To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the elderly in long-term hospital care.

The health care needs of the elderly will continue to be the Government's highest priority.

What steps have been taken properly to assess the elderly before they are committed to long-term hospitalisation or nursing home care? Will the Minister take a leaf out of the book of the Northern Ireland people, who have decided that only consultants involved in geriatric medicine should assess people's needs?

The responsibility for care in the community will lie with local authorities and guidance will be provided on that. Health care needs are a matter for the consultants. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we plan to ensure by April next year that care plans are agreed between health authorities and local authorities so that elderly people's needs from the various agencies can be properly met.

Will the Minister tell the House how it would help care in the community if the Greater Glasgow health board went ahead with the proposal to close the Stoneyetts and Birdston hospitals in my constituency? If the chairman of the health board continues to decline the invitation to come to a public meeting so that everyone involved can have a say in the decision, and if the Minister also declines the invitation, will the Minister think again, and encourage the board to think again? Does the Minister accept that if those tragic closures take place, they will be a major blow for community care in my constituency?

It is for the Greater Glasgow health board to decide how best to provide for care within its area. Where closure decisions have been taken, they require the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the provision of care for the elderly in Greater Glasgow, I pay tribute to the splendid efforts of Laurence Peterken and the chairman of the board to ensure that better facilities are made available for the elderly and I commend them for being prepared to see the removal of facilities that are not up to standard and their replacement with facilities that are more appropriate to the needs of the next century.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of people being cared for now under this Government is dramatically higher than it was in 1979 and that the amount of assistance being given to the elderly is much higher in real terms than the Labour party ever managed?

The assistance provided in the health service is greater not only than the Labour party ever imagined, but than it promised in its last manifesto. The growth in expenditure in the health service is more than the Labour party promised the electorate, although Labour still accuses the Government of not investing enough. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that there is more provision for the elderly. There are about an extra 1,700 beds. Substantially more patients are being treated. This year 900,000 more patients are being treated than in 1979.

Is the Minister satisfied that Greater Glasgow health board can defend its decision to bring in commercial companies to build and operate long-term hospital provision for the elderly on the basis that those profit-driven companies can provide better and more stimulating care than the board's own staff in its hospitals? Are such arrangements really a question of patient care or are they cost-cutting exercises? Can the Minister perhaps comment on the difficulties that he sees ahead in 1992–93 when the Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation —SHARE–formula will take another ³10 million from the Greater Glasgow health board budget, which is already under severe pressure?

The hon. Gentleman should know that with the health service reforms the money will follow the patient. As he has been busily opposing them, I am surprised that he is pleading the case for Glasgow in those terms. With regard to private developments and partnerships between the private sector on care for the elderly, there is no choice of the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests. They are making savings and providing better care for patients. Elderly patients are being provided with up-to-date and state of the art facilities which represent an improvement on the acute facilities with which they have hitherto been treated. At the same time, health boards have made savings on the revenue side.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra financial resources he has now decided to allocate Lothian health board for elective coronary surgery.

Negotiations are continuing with Lothian health board, but I will be making an extra ³£3.8 million available for cardiac surgery in Scotland. I will be looking to health boards to achieve a considerable increase in operations as a consequence.

Is the Minister aware that Lothian health board has informed me that the wait for cardiac surgery is one year? It also informed me that that cannot be amended unless new financial resources are allocated. Is the Minister further aware that we are discussing the question of a better quality of life—and tragically even death—for people in the Lothian health board area?

The first point is that patients who require emergency treatment are admitted immediately. It is true that the waiting list is too long, but the waiting list in Lothian has been reduced by 5 per cent. during the past year. We are making additional resources available and we are currently negotiating with Lothian about how much they should amount to in order to make further progress. Since 1983 we have doubled funding for cardiac surgery from ³10 million to just under ³20 million and the number of operations has increased from 1,700 to just over 3,000.

The Minister must be aware that it is no comfort to know that patients will be admitted in the event of an emergency. We need to stop patients being admitted as an emergency and deal with them at the proper time. Is he aware that recently there has been a spate of cancellations, not of operations, but of preliminary examinations and interviews? Does he realise that it is intolerable that people have to wait months to be seen by a consultant and then wait a considerable time to have the operation that they desperately need?

If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had not supported those who took strike action against competitive tendering, waiting lists would not be as long. Waiting lists are considerably shorter than when the Labour party was in government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had about the governance of Scotland and about local government reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.

