Object.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's right-to-buy housing policy in Scotland.

Since 1979, more than 217,000 public sector houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland under the right-to-buy legislation. This has helped to raise the proportion of owner-occupiers in Scotland from around 35 to over 51 per cent. Through the right to buy, the Government are successfully meeting the aspirations of Scottish people to own their homes.

As those figures show clearly the great success of the right-to-buy scheme in Scotland at spreading ownership, choice and opportunity, will my hon. Friend confirm that the rent-to-mortgage scheme is similarly popular? Does he expect that, as with the right-to-buy scheme, Labour Members will have to eat their words about the rent-to-mortgage scheme?

Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Some 20,000 people have expressed interest in the rent-to-mortgage scheme, which caters for a different market from the right-to-buy scheme. I believe that it will be extremely popular. Moreover, for every 1,000 sales, it will bring in approximately £8 million to the local authorities concerned which they can spend on public sector housing, so they are strongly encouraged to take up that opportunity and give assistance.

Will the Minister extend his enthusiasm for tenants' rights to the tenants of Scottish new towns and give them the right to choose their district council as landlord? I hope that the Minister will not say that it is a matter for his hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State, because Governments have collective responsibility.

No options are ruled out in that connection. We are considering the submission on behalf of new town tenants and shall come to a conclusion in due course. I enjoyed my visit to the hon. Gentleman's district council, where rapid progress is being made, and I look forward to its continuing.

Will the Minister confirm that, out of the 20,000 expressions of interest in the rent-to-mortgage scheme, only 118 people are applying to buy their own homes? Will he also confirm that his Department's expenditure on advertising and administration for those 118 houses is £275,000? Is he aware that that compares with the mere £280,000 available for new start capital works for 14,500 houses in the Moss Park area of Govan? When will he get his priorities right?

It is extremely important that tenants should be carefully and professionally counselled before they take that step and that process is under way. Naturally, it will start gradually, as it did under the right-to-buy scheme. If the hon. Gentleman wants more funds to be spent on Moss Park, I suggest that he makes representations to Glasgow district council to speed up the processing of council house sales, which takes about a year, and ensure that the period is reduced to six months. If he does, millions of pounds could be saved for spending on his constituents and on public sector housing stock in Glasgow.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests he has had for a meeting with the Scottish Trades Union Congress since he became Secretary of State; and what has been his response.

My right hon. Friend has received one such request and has indicated his willingness to meet the STUC at a suitable opportunity. I myself met the general council of the STUC on 15 February for a general discussion on the Scottish economy.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but it is not consistent with the information that I have received, which is that the Secretary of State refused to meet the STUC to discuss reopening Monktonhall colliery. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday a lobby of thousands of miners and other interested people presented to No. 10 Downing street petitions requesting that Monktonhall colliery in my constituency be reopened? In the light of the hon. Gentleman's answer, the apparent confusion in the Scottish Office and all that we heard from the Secretary of State for Scotland at the Conservative party conference in Perth, which was nothing but rhetoric, will the STUC be driven to ask for a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the perilous state of the Scottish economy?

Decisions on the future of individual pits are a matter for British Coal. The corporation is permitted to review the position of Monktonhall in mid-1991. I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. Friend has agreed to meet the STUC for a general discussion, following its congress. That meeting will take place.

When my hon. Friend meets the STUC, will he draw its attention to the responsible way in which the shop stewards at Rosyth naval base have lobbied for their base and contrast that with the way in which the Transport and General Workers Union behaved over Ford in Dundee? The STUC, with its socialist and nationalist attitude, is opposed to directors representing trade unions in our finest Scottish companies.

I understand my hon. Friend's latter point, but I do not think that I should intrude on the internal grief of the STUC. As for Ford at Dundee, while my hon. Friend's criticism of the Transport and General Workers Union is correct, it is worth putting on the record the fact that the Amalgamated Engineering Union did its best to achieve that major project for Scotland. I echo what my hon. Friend said about the shop stewards at Rosyth, whom, I, with a large number of hon. Members, have met.

