Object.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his total consent for Glasgow district council to meet capital expenses on the non-housing revenue account block of housing in 1991–92; how much of that total he requires the council to borrow, and at what anticipated rate of interest; and how much he expects to be raised from (a) the disposal of capital assets, (b) the repayment of principal on loans, (c) insurance claims, (d) leases in specified categories and (e) any other non-HRA receipts.

The gross non-H RA allocation issued to the City of Glasgow district council for capital investment in private housing in 1991–92 is £24·1 million. Estimated non-HRA capital receipts in 1991–92 are £766,000, all of which is expected to be generated by the repayment of principal on loans. Capital receipts from other sources are estimated to be nil. Details of the extent, terms and conditions of proposed borrowing by the council in 1991–92 are not held centrally.

Will the Minister explain why, when Glasgow district council, the housing associations and the co-operatives have been so successful in restoring Glasgow's tenements, the permission to borrow money is limited to £24 million this year when even four years ago it was £55 million? Does he realise that, as a result, no fewer than 1,500 tenement owners have been turned down by the council for repair grants this year and the housing associations' programmes are being held up irrevocably until the problem is solved? Will the Minister commit himself to improving those resources forthwith?

I am aware of the problems in Glasgow that the hon. Lady mentions. Similar problems arise in Edinburgh. They will be borne in mind and if there is a possibility of making supplementary allocations later in the year, the points that she made will be fully considered. About £500 million has been spent by housing associations in Glasgow, which is almost half the total for Scotland. That has made an enormous impact on the tenements in the hon. Lady's constituency as well as elsewhere in Glasgow. In addition, 40 per cent. of the housing support grant is spent in Glasgow, so Glasgow receives the lion's share of the funding.

The Minister mentioned Edinburgh. Will he come clean with the House and the people of Edinburgh and admit that hundreds of homeowners are on the waiting list for repair grants? Why does not the Minister put his money where his mouth is and clear that backlog?

We allocated to Edinburgh district council £8·25 million for this year to enable the repairs grant backlog to be cleared. That was precisely the sum requested by the district council. We later discovered that the estimates were inaccurate, in contrast to those given by Glasgow officials. We shall bear in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the in vitro fertilisation success rates in Scottish hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

The Interim Licensing Authority publishes information on a United Kingdom basis about the outcome of in vitro fertilisation treatment programmes in its annual reports.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

What has arisen as a result of what the Minister said?

Can we honestly start Scottish questions without a single Scottish Tory Back-Bench Member being present?

That is not a matter for me.

Perhaps I may repeat the answer. The Interim Licensing Authority publishes information on a United Kingdom basis about the outcome of in vitro fertilisation treatment programmes in its annual reports. That information is grouped according to the number of treatment cycles attempted by each clinic.

I hope that the success rates will be published. We can all take pride in the fact that Britain leads the world in this area. Will my hon. Friend press for strict control of costs in the new licensing authority? Surely £1 million should be enough for the budget in the first year if clinics are paying half the costs.

I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of the work being done in this area in the United Kingdom. I will certainly ensure that his point about the publication of the information is drawn to the attention of the authority. I share his views that it is important that the costs of the authority are kept well under control, because, as he points out, half the costs will need to be met through licensing fees, which are raised by the authority.

Will the Minister give the House an assurance that no married couples will be denied access to such treatment because of where they live in Scotland? Does he agree that there should be equality of access to such treatment?

I hesitate to make too much of a habit of agreeing with the hon. Gentleman at Scottish questions. As he knows, provision is made according to health boards and the priorities that they set for this service, particularly IVF services. I think that the hon. Gentleman is pressing me to consider the need for an overall Scotland approach to the provision of these services and I am happy to undertake to look at that matter later this year, once I have had the results from an in-house working party which is considering the question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet Strathclyde region to discuss its financial situation; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of Strathclyde regional council to discuss the council's financial position.

The leader of Strathclyde regional council was among representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities whom I met on 8 July to discuss local government finance issues.