A range of representations has been received about the governance of Scotland and local government reorganisation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the representations that he has received from the constitutional convention are flawed and fraudulent? They fail to deal with the Goschen-Barnett formula, the number of Scottish Members of Parliament and the West Lothian question. Is not that a guarantee for disharmony, disunity and conflict throughout the United Kingdom as stated by the Leader of the Opposition? Is not it about time that we received some information from the Leader of the Opposition about the governance of Scotland and the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend, as always, speaks with great common sense and wisdom on the subject. However, I believe that the Scottish Constitutional Convention has folded its tents and slipped quietly away into the night. On my hon. Friend's specific question on representations, I can tell the House, and I will be confirming it in a written answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) today, that in the past six months we have received one petition and a large number of letters and postcards. The petition was in favour of devolution as were 14 of the letters and postcards, 10 were in favour of separation and 222 were against devolution.

Can the deputy governor explain why the Government are prepared to turn the world upside down in order to put talks together in Northern Ireland about devolution of power to the people there? Why is devolution good enough for the people of Ulster, but not good enough, or too good, for the people of Scotland? The House deserves an explanation.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should advertise too much his views on the Irish question, but Northern Ireland involves a very different set of circumstances from Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps the second most major and influential figure in the Labour party in the west of Scotland. It is a close-run thing between him and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I was therefore interested to see the comments of the hon. Member for Hillhead in The Sun on 7 June on the sacking of Mr. Jimmy Allison when he said—[Interruption.]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but is it relevant to the question?

Yes, it is relevant because it shows the kind of Scotland that the hon. Member for Hillhead's party is aiming towards. He said:

"It was Clydeside versus Kelvinside. Pints of beer against glasses of dry white wine."

Has my hon. Friend had any representations about the size of Scottish constituencies? I know that all right hon. and hon. Members want to ensure that we get value for money and, as hon. Members from Scotland represent a far lower number of constituents than those from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is not it time that we had some boundary reviews and reduced the number of Scottish Members of Parliament in the House?

I have had no such representations and such matters are for the boundary commission. But my hon. Friend is right to raise that question in relation to devolution. I refer him to an academic study, the Strathclyde papers on government and politics, No. 78, which pointed out that the Scottish Constitutional Convention had completely failed to face up to the West Lothian question to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred, and had completely failed to face up to the implications of devolution for the House of Commons.

Do not the Scottish people deserve a better discussion about their future than the comic-cuts exchange here this afternoon? Will the Minister consider whether it is sensible for the Scottish people to opt for the best form of government within the EC—that is, to be represented by themselves as are the people of Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, Spain and Luxembourg, which is presently the President of the EC with a population smaller than that of Edinburgh?

I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. However, I congratulate him on the excellent speech that he made in the House on a Friday recently when he completely tore apart the proposals by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The Government believe in the Union and in the United Kingdom and believe that that is the best constitutional arrangement for the people of Scotland as it is for the people of the other countries that make up the United Kingdom.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his discussions with Mr. Kit Martin about the future of Mar Lodge; and what proposals he now has to restrict deer on the Mar Lodge estate in keeping with the age structure of the ancient Caledonian forest.

My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions. Mr. Martin has, however, had some discussions with officials of Historic Scotland about the future of the lodge house itself.

Either in answer to my Adjournment debate tonight or now, will the Ministers say whether they broadly accept the analogy that, in human terms, these trees are 80 to 90 years old and that this is the last chance to save a major part of what remains of the ancient European forest? How can we tell people in Brazil, Sarawak or Zaire that they should look after their rain forests when we do not seem able to look after our own living treasure?

Yes, the old Caledonian forest, which I have seen myself, is significant in the area. It is sad that the proposals of the Crown Estate Commissioners fell through, as the hon. Member knows. We remain prepared to consider any proposals put to us and we shall take a keen interest in them. Resources are available to fund management agreements, and I intend to go into that more thoroughly in answer to the hon. Gentleman's debate tonight.

Since Mr. Kit Martin has been mentioned, and as he is a member of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, and as he has restored houses in Scotland and England without introducing golf courses and all the other rubbish usually associated with such activities, will my hon. Friend note that the heritage of Scotland is greatly safeguarded by the investment of such people and greatly threatened by the lack of funds for the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland?

