results of that process will be looked at fairly and impartially? Thirdly, if the majority of those involved are not in favour of opting out, will he abandon or reject the request?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions is yes, yes and no.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assess the prospects for the fishing industry in the north and north-western coastal waters around Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The prospects for the fishing industry in the north and north-west depend primarily on the health of fish stocks. The current poor state of the cod and haddock stocks in the North sea and off the west coast of Scotland is of particular concern. The Government therefore regard the conservation of those fishery resources as a major priority if we are to ensure the long-term prosperity of the fishing communities around our coasts.

The Secretary of State can surely be in no doubt as to the sense of utter chaos and demoralisation in the fishing industry and in the many communities served by and dependent on a healthy and viable fishing industry. Will he now acknowledge that schemes and devices such as the eight-day tie-up and all the problems that that is causing are no substitute for a proper, sensible and comprehensive decommissioning scheme? That is what the industry wants and it smacks of sense. Why have the Government turned their face against such a sensible development?

I certainly understand the anxiety that exists in the fishing community. I was able to find out more about that when I visited Peterhead recently. However, the industry also recognises the importance of conserving stocks because unless we do so in a responsible and sensible long-term manner there will be nothing left for the fishing community to fish for in the years to come.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings have taken place between the Scottish Office and the European Commissioner for the Environment on compliance with EC directives.

The Scottish Office is in contact as necessary with the Commissioner over the whole range of environmental issues.

Will the Government provide a supply of clean, wholesome drinking water for the Scottish population? Is not it disgraceful that millions of Scots are daily drinking water which fails to meet the basic minimum European standards for safety regarding materials such as aluminium and lead? Why were the Government willing to throw billions of pounds as a sweetener for water privatisation at one of the smaller English water boards when less than that amount would solve our problems and supply clean drinking water for the whole of Scotland? Why is the Minister discriminating against his own country?

First, I must point out to the hon. Member that, unlike in England where water restructuring took place in advance of privatisation, that process is not taking place in Scotland, where the water service is in the public sector. We take seriously our determination to do everything possible to comply with the directives. We have increased expenditure on water and sewerage programmes to an all-time high of £620 million. The hon. Gentleman asked about aluminium and lead. As regards aluminium, most supplies will comply by 1994; as regards lead, only one of the treatment schemes remains to be completed after this year, and it is programmed for 1992.