The Minister will know that at that meeting Strathclyde conveyed that it used to cost £8 million to collect the rates and that it collected 90 per cent. of them, whereas it is costing £28 million to collect the poll tax and there is a shortfall of £70 million. Does he agree that Strathclyde is a responsible local authority? It has embarked on advertising campaigns to try to get the revenue in. How will the Minister resolve the problem and assist Strathclyde to get the £70 million?

A slowdown in payment levels was inevitable while re-billing took place to reflect the £140 reduction in the headline community charge. Strathclyde issued its revised bills for 1991–92 [Interruption.] [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to hon. Members for cheering this important information about Strathclyde regional council. I shall repeat it. Strathclyde issued its revised 1991–92 bills only in mid-June. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken full account of the cash flow position and that Strathclyde regional council and the district councils in Strathclyde have received front-loaded grant payments of £125 million—that is extra grant that they would not otherwise have received until the end of June.

Strathclyde is facing a financial crisis due to the administrative nightmare of collecting the poll tax. I remind the Under-Secretary of State that the Prime Minister himself said that the poll tax was uncollectable. Does the Under-Secretary accept that he and his Government are responsible for the crisis facing local authorities and will he at least try to ease the burden on councils and people by abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution?

The House has taken a view on this matter and the legislation stands. The authorities have a statutory duty to collect outstanding charges and they have a wide range of powers available to them to do so. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the report of the Public Accounts Commission confirmed the view that authorities have not made full and effective use of their powers.

Nevertheless, will the Minister believe me when I tell him that I have just had a panic phone call from my secretary in Kilmarnock to tell me that she is inundated with people telephoning and sending letters because they are desperately worried about the poll tax and the new figures that have just been produced? That anxiety is particularly felt by the elderly. Can the Minister advise the House and me, so that I can advise those people, about precisely what the formula means for the reduction scheme? For a single person household the formula is:

• B—(S+£52)

• (B x C—(S+ [(C — 1) x £52])

I am very sorry to learn that the hon. Gentleman is receiving panic phone calls, particularly over such a simple, straightforward formula. These are matters for the community charge registration officer, but if the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt about some of the details of the formula I shall be happy, of course, to arrange a meeting with him when I can explain it to him further.

When will the Minister accept that it was he and his Government who created the shambles of the poll tax and that it is he and his Government who have the responsibility to clear up the mess that they created? They should stop trying to pass the buck on to everyone else but themselves.

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the 20 per cent. rule will not apply to the new tax. I have told the House repeatedly that that is a new tax and that the existing legislation stands for the present tax. The hon. Gentleman should start asking why the collection levels vary so much throughout Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific objectives the Government have in mind for the regeneration of Lanarkshire's economy.

Our objective for the regeneration of Lanarkshire's economy is the creation of new jobs in Lanarkshire. That will best be done by increasing private sector investment in the area.

Since not a word of that answer was new, will the Secretary of State tell us precisely what Scottish Enterprise is doing to encourage the establishment of the paper recycling plant at Gartcosh? What action is the Scottish Office taking on the great problem of derelict land in Monklands district? What is the Scottish Office doing about the need to reinvigorate land for industry and about training and transport links? In view of the devastation that we are witnessing in Monklands, Strathkelvin and Lanarkshire generally, will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the Prime Minister to respond to the request from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and agree to a meeting with my Lanarkshire colleagues, if necessary before the recess, so that we can establish urgently that Lanarkshire will see the difference between action and mere rhetoric?

Action is precisely what Lanarkshire development agency is embarked on with the full support of, and resources provided by, the Government. Some 16 sites that have been identified for immediate action can now be proceeded with as a result of the working group report and the funds made available by central Government. This year, we have made available to district councils £4 million of capital consents for factory building, and £3·9 million, including allowances, for training—about which the hon. Gentleman also asked—has been added to Lanarkshire Development Agency's baseline budget. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are looking closely at the transport problems and have asked Strathclyde to carry out an urgent study of the A8–M8 arrangements with a view to improving the infrastructure in Lanarkshire.