When the Secretary of State finally meets the STUC, will he discuss opt-out hospitals—a matter on which its affiliates must be consulted? Will he explain why yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said that decisions on opting out should be made by "medical people"? Is the Secretary of State aware that in Scotland more than 80 per cent. of medical people—the doctors—voted against opting out? Why does the Secretary of State, in the Prime Minister's words, have "so little faith" in the doctors? Why does not the Secretary of state, even at this late stage, listen to the doctors and stop the opting-out nonsense?

The Ayrshire NHS trust is led by a consultant. When I saw the first 25 questions on the Order Paper, I came to the conclusion that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and his collegues were running scared of my hon. Friend the Minister of State because there was not a single question on education or health.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met office-bearers of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation; if decommissioning was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

I met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 23 April in London and, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on 10 May in Perth, when a number of fisheries issues, including decommissioning, were discussed.

I thank my right hon. Friend for having arranged the meeting between the fishermen's leaders and the Prime Minister in Perth last Friday, which was greatly appreciated. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that decommissioning is an effective conservation measure which takes vessels out of the fleet and thereby reduces fishing efforts? What advice would he give to the fishermen's leaders about what further evidence or information he requires from them to persuade his colleagues of the justice of the case which the fishermen and others have been making for many months?

I certainly acknowledge the consistency with which my right hon. Friend has advanced the case and the great importance that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation attaches to it. My discussions with the federation were useful and I was able to put the point that while decommissioning reduces capacity, it does not necessarily reduce effort. It is the reduction of effort which is most important. I have told the federation that if it cared to introduce a package of proposals in which decommissioning was a component I should be willing to consider it.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the mounting evidence that the eight-day tie-up scheme is being administered with extreme harshness, not with the flexibility that was promised when it was announced? There is much confusion about the view of the Scottish Office and the Government on decommissioning. Would it not be better if the Secretary of State commissioned an independent study by experts in fishing and economics to have a clear look at the matter? That would avoid the prospect of the Secretary of State, simply because he thinks that events may affect his political future, saying that he will consider the matter, while the Government resist on every occasion. Why cannot there be an independent assessment? The case could be proved without a shadow of doubt. We could then have a decommissioning scheme and honour would be saved, too.

The hon. Gentleman knows that the eight-day tie-up arrangements are subject to conditions set down in a European regulation and are not at the discretion of the Government. To the extent that we have discretion in the matter, the tie-up arrangements are being applied as flexibly as is compatible with the important need to conserve stocks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the most important criterion in the whole exercise is the need to conserve stocks, especially of cod and haddock, so that there will be fish for future generations of fishermen.

Does not the Secretary of State accept, however, that other European countries are implementing effective Government-backed decommissioning schemes to enable skippers and owners who want to leave the North sea fishery to do so? Is he also aware that other European Governments are implementing effective compensation for the tie-up period and social security schemes for people who work on boats but are not skippers or owners? Why are the interests of crewmen in this country being prejudiced, when they operate a fisheries policy common to European Community? Why are they not getting the same benefits as are available in other countries?

Decommissioning schemes are in operation in other countries, but that does not exempt them from the need to apply other conservation measures as well, including the eight-day tie-up. If the Scottish Fishermen's Federation produced a package of proposals including a decommissioning component—perhaps funded to some extent by the industry—we should be willing to consider it. Our overriding priority is to ensure the conservation of stocks so that fish are there for the future.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, as well as the crisis in the fish catching side of the industry, a tragedy is taking place in the processing side of the industry, with businesses closing down on a regular basis? A dangerous situation is developing. In the north-east of Scotland we shall lose a large proportion of our fish processing industry. Is the Secretary of State aware that when fish processors recently made representations to the Scottish Office, they were rebuffed? There was no sign of sympathy whatsoever. What are the Secretary of State's proposals to assist fish processors through this difficult and dangerous time?