We have increased resources for the Historic Buildings Council for Scot land —now Historic Scotland. Mr. Kit Martin's abilities are well known and he is eligible to apply for grant if he chooses to. He has never done so thus far in any of his successful ventures. The rebuilding of the lodge is a matter for his judgment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on the provision of facilities in the community for those suffering from mental illness and the development of community mental health teams.

Day places in psychiatric specialties have more than doubled to around 5,500, grants of ³3·25 million have been introduced for mental illness and a ³15 million bridging finance scheme will help a number of projects in the mental health field.

Is the Minister satisfied with progress in implementing the grants under the mental health scheme? I urge on him the need to give sympathetic consideration to the needs of the poor people who suffer from brain injuries. They must surely be brought into the ambit of the grants scheme—at the moment they fall outwith it. I readily acknowledge the Minister's efforts on the medical side, but I urge him to look more sympathetically at the community needs of this group.

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a considerable interest in this matter and his suggestion seems sensible. I am happy to give him an undertaking to look into the possibilities of doing as he asks. He will know that we have recently established and made an announcement about a national centre for head injury victims, but I shall look positively at his suggestion of using the grants scheme to help people who have suffered from brain injuries.

Is the Minister aware that Grampian health board has recently announced that in the next seven to 10 years it intends to close two mental hospitals in my constituency—Kingseat and the House of Daviot? Does he accept that there is concern that those closures are part of a plan that meets the needs of the health board, but not always those of the patients and their relatives and friends? They are anxious because people are being forced into the community without adequate facilities and support. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will not sanction any hospital closures until he is satisfied that adequate community care facilities have been provided?

Yes, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. However, I respectfully suggest to him that asking such questions will not allay the fears that he says exist. He should be in no doubt that one reason why the care in the community programme has moved more slowly in Scotland is our determination that patients should not be discharged from long-stay care unless proper provision is available in the community. The White Paper proposals, which are now being implemented, are designed to ensure that local authorities and health boards operate in partnership to avoid any possibility of patients being put in that position.

Is the Minister aware that one reason why the programme has moved more slowly in Scotland is that the resources have not been devoted to community care of the mentally ill. The Minister must be careful not to mislead the House. He referred to ³15 million of bridging finance for the mentally ill. As he well knows, much of that is for the mentally handicapped.

The hon. Gentleman asks why there are more people in mental-illness and mental-handicap institutions in Scotland than there are in England. It is because the implementation of the care in the community programme has moved more slowly. The hon. Gentleman suggested that less money was being spent in Scotland on those areas. Nothing could be further from the truth. The health service in Scotland receives about a quarter more expenditure per head than it does in England. The pace at which we have implemented the care in the community programme has been determined by the facilities that are available in the community. That will remain so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards hospitals opting out of health board control; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to strengthen the present arrangements for consulting the local community and the staff of any hospital contemplating trust status.

NHS trust status bestows a number of benefits, foremost of which is that it provides the opportunity for improved patient care through the delegation of responsibility to a local trust board.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that opposition to this policy in Scotland is intense and widespread? We saw what happened in England when hospitals opted out. At Guy's and Bradford hospitals entire specialties have been closed, and hundreds of jobs are to be lost. If jobs are to be lost on that scale in an opted-out hospital, there is bound to be a reduction in the range and quality of services provided. Why does not the Secretary of State have the courage to call a halt to the proposals before they damage the health service in Scotland?

I am sure that the House will agree that it is far too soon to judge the success of trust status developments south of the border. I venture to suggest, however, that if Guy's hospital had enjoyed trust status for some time, it might not have had to face the problems that it has experienced recently.

Will the Secretary of State guarantee to abide by the outcome of the consultations on local opinion that will form part of this exercise? Or will we see the same process that we saw in England and Wales, with a decision being made in advance and rammed through despite the recording of virtually unanimous public opinion in the process?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will make the final decision as a consequence of the consultation process, which is a key part of the exercise. It is laid down in statute and provides for criteria that will be applied. Detailed guidance has been issued, and the process will take place over a substantial period.

Will the Secretary of State reflect on the nonsense that has been talked about the benefits of opting out? He says that the hospitals involved are simply being returned to local control, but in effect he is saying that Grampian health board, for instance, is completely unrepresentative, and incapable of running the health service in Grampian. He describes competition as benefiting the health service, but how can that be so when there is a guaranteed monopoly of supply in the Grampian region? Why not leave things alone? They are working pretty well as they are.