I call Sir Nicholas Fairbairn.

Hear, hear.

I hope that I can ask as many questions as I have had cheers. I am grateful for those cheers.

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to those important environmental improvements and he could have drawn attention to many more. The House might also like to know that one in five of the substantial number of inward investments brought to Scotland in the past decade has gone to Lanarkshire. More than 100 new manufacturing enterprises have started in Lanarkshire since the Government came to office.

When will the Government act to solve the growing crisis in youth training and employment in Lanarkshire and rest of Scotland? This year in Strathclyde, there has been a 62 per cent. fall in the number of job offers, and youth training places have been cut by 4,000. In almost all of Scotland there has been a similar fall. In Lanarkshire it is particularly severe. It is estimated that there will be between 1,300 and 1,500 fewer youth training places this year. There has been a massive fall in the number of youth training places. The Government cut the youth training budget by nearly 20 per cent. this year. When will they restore those cuts in youth training in Lanarkshire and elsewhere?

I have already given the hon. Gentleman the figures for the Lanarkshire development agency's resources, which have been added to its baseline budget for training. As for youth training and employment training generally, the hon. Gentleman knows that we have created vast new resources and schemes for training which were unheard of under the last Labour Government. He also knows that there was a 20 per cent. underspend on the employment training budget last year. We are spending about five times more than the last Labour Government on training.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now take steps to ensure adequate safety standards for children who receive a general anaesthetic for dental surgery.

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the risks associated with general anaesthesia, especially in children's dentistry. I hope that we will be in a position to issue further guidance shortly.

In view of recent incidents, including the tragic case of four-year-old Jenna Smith, who died after receiving a general anaesthetic in a dental surgery in Falkirk, and the evidence at the fatal accident inquiry that the anaesthetic equipment and the drugs available were out of date, will the Minister bear in mind the reported comments of Dr. Donald Braid—Scotland's top specialist in anaesthesia—that too many dentists are trying to administer anaesthetics on the cheap? Will the Minister intervene to stop the practice of administering general anaesthetics without adequate equipment and training and provide facilities in general hospitals for the administration of general anaesthetics for dental patients who require it, especially young children?

I understand that at the fatal accident inquiry the sheriff determined that Jenna's death was the result of a rare blood disorder and that no blame attached to either the dentist or the consultant anaesthetist. On the provision of facilities in hospital, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that it is proposed to have facilities in Falkirk by the turn of the year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many children in Scotland, and indeed throughout the world, are nervous when they go to the dentist—welcome to the club, because I think that we all are? Does he agree that the days of gas, when parents sat in an anteroom listening to their children screaming next door, have gone and that anaesthetics are much more sophisticated these days? However, in the light of the sad tragedies that have happened throughout the United Kingdom—I am not referring to the one mentioned earlier—will my hon. Friend ensure that urgency is attached to issuing the new guidelines and ensuring that they are strictly adhered to?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has taken the lead on that matter and I am sure that he will want to move as speedily as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is right to draw attention to the importance of the matter. In dentistry, particularly children's dental health, we are trying to put more effort and resources into prevention. As a result of the new contract for dentists, I believe that children's dental health will improve and the need for extractions and treatment of the sort requiring anaesthesia will be much reduced.

Is the Minister aware that the dental surgery in question was in my constituency? Will the Minister condemn the practice of using drugs and other materials which, in that case, were not just marginally out of date, but years out of date? Will the Minister issue a circular to dentists to ensure that when a drug becomes out of date it is returned either to the health board or the manufacturer and in no circumstances is used on patients? If he did so, he would be doing a favour to everyone who uses dentists.

It would not be right for me to comment on that case. There was a fatal accident inquiry, which concluded that the death was the result of a rare blood disorder; it would he wrong for me to go beyond that. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's general point about the use of time-expired drugs to the attention of officials in the Department and write to him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received in the last six months about the law in respect of Sunday trading in Scotland.