Of course, I appreciate the knock-on effects on the fish processing industry, but other options are open to fish processors, such as diversifying into other stocks and importing stocks. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have secured for the industry European Community grant aid of about £15 million for 1991–93. That will be of considerable value to the industry in modernising its premises and processing capacity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the restructuring of local government; and what consultations he proposes to hold.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had about the future structure of local government in Scotland.

We intend to consult widely on the future structure of local government in Scotland. A range of representations has already been received. I have already held discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and a further meeting will take place shortly.

Will the Secretary of State admit that among the representations that he received were considerable expressions of regret that he had not seen fit to appoint an independent commission to review the structure of local government, as is being done in England? Does he accept that a further advantage, apart from the Government's not being able to rig the system, would be that the commission's report would be ready in time for the Scottish parliament to legislate on the matter?

The right hon. Gentleman anticipates one or two matters. If in the consultations there are extensive representations on the need for a commission, I shall consider them in the same way as I shall consider all other representations. The right hon. Gentleman should be under no illusions about what is taking place in England. There is no royal commission as was suggested. It is an advisory commission which replaces the Local Government Boundary Commission. Scotland is not engaged in a gradual area-by-area rolling process against a background of greater scale and greater diversity, such as exists in England. Ours is a more coherent and comprehensible system of local government and it should be possible to move with relative ease to single-tier all-purpose authorities. If there is a relevant role for the Local Government Boundary Commission in our deliberations, we shall consider that as well.

The Secretary of State must answer the question. Why is it necessary for a commission to say what the structure of local government in England and Wales should be while the Tory party, which does not have the confidence of the Scottish people, can define on the back of an envelope the structure of local government in Scotland? Did the Secretary of State support within Cabinet a commission for England and Wales and once more fail miserably to win the same concession for Scotland?

The hon. Lady is wrong. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales does not contemplate such a commission for Wales, because the situation there is different from that in England. I intend to have extremely wide consultations in Scotland. We are contemplating two consultation papers, not one, and we plan to consult over a reasonable period so that there will be every opportunity for full representations to be made to us. We intend to move forward with general agreement and support to achieve a lasting solution that will be relevant to the needs of all the different parts of Scotland.

Will my right hon. Friend say something about the time scale for consultation, legislation and the implementation of his policy? Will he bear in mind the fact that what may be sensible for the central belt may not be suitable for rural Scotland? There could be a great deal to be said for returning to the old county boundaries, which proved very satisfactory over the previous century.

On the time scale, I assure my hon. Friend that we hope to publish our first consultation paper within the next few weeks. We shall consult on that during the summer with a view to publishing a further consultation paper in the autumn. Legislation might reasonably be contemplated in 1993–94, with a new system coming into place in 1996. I emphasise that those times are not fixed; they are general objectives. I certainly agree that we should not seek to impose right across Scotland a system that might not suit the variations in geography and demography and in local loyalties. I have not lost sight of my hon. Friend's important point about loyalties to the old county councils.

Does the Secretary of State accept that if the local government map is a Tory in-house job there is a danger that it will command no confidence because it will be seen as a partisan exercise? I take some encouragement from the right hon. Gentleman's initial answer, which suggested that the door is not entirely shut on independent advice. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which, I think, speaks for councils of every political colour and, of course, all three main Opposition parties in the House are in favour of an independent commission to set the parameters of debate and to make recommendations. In recent times we have had the Wheatley commission, the Stodart report and the Montgomery committee report. Why have those sensible precedents been departed from and why is such independent advice not considered necessary, at least initially, in this case? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be wise to heed that argument as all the evidence suggests that although he may start the process of change, a Labour Government will take the final decision?

It seems that the hon. Gentleman is the only Opposition Member who is seized of that opinion. I agree that the Stodart committee and others in the area of local government in the past 20 or 30 years have set valuable precedents and carried out much work. The information that they gathered makes our task easier. I take it from the hon. Gentleman's reference to the importance of an independent commission that he would set up such a commission before drawing up any plans to create a Scottish assembly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that throughout Scotland there is a mood for single-tier, all-purpose authorities which has been brought about because the public have never comprehended which services were provided by which council? Consequently, Members of Parliament have frequently had to deal with council matters because of difficulties that the public have had to face. That is what we are now offering.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are seeking to achieve a new and durable system of local government for Scotland that will be efficient and popular and will increase the accountability of local authorities to their residents. It should remove duplication, conflict and bureaucracy and make for better and stronger local government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow of 26 April, Official Report, columns 618–19, if it is his intention to introduce legislative provisions akin to those contained in part III of the Criminal Justice Bill; and if he will make a statement.

