To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further action he intends to take in connection with the announced closure of Ravenscraig.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will itemise the assistance offered to north Lanarkshire since June 1991.

We have already taken action to strengthen and diversify the Lanarkshire economy. I have announced very substantial additional resources, through Scottish Enterprise, for the Lanarkshire development agency. Those resources are being deployed on a wide range of infrastructure projects, major environmental works and training and business development schemes, following the recommendations of the Lanarkshire working group. I have also announced that, subject to the agreement of the European Commission, the Government intend to set up an enterprise zone in north Lanarkshire.

It was obvious from that answer that the Secretary of State has nothing whatsoever to say about steel. Is he aware that next week my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) will visit the United States to look at the latest technological developments in steel production—thin slab casting? Is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome the fact—however small the step may be—that, with the approval of the Scottish Office, representatives of Scottish Enterprise will accompany my hon. Friend? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we need much more than that? We need a public commitment today from the Government that they will be prepared to give technical and financial assistance to any buyer that wished to develop thin slab technology at Ravenscraig. The Labour party has already given that pledge on behalf of a future Labour Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman publicly give that pledge?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Scottish Enterprise has already investigated thin slab casting in the United States of America. It would be naive of any Opposition Member to think that British Steel had not carefully considered the possibilities of that type of development, which requires a plentiful scrap supply and low energy costs. I am quite sure that British Steel will have considered that and will weigh it up as well as any other possible developments. British Steel must decide whether it is a sensible project on which to embark.

I warn the Secretary of State for Scotland that, when it comes to the urgent task of providing resources for the regeneration of the Lanarkshire economy, he will not be able to hide behind the arrogant and imperious people who run British Steel. During the last couple of months that he holds that office, he will be judged harshly on what he does.

Will the right hon. Gentleman stop juggling and manipulating figures and pretending that large-scale assistance has already been given to Lanarkshire? Will he exclude hospitals and existing road-building programmes from the calculations? Will he turn his mind to the serious short-term problems: first, the problem that will be caused for the existing development project by the delayed decision on an enterprise zone and, secondly, the problem that the Lanarkshire development agency and Scottish Enterprise will have because of the Government's obsession with annuality in the money that they give. If the right hon. Gentleman turned his mind to those problems, that would be a constructive contribution.

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not think that there is a vast amount of economic development going on in Lanarkshire as a result of Government initiatives. It is time that he visited his constituency and had a look around. No fewer than 13 of the 16 sites identified by the Lanarkshire working group for development as locations for new industrial activity are already being developed as a result of the extra resources and the extra commitment of the Government. We are determined to help Lanarkshire to diversify to attract new jobs all the time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that general anger was expressed in the House last week at British Steel's decision to close Ravenscraig? I welcome the many offers of support and the money available to various agencies in Scotland, as well as the fact that it is hoped to establish an enterprise zone in Lanarkshire. Will my right hon. Friend consider appointing a supremo to co-ordinate all those opportunities, to bring new jobs as quickly as possible to Scotland later this year?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for industry—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—has co-ordinated the work of the Lanarkshire working group, which has brought together many local authorities, public bodies and private sector bodies. They produced an extremely effective report, which identified a large number of projects which could usefully be established to help Lanarkshire. Some 60 of those projects have now been implemented. Lanarkshire development agency now fulfils the co-ordinating role to which my hon. Friend referred. Of course, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is keeping in close contact with the agency, as is Scottish Enterprise.

What action has the Secretary of State taken to find a buyer for Ravenscraig? What assurances can be given about the future of Hunterston? Its existing responsibilities are somewhat in doubt, but it should be remembered that it will be a crucial strategic site for the steel industry of the next century. What action has been taken to ensure its survival?

As for the possible sale of Ravenscraig, the chairman of British Steel has confirmed that the provision contained in the prospectus with regard to disposal has been triggered. I have commissioned a report on the long-term implications of the economic potential of the Hunterston site. It is an important one which we would not want to see wasted.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that concern has been expressed throughout the country about the closure of Ravenscraig. Is he also aware that the regional development aid available to Lanarkshire and the rest of Scotland is equivalent to £28.40 per head compared with £5.55 per head in England? That demonstrates the Government's commitment to redevelop and improve Scottish industry and commerce.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government do identify need and direct resources towards it. Those needs in Scotland have been clearly identified and are fully met from the United Kingdom Exchequer. It may be that because of the Government's sustained commitment unemployment fell in the past four years by almost 9,000 in the Lanarkshire travel-to-work area.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr.Reid) shows that he does not understand the proposal for the new technology at Ravenscraig? It is not a proposal for an electric arc furnace, which would lead to scrap and high energy costs, but a proposal to put the new technology on at the end of the BOS—basic oxygen steel—route. Is the right hon Gentleman further aware that practical questions about the continued use of the plant, reclamation and redevelopment must be settled by September? In particular, is the right hon, Gentleman clear that a new operator would have to be indemnified well before September against reclamation costs, which fall to be settled between the Government and British Steel?