In the past six months, letters from two people have been received advocating the imposition of restrictions on Sunday trading in Scotland.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the fact that so few people have written in suggests that the vast majority of Scottish people are satisfied with the present law, under which there are no restrictions on Sunday trading? Does he agree that it is high time that the people of England enjoyed similar benefits? Is he aware that in 1986, 43 Scottish Labour, SNP and Liberal Members voted against the people of England enjoying benefits similar to those in Scotland? Does not it illustrate the humbug talked by those hon. Members?

My hon. Friend is correct that the current arrangements in Scotland are operating satisfactorily. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) introduced the original Bill on licensing, the terms of which were warmly welcomed. It was supplemented with recent measures in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland)—Act 1990. There is one minor exception to the Sunday trading laws in Scotland which relates to hairdressers and barbers. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) is, in the first instance, a matter for the Home Secretary and, ultimately, as far as it relates to England and Wales, for the House of Commons. The House will have noted what my hon. Friend said.

I was one of the Members who voted against the wholesale extension of Sunday trading to England because at present Sunday trading in Scotland is fairly limited. If it were extended to England it is believed that all the multiples throughout the United Kingdom would open. If the retail trade presented a compromise proposal for limited opening—and such a proposal is being discussed—some Opposition Members and some Conservative Members might be willing to reconsider the issue.

Sunday trading in Scotland is limited to areas in which the communities have made it clear that Sunday opening is welcome. There has been considerable sensitivity to the wishes of the communities concerned. I think that the majority of people take the view that collecting a bottle of milk or a newspaper on Sunday from the local shop does not impair the sanctity of the Sabbath.

I am delighted to hear the Minister say that there are some sensitivities in Scotland on Sunday trading. As I have significant Scottish blood stretching back over 980 years, I am glad to have the opportunity to express the views of people in western Scotland. Does the Minister agree that the success of Sunday trading in areas of Scotland where people want it is due to the exceptional economic boom in Scotland under a Conservative Government?

I agree with my hon. Friend that we have brought substantial economic advantages to Scotland. I welcome her view, especially as a few days ago in Glasgow city chambers she made a good speech on behalf of ADAPT, access for disabled people to arts premises. These issues should be borne in mind, and I have no doubt that in due course the House will wish to consider them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet with COSLA to discuss the financial position of Scottish local authorities.

My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry and local government in Scotland met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 8 July, and I hope to meet the president later this month.

In a constructive vein, may I suggest to the Secretary of State a way in which he could help some Scottish local authorities to develop their spending programmes? He could ensure that funds from the European regional development fund for coal mining communities, which have suffered as a result of the demise of the coal industry, are released to areas such as Central region. Will he use his powers under the Local Government Acts to set aside the spending limits imposed on such authorities so that they may accept money from the ERDF and get on with their planned programmes?

The hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government—a comparatively rare event nowadays for members of the Labour party—and therefore knows the importance of managing public expenditure in a way that ensures that there is no overspend giving rise to the danger of increasing inflation. The Government have been extremely successful in securing grants for Scotland from the various European funds. About £1·25 billion has been secured for Scotland over the years, and we shall continue to be as effective and successful as we can in taking advantage of all the funds that are available for Scotland.

Has the Secretary of State yet made a total assessment of the cost to Scottish local authorities and, therefore, to the Scottish people of the poll tax fiasco—the introduction of the tax, the score or so of amendments and its abolition and replacement? If he has made that assessment, will he produce the figure so that everybody will know the total cost of the Government's incompetence?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the poll tax exists to raise resources for spending by local authorities. The fact that those authorities now have to raise more than they did a few years ago shows that local authorities have continued substantially to increase their spending, despite substantially increased grants from the Government. Let us hope that the council tax is more effective in controlling high spending.