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's expression of approval for the quality of the health service in Scotland, which was not reflected in some of the earlier comments made by his hon. Friends.

Does the Secretary of State realise that "opt-out" has become a dirty word in Scotland, just as "Tory" has become a dirty word? Will he give us an assurance that TV detector vans will stop hounding and harassing long-term elderly patients in hospitals? Will he call a halt to that despicable practice?

I am not sure what that has to do with trust status, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that for every pound spent by the last Labour Government on health provision in Scotland, ³4 is being spent now, and there are 1,300 more doctors and dentists and 7,500 more nurses and midwives in the Scottish health service now than there were when we came into office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that general practitioners in Forfar, and those who work in hospitals there, are disappointed not to be able to proceed immediately to self-governing status? Nevertheless, they welcome the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that Forfar is to have a new all-purpose community hospital. We have waited 25 years for that hospital, but the health board has failed to deliver.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Positive and constructive thought has certainly been given to the possibility of trust status in the Forfar area. An imaginative concept was presented by GPs in the area, but, as my hon. Friend knows, certain financial and service implications caused us to decide that it should not be implemented. That is not to say that other more interesting and practicable propositions will not be advanced.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that all his talk of consultation has a hollow ring, given that his colleague the Minister is driving ahead with these schemes irrespective of medical and public opinion?

On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman calls for more consultation, and on the other he tells me to stop it short and end the whole process now. The whole point about consultation is that it will enable us to hear a range of views and arguments on what are complex and diverse issues and not such as can be reduced to simple ballot. We shall look at the merits of the arguments advanced over a measured period of time in the light of the criteria that we have set down and published, and then we shall reach a decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are on health service waiting lists in Scotland.

The latest figures show that there were 59,520 people on the in-patient waiting lists. That is more than 17,000 fewer than the number that we inherited from the last Labour Government.

After the drastic reduction in the number of hospital wards in my constituency of East Lothian, we now find that the disgraceful waiting lists for hospitals in Edinburgh are being further aggravated by waiting lists for ambulances to take patients from my constituency to and from those hospitals. As to the waiting list arrangements for the proposed private hospital in Haddington for the continuing care of elderly patients, can the Minister give any guarantee that beds will be available for elderly NHS patients who need care in that unit, whenever it is introduced?

The hon. Gentleman should raise this matter directly with Lothian health board, which is responsible for the provision of care. In common with other health boards, Lothian is being set targets for its waiting lists. I pay tribute to the way in which it is being innovative and enterprising in trying to ensure that the considerably increased resources available to it produce the best possible quality of patient care. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the fact that Lothian health board is treating far more patients than at any time in its history.

Many people are extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the initiative that he has taken to reduce waiting lists through special resources for health boards. The increase in overall resources available to health boards by an average of 10 per cent. this year, which means many millions of pounds for each board, must go a long way towards improving patient care. Is not that good news for Scotland, in contrast with the moaning and groaning that we hear from the Opposition?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our waiting list initiative has resulted in an extra 100,000 patients being treated. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) repudiated special initiatives of this kind as wasteful and short term. I was even more surprised when I read the Labour party's policy document on health to find exactly such an initiative promised as one that the Labour party would have put forward, had it found itself in government.

The Minister will be aware that the only reason why the waiting list figures are apparently less than they were in 1979 is because the method of calculating them has changed—an old Tory trick. Is it not the case that in the past year in-patient waiting lists have increased by 2·3 per cent. in Scotland? Why is it that the biggest increase in in-patient waiting lists is in Forth Valley health board, which covers the Minister's constituency and is run by a Tory party member? In the other two health hoards run by Tory party members—Ayrshire and Arran, and Grampian—the increases in the waiting lists are also above the national average. Is not that an example of Tory party efficiency in action, and does not it show that Tory party chairmen of health boards are bad for health?

The hon. Gentleman would do himself a service if he were not so selective in his use of statistics. He is right to say that in-patient waiting lists have increased by just over 2 per cent., but he did not mention the fall in day-patient waiting lists over the same period. Since 1987, when the waiting list initiative began, they have fallen by 13 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that waiting lists are down because we have changed the basis on which the figures are calculated, when 900,000 extra patients are being treated this year, an extra 100,000 as a result of the waiting list initiatives, he is living in a dreamland and he does a great disservice to the consultants and doctors in the health boards concerned, some of whom have given up their weekends to get waiting times down.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further assistance he proposes to make available to those share fishermen currently prevented from fishing by the eight-day tie-up rule.