On the question of possible contamination at the British Steel site, I have already asked Sir Robert Scholey to contribute in terms of resources and making the site available for visits so that the extent of contamination can he properly examined. The legislative position is much the same as it has been in past decades. No local authority planning requirements were imposed at the time of the planning consent. We wish to ensure that the site is restored to such a level, as has happened at all other British Steel sites, that it can be used for further industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what notification he received about the contraction of the work force in Ferranti Dalkeith; and what was his response.

My right hon. Friend received no notification of the recent job losses in Ferranti Dalkeith.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that the proposal to shed to two thirds of the work force in Ferranti Dalkeith is a severe blow to the 146 employees involved. It is all the more deplorable when one considers that it is high-tech industry with a very skilled work force whom we should wish to retain in the economy. Midlothian has lost far too many jobs through closures and contractions. I understand —the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—that an arrangement has been made for him to meet the firm next Monday. If that is true. I welcome the initiative What hope will the Minister give to the work force in Dalkeith and Midlothian as a result of that initiative?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the difficulties that the firm faces. It has attributed its problems to the International Signal and Control fraud case and world trading conditions. On Monday I shall not meet the company but I shall meet representatives of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to join the meeting, he will be welcome. It will take place in Alhambra house, Glasgow, on Monday at 8.30 am.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the permission of the European Commission to establish an enterprise zone in the Ravenscraig area of Lanarkshire; and if he will make a statement.

The Government gave formal notification, on 23 January, to the European Commission of our intention to create an enterprise zone for north Lanarkshire. We have stressed the importance of that proposal and must now await the Commission's agreement, which I hope will be forthcoming.

As the Government reacted swiftly and precisely to the tragedy of Ravenscraig and, as they want to proceed right away with their plans, which might involve 17,000 extra jobs and £50 million expenditure, is not it an insult to Scotland that Commissioner Millan, who knows all the facts, has not been prepared to give his approval and appears likely to wait for several months before doing so? As that is the same Commissioner who is damaging districts throughout Britain by withholding hundreds of millions of pounds of necessary aid for which our taxpayers have paid at least twice, will my right hon. Friend urge Commissioner Millan to cut the red tape and for once do something to help Scotland?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about the apparent reluctance of Commissioner Millan to release to the United Kingdom funds that should come to us to help areas of particular deprivation where we have indentified need. As for Lanarkshire and the problems of the steel industry, only three wards in Motherwell would be eligible for RECHAR resources. Nevertheless, that would be useful. I am sure that Commissioner Brittan will consider the issue of the enterprise zone application promptly and, I hope, in a fair-minded and effective way.

Is not the Secretary of State ashamed of the fact that the Conservatives have committed industrial genocide against Scotland since they have been in office? The closures affect not only Ravenscraig and Lanarkshire but have a domino effect in constituencies such as mine where, on the admission of the Minister with responsibility for Scottish industry—the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—76 per cent. of manufacturing jobs disappeared between 1979 and 1989 and a further 3,600 have been lost since. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that urgent action is needed, not only to save jobs but to create them, or does he agree with the Prime Minister who, in a pathetic and complacent reply to me recently, said that he did not believe that economic initiatives were necessary?

The hon. Gentleman is giving a selective exposition of the facts. For example, he seems to be overlooking the fact that unemployment fell in Lanarkshire during the four years to November 1991 by almost 9,000. Unemployment has fallen throughout Scotland in four of the past five years. Employment has risen by substantial amounts and company registrations have increased dramatically. The Scottish economy is stronger and broader based than it has been for some time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the option of an enterprise zone would not be available to an independent Scotland if Spain vetoed Scotland's part in Europe?

I have not speculated on such extreme developments because I do not think that anyone in the United Kingdom, least of all in Scotland, could contemplate such dire consequences for Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of the Dalzell plant and other Scottish steel plants.