Does my right hon. Friend find it astonishing that Scottish local authorities should claim that they are strapped for cash and are having to cut programmes while at the same time they are able to invest large sums? Does he agree that highly paid officials are responsible for investments, especially when they are bad investments?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that local authorities should control their public expenditure programmes in accordance with the resources available to them. To some extent, that depends on their efficiency in using the powers that are available to them to collect local taxation.

I understand that Scottish Office officials will be meeting the Western Isles council later this week to discuss the financial crisis in which that council finds itself. Notwithstanding the Government's general policy on the collapse of BCCI, will the Secretary of State instruct his officials to take as constructive and as positive approach as possible in discussions with the Western Isles council so that we can find some way of resolving the crisis without the full burden falling on ordinary people in the Western Isles who had no part in the decision which led to the crisis—the schoolchildren, the old folk and others who still have to rely on council services?

Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's great concern about the circumstances of the Western Isles council. My officials have been in touch with the council and they have also had meetings with the three other district councils affected by the closure of BCCI. We shall examine carefully any proposition put to us by the Western Isles council, but I must emphasise that the responsibility for what has happened lies with the council, not with the Government, and there can be no question of the Government stepping in to bail it out.

Will my right hon. Friend reiterate, and make plain his views to English Ministers, that there can be no question of the Government's bailing out the foolish local authorities that invested their money in BCCI in order to make what they hoped would be a quick buck?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the matter. He will have heard what I have said and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week on the subject.

In spite of the rather unsubtle blandishments that the Secretary of State will receive from his hon. Friends, such as those from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), will he act in this matter with some social compassion and concern for the people who will ultimately be the victims of what has happened? Does he accept that it is unreasonable to expect that if highly paid officials—as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred to them—of the Bank of England and the Department of the Environment cannot spot any rottenness in a financial institution when they are sitting in the heart of London, it is just a little more difficult for local authority officials in far-flung parts of Scotland to do so? Will he particularly bear in mind that single-tier authorities, by their nature, although covering small populations, have heavy financial burdens because they are responsible for social work, education and so on which would usually be the preserve of regions? In other contexts, that may be a good thing, but in this case it has exposed the council, and, more importantly the people of the Western Isles, to a disproportionate budget. In short, will the Minister not close any doors and deal with the matter as humanely, sympathetically and understandingly as is possible?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Bank of England's powers are based on statute. It acted at the appropriate time and at the earliest possible time that it could have acted. With regard to the Western Isles council, I have nothing to add to what I have already said in answer to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald).

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he intends taking to reduce unemployment in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he plans any new measures to reduce unemployment.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced a package of measures amounting to some £40 million to help unemployed people in Scotland back to work. That is on top of the substantial funding for Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies, which is already more than £½billion in the current year. In the final analysis, it is a productive economy which provides new jobs and we are vigorously removing barriers to economic growth.

As the Minister has identified the need for industry to be healthy and given the drubbing that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland took yesterday in the Scottish Grand Committee, I am sure that the House will think that they should have read the proceedings of that Committee and come forward with a better response. Will we have to wait until the Prime Minister comes to the House on Friday to report on the G7 meeting to see some stimulus for investment given Scotland's heavy reliance on capital goods?

I was not able to respond to all the points made by the hon. Gentleman in that debate because he did not sit down until about nine minutes to one. I am disappointed in his supplementary question. I thought that he would say how pleased he was that General Accident has invested £3·75 million in an office complex in the Dundee technology park in his constituency which will result in 350 locally recruited jobs. That is just one example of the health and dynamism of the Scottish economy.

Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State's recitation in the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday of selective, spurious statistics about the Scottish economy demeans the debate about Scotland? Everyone who lives in Scotland knows that unemployment there is serious and getting worse. The Secretary of State partially excuses the run down in the steel industry on the ground that heavy engineering, shipbuilding, car manufacturing at Linwood, and vehicle production at Bathgate have all been closed—but that was done by the present Government. It is now wholly unacceptable for them to shut down the steel industry itself, because that will make it impossible to attract steel-using industries back to Scotland.