No. The provisions in the Bill have been designed specifically for England and Wales. We need to consider separately what is most suitable for Scotland and in particular the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations in its report on the evidence of children and other potentially vulnerable witnesses.

Part III of the Criminal Justice Bill and the English Children Act 1989 show all too plainly the disturbing discrepancy between English and Scottish child care law. Given that discrepancy and the recent and continuing inquiries into abuses of children, has not the time arrived for a Minister of State at the Scottish Office to be given specific responsibility for child protection? Should not his first duty be to initiate a critical and tough-minded examination of child care law and practices? We can trust social work departments, but these worrying developments need a Minister of State to carry out such duties.

We have a Minister of State who has promised a White Paper on the subject. A report on child care law was published last October and we have received extensive comments on its recommendations. On 19 April, my right hon. Friend announced his intention to establish a judicial inquiry following the recent child protection cases in the Orkneys. We will take into account its findings in preparing the White Paper, which will set out a coherent package of measures to improve and simplify arrangements for the protection and support of children in Scotland.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his prompt response to the calls for a judicial inquiry into the events in Orkney. He will agree that we look to that inquiry to come forward with positive proposals to improve child care law. Does he accept that the inquiry will be more effective and better informed if the parents involved have adequate funding for proper legal representation? Can the Minister make a statement on that?

I have written fully to the hon. Member on the subject of legal aid. I understand that the immediate problem has been resolved, but if there are further matters I shall be happy to meet the hon. Members to discuss them in detail and to follow them up.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to change the number of bands upon which the Government's new council tax is to be based.

My right hon. Friend will be considering carefully the responses to the consultation paper on the new tax. Those responses will no doubt cover the question of the number of bands needed. We do not, however, at this stage envisage a change from the proposed seven band system.

This story is going to run and run. How can the Government justify prolonging the agony of the poll tax for a further chaotic two years or, as is probably more likely, for three years while they try to stitch up all those bands? If the Minister is seriously interested in fairness in local government taxation, will he concede that Lothian region is a moderate-spending local authority, which has been compelled to levy a very high poll tax because it gets £88·68 less per head in grant from the Scottish Office than the Scottish average? Can we have fair banding for revenue support grant this year, instead of capping Lothian's eminently responsible and reasonable budget?

The hon. Member knows perfectly well what the situation is in respect of Lothian region. My right hon. Friend has agreed to meet the regional council if it wishes to make representations to him. As regards the more general question about banding, I think that the whole House will appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about very big houses, but I hope that he will be reassured by the fact that owners in the top band will pay about two and half times the amount that owners of properties in the smallest band will pay, and that is perfectly fair. The Government have taken major action to reduce the burden of the community charge in Scotland, as in England and Wales, in the light of the quite outrageous increases imposed by many Labour councils.

Before the Minister contemplates looking at any new tax, will he take some time to examine what is happening to local authorities because of the poll tax? Will he consider introducing legislation—we do not have much legislation in Scottish terms—to take out the 20 per cent. rule and eliminate the arresting of benefits, especially those involving social security? Will he do that and get rid of this arduous and hazardous impost on the people of Scotland?

The House has debated that matter and has taken a decision. As regards collection, if the figures being alleged by the local authorities are correct, it is obviously sensible for them to concentrate first on getting the community charge collected from those who are liable for the full payment.

In the light of experience with the community charge, will my hon. Friend keep his two major objectives—first, simplicity in relation to the new tax, and secondly, low costs of administration and collection? If both those are achieved, there will be better understanding among taxpayers and, as a result, better accountability from local authorities.