Share fishermen have a direct interest in the conservation of fish stocks for the future. The aim of the eight-day tie-up rule is to reduce fishing pressure on cod and haddock stocks, to bring long-term benefits to all our fishermen.

Has the Secretary of State seen industry estimates that the combination of the tie-up provision with the unilateral imposition of the 90 mm square panel will reduce the landings of marketable haddock by as much as 55 per cent., and of whiting by as much as 75 per cent? If that does not justify assistance, I do not know what does. Will the Secretary of State personally take charge of the important negotiations at the next EC Fisheries Council on 8 July and guarantee that if the rest of the EC fishing fleet does not accept the 90 mm square panel regime he will withdraw it from this country as well?

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we must conserve stocks, particularly of cod and haddock, or there will be no fish for future generations of share fishermen or other fishermen to catch. The best way to do that is by a range of measures which limit effort and capacity and ensure that stocks survive and develop, so that the limits currently imposed can be lifted in due course. That is the best way forward for the long-term future of the industry.

When will the Governmnt complement the tie-up on the east coast with a weekend ban on the important prawn fisheries on the west coast? Such a ban would have the support of all the fishermen's associations, would not cost the Government a penny, and would represent a radical and effective conservation measure. That proposal has been before the Government for several months. Will the Secretary of State take a personal interest in it?

I compliment the hon. Gentleman on a far more realistic approach to the problem than we notice from the Scottish National party and hon. Members on other Benches. We are considering the west coast question very carefully and will take action when we judge it appropriate to do so.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that there should be many more salmon in Scottish waters as a result of the lifting of nets in the estuaries of many Scottish rivers. My right hon. Friend will be aware also that a deal should be done with the Faroese and Greenlanders—[Interruption)—to reduce the amount of salmon that they are taking. My right hon. Friend will be further aware—(Interruption.]

Order. The question is about fishing, not about salmon specifically.

I am talking about the salmon of Scotland.

The hon. Member should be talking about the tie-up rule. I think that we have heard enough.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on present European Commission proposals for rail transport in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend is not aware of any European Commission proposals for rail transport in Scotland which have a direct bearing on his Department's responsibilities.

Is the Minister aware that about 85 per cent. of sea passengers from Great Britain to Northern Ireland go through the ports of Stranraer and Carnryan, and that 30 per cent. of all British sea passengers to Ireland use those two ports? Does the Minister therefore accept that a modern rail system in the west of Scotland is important to service that main route between Great Britain and the island of Ireland? Why are the Government supporting a European Community proposal which would take that business away from the west of Scotland and upgrade the railway line to Holyhead, making that the main route from Great Britain?

The Government have given support to Lame harbour, and some ³4 million has been made available from the EC's Northern Ireland transportation programme. However, in the case of any proposals from which funds may be made available from the European regional fund, for either Northern Ireland or Scotland, in which we have a common interest, there will be co-operation between officials of the Scottish Office and of the Northern Ireland Office. Stranraer and Carnryan are located within the Galloway EC regional fund operational programme, which received more than ³8 million in the same period as Lame harbour obtained assistance. As for the right hon. Gentleman's final question, I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who has lead responsibility for such matters, and then give the hon. Gentleman a full reply, but I agree with the general tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.

I strongly support what was said by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). Indeed, I would like the Minister at some point to give the same strong support as was given by the Northern Ireland Office last week to my proposal that the Ardrossan-Belfast route be revived.

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions and I shall deal with them one by one. First, British Rail can and will consider changes to its proposed services in connection with the channel tunnel, if it is satisfied that there is a demand for additional services.

rose—

Order. It would be helpful to other hon. Members if single questions were asked.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospitals in Forth Valley health board's area have applied for trust status.

An application for trust status has been received from the Royal Scottish National hospital, Larbert.

Has the Secretary of State seen the proposed management structure for the Royal Scottish National hospital at Larbert, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)? The hospital will have a chief executive, a director of planning, a director of finance, a director of clinical services, and a director of nursing and quality assurance. How many beds will have to be closed to pay the enormous salaries that those people will command? If the English example is anything to go by, they will be given free cars into the bargain.