The Government do not propose to shut down the steel industry in Scotland and, as Labour does not propose to nationalise it, a Labour Government would have no power to intervene either. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the number employed in business and financial services—which are of great importance to Edinburgh, where the hon. Gentleman himself represents a constituency—increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. Between 1986 and 1989 the Scottish economy grew by about 12 per cent., which contrasts markedly with the miserable average growth rate achieved under the last Labour Government of less than 1 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that if Labour's plans for a minimum wage were implemented, it would have a catastrophic effect on employment in Scotland?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and a whole list of independent commentators agrees with him.

indicated dissent.

Does the hon. Gentleman want me to read out the list, because it is quite long? Gavin Laird, who I understand is greatly respected by Labour Members, described Labour's proposals for a national minimum wage as "a nonsense". He said:

"It has never worked in the past. There is no logic for it. It does not work in any other country, and it will certainly not work in Great Britain."

How can the Minister ignore the fact that when the Conservatives came to power, unemployment in Scotland—comparing like with like—was 140,000, but is now 220,000 and rising? How can the Minister be so criminally complacent, when already this year another 20,000 Scots have joined the dole queue? In the last six months, bankruptcies in Scotland have risen by 80 per cent., and liquidations by more than 50 per cent. Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten the hammer blows dealt to the Scottish steel industry, and yesterday's grim news that 900 jobs are to go at Rosyth and that 1,000 naval personnel there are to be withdrawn? When will the Government learn that problems cannot be solved by pretending that they do not exist?

Over the past 10 years, the number of companies in Scotland has increased by 25,000, or by 68 per cent.—[Interruption.] Just listen. Every independent commentator has pointed out that Scotland is coming through the present economic downturn—and yes, there is an economic downturn—relatively well.

indicated dissent.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to Cambridge Econometrics and to the Fraser of Allander Institute, which have conveyed the same message. I am not suggesting that there are no problems—of course there are. However, they would be a great deal worse if there were a Labour Government, who would allow local authorities to spend as much as they liked at the expense of business ratepayers. They would also be a great deal worse off if the hon. Gentleman's plans for a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers were imposed on the Scottish people, and if Labour imposed a statutory national minimum wage. That could cost Scotland as many as 174,000 jobs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss the board's underspend on salaries for the year ending 31 March.

The Greater Glasgow health board is the best-funded health board in Scotland. Its record on patient care and financial management is excellent.

According to the board's own figures, there was an underspend of more than £5 million in the salaries bill for the year ending 31 March 1991. How can the Minister reconcile that with the board's record of driving down staff costs by a variety of means—including delaying regrading exercises for technicians and nurses, and, when it gets round to regrading them, placing them on lower grades than other health boards would? The board has also delayed the filling of vacant posts, sometimes not filling them at all. As a result, the Richmond Park special needs school, which is in my constituency, does not have enough speech and occupational therapists to teach children with problems.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that he was told in May about the background to the position that has arisen in the school. It has nothing to do with financial circumstances, and everything to do with circumstances resulting from—if I remember rightly—maternity leave.[Interruption.] I was talking about the school. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about speech therapists, he will know of the initiative that we have taken. That initiative—which affects all health boards, not just the Greater Glasgow health board—will provide for a system of contracts between health boards and education authorities.

Is it not an absolute scandal that the board should have such an underspend on salaries when, for example, the ophthalmic surgery waiting list for patients in the east end of Glasgow is in a sorry mess? In a letter sent to me only this week, the chairman of the board told me how long the three categories of patients were having to wait. Urgent cases must wait for up to three months, "soon" cases for 12 to 18 months and routine cases for 18 months to two years.

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that the underspend was part of the money that is being carried forward into this year's budget. As the Government are setting targets on waiting times which are to be agreed with all health boards, including the Greater Glasgow health board, the board will be able to deploy the money to achieve the quality of service that we are determined to see.