My right hon. Friend makes two valid points. The council tax will, of course, be simpler and will have lower costs of collection than the community charge system.

When will the Minister acknowledge that the disastrous poll tax, of which he was such a loyal supporter until he was told to change his mind, has created an enormous financial crisis for local government and for the many poor people in Scotland? As a result of that crisis, immediate action is demanded—not long consultations about some new tax in the future. In view of that fact, and of the light legislative load, why do not the Government abolish the 20 per cent. rule now and introduce legislation, which will have our full support, to return to the old rating system on 1 April 1992? Thereafter, if he wants to change it, it will be a matter for him and the Government, if they are still in power.

When will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the community charge system was brought in because the domestic rating system was patently unfair, patently unjust and patently did not have the confidence of the people of Scotland? When will he acknowledge that that is precisely the system that he and his colleagues wish to bring back and to enforce on the people of Scotland? It was completely unworkable before.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the effect of the increased tax on petrol on the tourist industry in Scotland.

The increase in petrol duty introduced by the Budget is not likely to have a significant effect on the Scottish tourist industry.

It is self-evident that St. Andrew's house is hardly a hotbed of innovative thinking if that is the best that the Minister can come up with. Is he aware that 64 per cent. of all tourists who visited Scotland in 1989 from within the United Kingdom and half of the foreign tourists came by car? Is he seriously telling me that an increase of 13p per gallon will have no effect at all on tourism? Surely St. Andrew's house ought to be considering differential pricing to aid the tourist industry. Some means of mitigating the effect of the increase ought to be found, or does the Minister regard the Chancellor as a blind axeman and feel that he can do nothing about it?

St. Andrew's house is the source of some figures that will reassure the hon. Gentleman. In the United Kingdom, excise duty on unleaded petrol—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, uses unleaded petrol—is 22·41p per litre, whereas in Spain it is 23·76, in France 29·70 and in Italy 36·07. If overseas visitors were to decide to take their holidays on the basis of the amount of excise duty they would have to pay they would obviously choose the United Kingdom.

Will my hon. Friend invite the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) to reflect on the fact that if there were a Scottish assembly with tax-raising powers, the cost of petrol, hotels and shopping in Scotland would be so appalling that nobody would come to Scotland at all?

As always, my hon. and learned Friend has made an extremely good point. It is very fortunate for tourists and potential tourists in Scotland that there is no Scottish assembly; nor is there going to be one.

What will be the effect on the tourist industry of last week's decision to turn down flat the management-employee bid at Strathtay Scottish bus company in Tayside and instead to accept the bid of a Yorkshire-based private concern that will guarantee the loss of employment and services in the Tayside area? Does the Minister not understand that the more he goes on selling out Scottish-based companies to the highest bidder, the greater will be the determination of the Scottish people to get rid of him and the Tory Government?

What a load of nonsense the hon. Gentleman talks, and not for the first time. He ought to know that many of the management-employee buy-out proposals have been accepted in Scotland and that, under the system, management-employee buy-outs were given preference. That particular buy-out did not succeed, but others have.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while the price of petrol will have an effect on tourism in Scotland, the fact that Scotland will not participate with the rest of the United Kingdom in a national tourism trade show must be the greatest disadvantage to the potential for tourism in Scotland? Will he put pressure on the director and board members of the Scottish tourist board to participate with the rest of the United Kingdom?

I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House that both the Scottish tourist board and Highlands and Islands Enterprise continue to promote Scotland both at home and overseas. The campaigns are targeted at all key markets overseas, while at home the Scottish tourist board has joined the other national tourist boards in mounting a special tourist campaign to encourage more British tourists to have holidays at home. I can also reassure my hon. Friend that both the Scottish tourist board and Highlands and Islands Enterprise continue to devote considerable resources to the improvement of visitor facilities and amenities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss unemployment in Scotland.

I have indicated my willingness to meet the general council of the STUC at a suitable opportunity. Employment and unemployment could no doubt be discussed at such a meeting.