I have not seen the submission to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it is for the Forth Valley health board to carry out the detailed and comprehensive consultation process according to the published criteria. However, I understand that although the number of patients at the hospital has been reduced, the number of staff has substantially increased.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the successful running of any hospital depends largely on the existence of a harmonious relationship between management, staff, patients and the community? The management proposal for the Royal Scottish National hospital to become self-governing has been clearly rejected by 95 per cent. of the staff, by the patients' relatives association, by Central regional council as social work authority, and by countless organisations and individuals in the community. Will the Secretary of State please get it into his head that if he gives the go-ahead to the management to proceed in the face of such widespread opposition, it will be a recipe for conflict and chaos which will be completely against the interests of the mentally handicapped patients at the Royal Scottish National hospital?

The consultation process will be based on published criteria which include benefits to patients, managerial capacity, the involvement of senior professional staff in the management of the trust and financial viability. It is the hon. Gentleman who should get it into his head that the reason why we are advancing the trust status proposals is that we believe that they will improve the quality of care and the delivery of health services in Scotland. Against the background of the vast improvements that the Government have generated over the past 12 years, we have every right to expect the hon. Gentleman to believe that and to support the proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on how many people are awaiting angiogram examinations within the Greater Glasgow health board area.

At 31 December 1990 the number of patients on the Greater Glasgow health board cardiology waiting list, which includes angiography, was 656. The mean waiting time for those patients admitted in the three-month period up to December 1990 was 44·7 days.

Heart specialists to whom I have spoken are very worried about the length of the waiting time for angiogram examinations. As the Minister knows, the examinations can determine whether a patient should go on to have heart surgery. In some cases, however, angiography can be used in relation to remedial treatment for patients who will not need surgery. Many of the surgeons are worried that patients are kept waiting for so long that often by the time they are examined and it is discovered that they need heart surgery, they are too weak to undergo such surgery. Does not that mean that the long waiting list is placing some patients under sentence of death?

The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of the size of the waiting list, but I should point out to him that while in September last year the figure was 753, by December it had been reduced to 656 —a reduction of 12·;88 per cent. I will ensure, however, that the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed is drawn to the attention of the Greater Glasgow health board in the hope that further progress can be made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the sale of Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

Within the next few months. Although the target date of April 1991 set out in the disposal programme for the Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries has not been met, satisfactory progress is being made.

Scottish Office Ministers justified the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group on the grounds that it would create new and vigorous Scottish-based companies and encourage employee participation. Why, then, has the Minister thrown out employee bids in at least two Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries and sold the companies instead to a private predator from south of the border in one case, and to a predator company boasting among its directors the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in the other? Does the Minister not understand that the Scottish bus industry is not a plaything for him to palm off to his party's friends but a vital national service for which he has shown himself unworthy to hold responsibility?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We have followed the terms of the disposal programme exactly and have made it quite clear that the principles under which we operate are sustained and fair competition. We support employee participation and the maximisation of sales proceeds. We have given preference to management-employee buy-out teams—

Where?

The answer is Lowland Scottish, Scottish City Link, Eastern Scottish and Kelvin Central Buses, and that has been done regardless of price, although a 5 per cent. preference was stated in the disposal programme, which is working extremely successfully so far.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present state of the implementation of the proposals for the provision of magnetic resonance imager scanning equipment for hospitals in Scotland.

An order for five new magnetic resonance imagers, at a cost of ³4·3 million, has been placed with Siemens UK. Those machines are now being manufactured and site surveys have been carried out at the hospitals chosen.

Is it not the case that, to save money, the Minister approved the purchase of 0·5 Tezler MRI scanners? As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, those scanners are totally inadequate for head scanning. Greater Glasgow health board had to top up money to buy the more adequate 1·5 Tezler scanners. Is the Minister satisfied that in Aberdeen and Dundee, where 0·5 Tezler scanners were also purchased, those scanners are adequate? Would it not have been better to look into the matter more thoroughly and, instead of saving money, to go for the best rather than the cheapest?

The answer to the hon. Lady's question is no. Clearly, I am relying on medical advice in this matter. I have been given the advice that the machines purchased were adequate for health service needs, but some health boards have sought to get models with more powerful magnetic fields—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because of particular needs that they have.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the 1990–91 community charge in Scotland has been collected.