Does the Minister not realise that the reason why the Greater Glasgow health board is having to carry over £5 million from last year's budget is the need partly to offset the £13 million cuts required in this year's budget? Is he aware that the board itself predicts that it will require cuts of £40 million in the next two years? That can lead only to a significant deterioration in patient care.

I am sure that everyone who lives in Paisley, Ayr and the surrounding areas of Glasgow will be interested to learn that Labour policy apparently does not support the idea that money should follow patients out to the new hospitals that we have built in those areas to reflect the movement of population. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that resources are being transferred to boards that have been population-gainers and that those boards have benefited from the brand-new hospitals that the Government have built. The Government believe that care should be available where people are and that money should follow the patient. The hon. Gentleman is making a debating point which is unworthy of anyone who seeks to sit on the Government Benches.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent meetings he has had with the chairman of British Steel to discuss investment in Scottish plants.

I last met the chairman of British Steel on 4 June this year.

Now that the Secretary of State for Scotland has finally come out to play on this question after dodging his responsibilities for the last two weeks, will he confirm the contents of the Scottish Office briefing note, which I have in my hand, which says that he was briefed to go to a meeting on 4 June, knowing of the anticipated closure of the Dalzell plate mill, and to say, in response to the chairman of British Steel, that it was entirely a matter for him, subject to competition law? All that was simultaneous with the Prime Minister's letter of support to the Dalzell shop stewards. How does the Secretary of State for Scotland reconcile that public posture of support with the private reality of sell out?

Over the last two weeks the hon. Gentleman has repeatedly and authoritatively attributed to me words that I did not use and has based upon them a number of deeply offensive remarks. I have now ascertained that the words that the hon. Gentleman has attributed to me derive from a briefing for another Minister. The other Minister is a Minister in another Department. The words in question were not said by that Minister. The briefing in question was not submitted to that Minister. The meeting for which that briefing was prepared did not take place. I believe that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) must have known that that was so. Therefore, he now stands exposed, caught out in a cheap and contemptible ruse. He was wrong about the briefing; he was wrong about the meeting; he was wrong about the Minister; he was wrong about the Department. I invite him to withdraw all the contemptible and unfounded allegations that he has made and to apologise.

Is the Secretary of State aware that British Steel's plate mill strategy was to reject the cheaper option of developing the Dalzell works? Nevertheless, there are a few months during which British Steel will try to find the additional £300 million that is required for a new plate mill on Teesside before any contracts are placed. Will he therefore keep up the maximum pressure on British Steel, during the few months in which he will remain a member of the Government, to make sure that the cheaper and more effective option of developing the Dalzell works is fully considered? Will he extend his representations beyond the obviously lame duck chairman of British Steel, who only has a few months to go? Will he approach immediately the management of British Steel and discuss the issue?

I do not know how right the hon. Gentleman is about the longevity of the chairman of British Steel's tenure of office, but he does not sound very confident about the likelihood of his own party's coming to office. He knows that British Steel will continue to need the products of Dalzell, subject to market conditions, for several years. It is likely that British Steel will continue to need the products of Dalzell beyond the present guarantee period—to the end of 1994. The hon. Gentleman also knows how hard my predecessor and I, and other Ministers in my Department, have sought to persuade British Steel of the desirability of locating their single plate mill at Dalzell. Furthermore, he knows that if any additional opportunities arise for us to put that case in an effective, successful and positive way, we shall take them.

Will the Secretary of State note that we are not interested in the endless pursuit of the unimportant, where the only aim appears to be to secure party political points at the expense of the industry? The Opposition expect him to continue to put every pressure that he can upon British Steel to reconsider its decision that the Scottish industry is not worthy of investment. We believe —and I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland believes—that there is a very strong case for investment in Dalzell and Ravenscraig. In those circumstances, the Government should not throw in the towel and withdraw from the fight.