I appeal to the Secretary of State, before he meets the general council of the STUC, to read and consider the recent series of articles in the Glasgow Evening Times entitled

"The Age of the Dole",

The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will be well aware that unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by more than 40 per cent. in the past four years, a dramatic indication of the Government's policies. As to the Glasgow Evening Times series of articles, I can only assume that it is looking forward to the future of a possible Labour Government when, as a result of the Labour party's minimum wage, jobs would be lost, as a result of Labour's payroll tax, jobs would be lost, as a result of the Labour party's Scottish assembly tax, jobs would be lost, and as a result of the Labour party's proposals on industrial relations, jobs would be lost, just as they were under the last Labour Government.

The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the unemployment black spots that he might wish to discuss with the STUC is Lanarkshire. May I therefore, through him, offer cautious congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), on the Lanarkshire working party which has conducted its business with a speed and efficiency that were singularly lacking in regard to the Secretary of State's study on steel? Will he confirm that among the major projects being studied by the working party is a new national sports and football stadium for Scotland? Can he indicate when the working party is likely to report?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the compliments that he has paid to the working party, which I set up and which I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Minister responsible for industry, to supervise, a job which he did so effectively. We look forward to receiving the report of the working party quite soon and we shall react to it as quickly as we can. In the meantime, it would not be sensible for me to guess what may be in the report.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that employment in Scotland is at a very high level, that unemployment has increased very little compared with the rest of the United Kingdom and that the Scottish Enterprise announcement of £430 million to help employment in Scotland, plus the Prime Minister's announcement last week of £15 million for Lanarkshire, will go a long way to help overcome any difficulties caused by the recession?

My hon. Friend is right. At £2·27 million the Scottish civilian work force in employment is at a historically high level. Over the past three years. the Scottish civilian work force has grown faster than the work force in Great Britain as a whole. Indeed, in the three years to December 1990 the Scottish civilian work force grew by 132,000. That is equivalent to 850 per week—a dramatic expansion.

Does the Secretary of State's silence following the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) mean that he is still refusing to meet the Glasgow Labour Members to discuss employment? Will he consider that in February, in the Government's public expenditure plans, he predicted that the number of adults entering employment training would fall this year from 47,000 to 30,000? Does he recall that on page 30 of "Serving Scotland's Needs" he claimed that this reflected

"the fact that, as a result of falling unemployment and improved labour market conditions, demand for Employment Training places continues to decline"?

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's request that I should meet the Glasgow Members, I shall certainly be happy to meet them to discuss employment and unemployment. As to the numbers joining training schemes, the hon. Gentleman will know that the number of young school leavers joining training schemes is estimated to fall by 4 per cent. this year. The number of long-term unemployed, for whom employment training is particularly designed, has fallen by 18 per cent. in the year to January 1991, a fall twice as fast in Scotland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is clearly sensible that such changes in the client group for the schemes should be reflected in their planning.

How can we take Labour's protests about unemployment seriously when just over two years ago its union friends sold out workers in Dundee to keep the boys in Dagenham happy?

My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the people of Dundee and the people of Scotland will never forget the dramatic damage to Scotland's inward investment record as a result of the Labour party's activities and especially those of the trade union movement.

rose—

Order. We are making rather slow progress. I now propose to proceed more rapidly than we have been doing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's support for the Scottish and Glasgow business community and workers to open the markets of the Soviet republics and union to Scottish goods and services.

The Government provide a range of services to enable the business community to begin or expand their sales efforts in the Soviet Union. We are very happy to support efforts based on sound commercial judgment.

The Minister will be aware that Glasgow district council is concerned about export credit grants and about the Cabinet's decision possibly to introduce a Bill to privatise the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Are we to have a pathetic apology from the Minister for the state of the Department of Trade and Industry figures which show that in 1979 the total number of insolvencies was 344, but that at the end of 1990 there were 4,756?

Questions on ECGD cover are properly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who has to draw a balance between providing support for project exports and the cost to the taxpayer of doing so. As for the efforts of Glasgow district council, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government try to ensure that Scotland's efforts are properly co-ordinated. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not unwilling to grant consent for international trade promotion activities provided that he is satisfied that the proposals serve Scotland's needs.