Based on the latest collection figures for 1990–91 issued by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and using local authorities' own payment assumption rates, overall around 76 per cent. of budgeted community charge income for 1990–91 has been collected so far. In some areas, the figure is more than 90 per cent.

My hon. Friend will know that many local authorities have decided to charge the cost of non-payment to charge payers this year. Can he take any action against local councillors, especially from the Scottish National and Labour parties, who urged people not to pay and are now charging their own charge payers extra money to pay for that scandalous advice?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is widespread outrage among community charge payers at the fact that they are having to pay for those who have not paid the community charge. My hon. Friend is also right to refer to the actions of a number of councillors from Opposition parties, although it has to be said that the leaders of those parties have now called off the so-called non-payment campaign.

When will the Minister stop hiding behind the smokescreen of the ludicrous non-payment campaign run by the Scottish National party and admit that the genuine non-collection of poll tax in Scotland is almost entirely due to the total unworkability of the tax? If he recognises that, why does he not institute an emergency programme to deal with the crisis that is developing in local government and will cause enormous problems for all local authorities throughout Scotland unless he takes immediate action to deal with it?

The hon. Member has not explained to the House why the figures are so variable. The reason is that where local authorities have taken determined action early on to keep on top of the problem, such as in Borders and Grampian, they have continued to obtain reasonable collection levels. It is true that there has been a slow-down in payments due to the delay in re-billing because of the reduced headline charge, the Government having reduced the charge by ³140. To meet that problem the Government will ensure that by the end of June Scottish local authorities will have received ³281 million more in central Government grant than they otherwise would have done. Frankly, it is up to local authorities to pursue non-payers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Strathclyde regional council to discuss rural transport.

My right hon. Friend has received no request from Strathclyde regional council to discuss rural transport.

The Minister may be aware that Strathclyde regional council has delayed yet again the upgrading of three vital roads in my constituency. That is making them very dangerous, particularly during the tourist season. Year after year Strathclyde regional council has done that because it says that it does not have enough money in its roads budget. Might that be partly because the regional council has to finance roadworks on the M8 motorway? Is that not a Scottish Office responsibility?

We are spending some ³145 million on trunk roads in Scotland. However, the hon. Lady's complaint is about the allocation by Strathclyde regional council. I shall certainly draw her remarks to the attention of the chairman of the highways committee concerned. In recent years we have enormously increased the resources for trunk roads. Priority is being given to the upgrading of the M74, which is going ahead very speedily.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the total funds allocated by the Scottish Home and Health Department to health units seeking to investigate trust status.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to health boards regarding the use of board staff premises and other resources in the promotion of applications for hospitals to opt out of health board control.

Units applying to become NHS trusts will remain part of the national health service. It is appropriate, therefore, that health boards should provide adequate support. To that end, and to assist in the implementation of the NHS reforms generally, all boards have been given additional resources.

In giving additional resources to health boards and units seeking further information on opt-out status, is the Scottish Home and Health Department prepared to keep very close supervision over how that money is spent? For example, will it be spent on private dinner parties, or will it be spent on public meetings to enable all the people in the relevant areas to be well advised of the various implications of the proposals being placed before them so that they can take a clear and objective decision?

The hon. Lady may be assured that the way in which the money is spent will be carefully supervised. The object of the exercise is to obtain the best possible input of information, opinion and well-argued cases so that a proper decision can be taken, based on the criteria that I outlined earlier.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said earlier, GPs in Ayrshire have now voted overwhelmingly against NHS trust status, consultants have voted against it and all local ballots show that the public are against it. Is it not therefore a disgrace that public money is being spent on staff time and on Mr. Donald MacNeill's time in promoting NHS trusts, that board property is being used to promote it, and that no similar amount of public money is being used to put the other side of the case? Is not that political propaganda and a matter which ought to be investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is desirable that the proposals should be put together openly and freely, using available resources, rather than cobbled together in some back room. The hon. Gentleman will surely share my view that we want to get the highest possible quality of proposals coming forward so that we can consider the desirability of such applications advancing. As for the GPs, it is highly illogical that they should vote against the sort of contracts that most of them enjoy. I can reassure them that GPs will continue to have rights to refer patients to trust status hospitals and that such hospitals will remain part of the national health service and will continue to treat NHS patients free of charge. The objective is to improve services and the delivery of health care.