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) which also answers his first point. As for the future of Lanarkshire, the hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Lanarkshire working group produced a series of proposals to be developed over a period of years. We have already made substantial resources available sufficient to cover the immediate needs for the development of the working group's proposals. We have given an undertaking that Lanarkshire will feature highly in our priorities in the public expenditure round for the next financial year. I share the hon. Gentleman's wish for Lanarkshire's economy to be regenerated. It has already made considerable strides in the past few years towards diversification and a strengthening of its economic base. I should like that to continue and I have no doubt that the best chance for it to do so will be the return of a Conservative Government.

To ask the Secretary. of State for Scotland what specific allocation of funding has been made to regional councils to increase the number and training of learning support teachers in the next academic session; and what was the position in the previous five years.

I have invited the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to let me have its views on how we can improve learning support for the three Rs.

Does the Minister recall that on at least three occasions in late February and in early March he made public statements to the effect that there would be an increase in learning support funding in the near future? Against the background of a rise in general reading standards does not the Minister think that it would now be appropriate before the start of the next academic year to state clearly what additional funding will be available in a much-needed and much-appreciated service?

As I said to the hon. Lady, I have asked the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to let me have its views on how we can best target resources for learning support. The hon. Lady said that she believed that there has been an improvement in reading standards. We are especially concerned about children who have difficulties with reading, writing and arithmetic, and I am ready to consider the proposals that the convention will make in the context of the proposals for primary testing on which we expect to make an announcement shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly on the future government of Scotland.

Representations on the future Government of Scotland from the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly are now reduced to a pre-printed postcard campaign.

As the majority of people in Scotland have made clear their demand for a Scottish Parliament, does not the Secretary of state demean his office by his reactionary attitude and does not he denigrate and insult the Scottish nation by implying that it is too poor and too stupid to look after its own affairs?

I should never dream of making such a suggestion. The last time that the Scottish people were asked to pass judgment on whether they wanted an Assembly, they did not support the idea—only about one third voted in favour. As for the present opinion of the Scottish people, an authoritative Mori poll has shown that since June 1989 there has been a steady fall in support for a Scottish Assembly from 49 per cent. two years ago to 33 per cent. now. I hardly think that that is a ringing endorsement for a policy which happens to find favour with the hon. Lady.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what projections he has done of the estimated loss of revenue local authorities will suffer by uncollected poll tax; and if he will list his estimates for each regional council in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend has made no estimates of the income which local authorities will lose through non-collection of the community charge. Charge collection is the responsibility of local authorities who have a wide range of recovery measures at their disposal.

The Government should make estimates of what is happening. The Minister must be aware that the Scottish Office is responsible for the absolute shambles of the poll tax in Scotland. More than 40 per cent. of the people who should pay it are not paying it and, despite what the Minister said, that will not change. Is not he aware that Scottish local government is reaching a crisis and that very soon councils might not be able to discharge their statutory obligations?

That is simply not the case. Local authorities have a statutory duty to collect outstanding charges. A wide range of powers are available to them. Again, I ask the hon. Gentleman and the House why some authorities, such as Grampian, Fife and Central, have collected well over 90 per cent. of budget income for 1989–90 and more than 85 per cent. for 1990–91. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Office will jointly monitor the collection position in coming months.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual budget and total number of staff of the Aberdeen Royal infirmary.

Aberdeen Royal infirmary costs about £68 million a year to run and employs 2,346 staff.

The Minister will be aware that the consultation period is under way. There is great apprehension because the consultation period is taking place during the local holidays and while Parliament is in recess. There are already signs of fundamental changes in the application that has been submitted to the Scottish Office on the privatisation of the hyperbaric centre. Will the Minister consider an extension of the period of consultation to allow us to gather the facts on that change of plan? Failing that, will he give me an assurance today that factual questions will be answered by his Department and by the applicants?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to associate the decision in respect of the hyperbaric centre with the application for NHS trust status from Foresterhill. The decision on the hyperbaric centre was taken by the health board because it believed that it would result in more research and a better quality of care being available to divers in the North sea and to others.