Will the Minister assist me in giving advice to a constituent whom I shall be visiting tomorrow? A small business man who paid his value added tax returns four or five days late has been hammered with a £1,200 fine. Is that the type of hounding that we can expect from the Inland Revenue? Does that help the small business community?

The relationship between the hon. Gentleman's question and trade with the Soviet Union escapes me, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss a particular case with me or with the relevant Minister, he can do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what amount employment in the service sector increased in Scotland between 1979 and 1988.

Between June 1979 and June 1988, service sector employment in Scotland grew by 79,000. This was an increase of 6·4 per cent. The service sector makes an important contribution to Scotland's economy and in 1989 accounted for almost two thirds of our gross domestic product.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures that he has given illustrate how diversified and resilient the Scottish economy now is? It grew by 2·5 per cent. per year for the seven years to 1988, but by only 1 per cent. per year when Labour was in power. Does he also agree that the pundits who say that manufacturing has been overwhelmed by the service sector are wrong, because the likelihood is that manufacturing output will grow by 4 to 5 per cent. even this year?

My hon. Friend is right to point to the strength of the service sector in Scotland. Employment in banking, in insurance and in financial and business services increased by about 50 per cent. between 1979 and 1989. Last year total employment in Scotland grew—the only part of the United Kingdom in which that happened—and in the past three years employment in Scotland has risen faster than in the United Kingdom as a whole.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he now expects the Government's new council tax to come into effect in Scotland.

Our aim is that the new council tax should come into effect on 1 April 1993.

The Minister forgot to say that growth in the service sector was slower in Scotland than virtually anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Can he confirm that tomorrow's unemployment figures will show that there are fewer jobs in Scotland now than there were in 1979?

I cannot, of course, confirm or deny anything about tomorrow's unemployment figures. [Interruption.] Of course I cannot. I can, however, reassure the hon. Gentleman that according to every indicator—including last month's unemployment figures, employment indicators, business forecasts and independent economic forecasts—the Scottish economy is coming through the current economic downturn very much better than most other parts of the United Kingdom.

Before the poll tax becomes history, will the Secretary of State finally clear up the confusion surrounding the liability of merchant seamen? Will he confirm that merchant seamen, who are away at sea for long periods, should not have to pay the poll tax while they are away, as they do not consume community services during those periods?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he will recognise that it is a matter not for me but for the community charge registration officer.

As the Secretary of State has abandoned all his previous thoughts about the poll tax, why does he find it necessary to continue to penalise those poor unfortunates who cannot afford to pay the 20 per cent. minimum?

The hon. Gentleman knows that income support was increased to take account of the liability for the 20 per cent. minimum and also that one of reasons why people on low incomes are in difficulty with their poll tax is that they listened to Labour and Scottish National party Members who urged them not to pay their fair share of local government funding.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise to discuss transport issues in the context of the development of the highlands and islands economy.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise to discuss transport issues, though he keeps in close touch with the development of the highlands and islands economy.

A few moments ago, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), gave some comparative EC figures with regard to excise duty on petrol, but omitted to answer my hon. Friend's question about VAT. The Minister was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in 1982, when it recognised that one of the contributory factors to high petrol prices in rural areas is the mark-up that garage owners have to apply because of poor throughput. Does he accept that that is exacerbated by VAT and that the Government are benefiting from our disadvantage, and will he consider differential rates of VAT to assist rural areas such as the highlands and islands?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks, but very substantial subsidies are paid, not least on the lifeline ferry services to the islands, from which the hon. Gentleman's constituents benefit. I have given the hon. Gentleman the assurance in the past that we will reconsider the subvention for the Shetlands in the light of the carryings of P and O, which will be of assistance. I am, of course, aware of the representations that the hon. Gentleman has received on that subject, which is relevant to his constituents, and the subsidies will be maintained.

Does the Minister accept that, given the importance of transport issues in the highlands and islands of Scotland, it would be much more efficient to spend money on the infrastructure of our area rather than enabling the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive to spend £450 minimum on each test borehole for the disposal of nuclear waste? Is not that a case of the Government having their priorities totally wrong?

We are to debate that subject tomorrow. With regard to the transport of nuclear waste, in almost 30 years of flask movement not one incident has occurred which has led to even the smallest amount of radioactivity being released. We are spending a considerable amount on the infrastructure of the highlands and we are funding the approach roads to the Skye bridge at a cost of some £6 million, which is a substantial contribution.

Why does the Minister give us this line about Nirex? Does he recall being at the Dispatch Box two or three weeks ago, a week before the Secretary of State gave permission for 6,000 test bores in the highlands? Why did the Minister mislead the House—not deliberately, I am sure—on that occasion? Why was not the liaison between Scottish Office Ministers sufficient to ensure that we were told on that occasion that the Secretary of State would overrule what the Minister appeared to be telling the House? Will he confirm that if this goes ahead, there will be 15 train loads of radioactive material trundling through the highlands and much of the rest of Scotland every week? That is a type of highland transport that nobody wants. Will the Minister also comment on the crass hypocrisy of the Secretary of State, who in the early 1980s purported —

Order. Please withdraw the word "hypocrisy".

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

The decision that was announced was a quasi-judicial one. There was no prospect of the Secretary of State's issuing it before he was ready. In fact, it was not ready at that time. Of course, the accepted forms laid down in statute have to be followed. Effectively, that was done. We shall go into this matter very thoroughly in the debate tomorrow night. I shall expect to see the hon. Member present, and I shall answer fully all the points that he has raised. What I said in this House was totally consistent with the decision that was later announced.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to protect police officers, postal workers and delivery personnel, from savage dogs kept by some householders; and if he will make a statement.

There is already a significant body of legislation dealing with dangerous dogs. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, passed with Government support, gives courts powers to impose very stiff penalties on those who do not keep their dogs under control.

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is extremely concerned about the situation that is arising. Pit bull terriers and rottweilers are very numerous in many tenement properties and in some multi-storey flats. Tenants are terrified to go into some lifts, and parents do not like to send their children into the parks, where these animals are let loose. I understand that Strathclyde police officers have been injured because drug dealers are using these dogs as a front line of defence. Surely the Government should introduce legislation to outlaw breeds that are dangerous and have aggression bred into them.

I am aware of the incidents to which the hon. Member refers and I find them as distressing and regrettable as I am sure the whole House does. However, it is not easy to see how such attacks could be prevented by legislative means. Specific controls over certain breeds would be far from straightforward. However, I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman with regard to the legislation as it stands. Under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, it is an offence for any person to allow a creature in his charge, including a dog, to endanger another person who is in a public place, and the Act empowers a court to order the destruction of the creature.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the local enterprise companies.

Progress in establishing the local enterprise companies in Scotland has been most encouraging. All are now fully operational, having signed operating contracts with Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the problem exists in Scotland, as it does in England, whereby a number of such new organisations are in danger of reinventing the wheel—that is to say, all tackling the same problems in different ways? Can my hon. Friend suggest to those organisations how they can ensure that best practice in the various tasks that they undertake is shared among them all?

I cannot comment on whether English organisations are reinventing the wheel, but the Scottish system is different from that in England because it offers true integration of training and economic development functions, which works extremely well. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise give general guidance to local enterprise companies. I have been impressed—as I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members have been—by the determination to ensure that the new system works effectively for the people of Scotland.

Nevertheless, has the Minister studied the report published today by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which expresses the same misgivings as are held by voluntary organisations in Scotland—that local enterprise companies and training and enterprise councils are failing to deal adequately with special needs groups? There is particular concern in respect of lost training places. While I am on my feet, may I welcome the recent announcement concerning inward investment for local enterprise companies in my constituency?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Tayside Enterprise, whose announcement will be warmly welcomed by everyone on Tayside. As to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, people with special needs are given priority in youth and employment training. As I explained at Scottish Question Time last month, the new arrangements ensure that those with special needs are treated as a real priority.