I met the chairman of British Steel on 6 January to discuss matters connected with the Scottish steel plants. Since then, I have written to him on a number of detailed points. I would expect to meet the chairman of British Steel again whenever appropriate.

Will the Secretary of State take today's opinion poll to show to Bob Scholey and explain to him that when that is translated into a vote for independence, as it will be at the coming general election, we shall no longer have to write to him, bend the knee or go cap in hand asking for things for Scotland? Instead, all the power that we require will be in our hands and, as an independent country, we shall be able to build on the Dalzell option, save the Scottish steel industry and then expand it.

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that his plans for saving the Scottish steel industry are the sort that, when translated into economic policy for an independent Scotland, will benefit that country, he must be living on the moon. His proposals are totally unrealistic. He is living in a fantasy world and it is time that he came to terms with reality.

It would be helpful if the Secretary of State met the Scottish National party shop stewards at Dalzell and explained to them that the lies being told by the SNP leadership will not help to save jobs but will threaten jobs. When the Secretary of State meets the shop stewards, will he also remind them that the fantasy figure of the I million tonne production which is supposed to come from the new scheme will not be taken up by the markets? Only 71,000 tonnes of slate steel produced was used in the North sea last year, so there is no market for the scheme. Perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) has negotiated a 1 million tonne export contract with the Chinese in Hong Kong—that is the sort of fantasy that the SNP is talking about.

I shall refrain from intervening in the internecine strife between the trade unions at Ravenscraig and those at Dalzell, as I regard that subject as the province of the Labour party. In terms of economic development, my responsibility is to look to the future and to help Lanarkshire develop new employment in industries to create new prosperity for that region and Scotland. It is to that end that all our plans are directed, and they are beginning to yield results.

Does the Secretary of State still believe, as the Labour party does, that there is a strong case for investing in Dalzell and challenging the single plate mill strategy of British Steel. If so, what steps is he taking? Does he realise that Scotland cannot afford a Government who are determined to do nothing or a nationalist party that offers false hope to the steel industry on the basis of what one independent commentator in the Glasgow Herald today described as

"a meaningless, misleading bunch of wrongly used statistics"?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was well aware that we have consistently supported the case for the Dalzell plate mill. We submitted a closely argued paper to British Rail a considerable time ago and I raised the matter with Robert Scholey when I last met him. I hope that the mill will survive for a long time. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I have had a number of meetings with trade union leaders during the past year or two and my hon. Friend remains willing to meet them again at their request.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the proposed expenditure on the national health service for 1992–93; and what was the level of expenditure in 1978–79.

Next year we will spend £3,725 million on the national health service in Scotland. That compares with £893 million in the last year of the Labour Government. That represents an increase of four times in cash terms and one and a half times above inflation.

Does not that massive increase in expenditure, accompanied by the great improvement in health care nail Opposition outbursts about cuts in the national health service? How much would it cost to give free eye and dental treatment in Scotland, as promised by the Labour party?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the huge increase in resources. The increased expenditure on the national health service in Scotland amounts to more than the entire receipts that the Government obtain from North sea oil in any one year and represents a huge increase in resources. It is true that the cost of eye tests and dental check-ups, the abolition of competitive tendering and the introduction of a minimum wage would add £125 million to the cost of the national health service in Scotland. The Labour party, which makes those proposals has not promised one single extra cent for the national health service to compensate for the cost of those policies.

The Minister will recall that when Scottish questions were last before the House I asked the last question on health matters and referred to the accident and emergency service at Ninewells hospital. We were slightly overtaken by subsequent events—I refer to the heat that was generated while we were waiting for an announcement. The Minister gave what I thought was a reasonable reply, but perhaps he was influenced by the pressure that was on him. Has he had time to consider the request for funds to relocate the accident and emergency unit at the Dundee royal infirmary site to the Ninewells site? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has received a request from Tayside health board about the relocation, and does he propose to accede to the request?

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman felt that he did not receive an entirely satisfactory answer because I was under pressure. I am never under pressure when it comes to the health service in Scotland because it is delivering a splendid result for the people of Scotland. The pattern of provision of service in a health board is a matter for that board. I am sure that the chairman of Tayside health board will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the proposals.

Will the Minister use some of the additional money about which he talked to expand the audiology service in Scotland? In a written answer last year, he told me that figures were not held centrally on waiting lists for hearing assessments and hearing aids for children and adults, including pensioners. Accordingly, the Minister will not be aware that in some parts of Scotland, especially in my constituency, it is difficult to have hearing aids serviced and batteries supplied. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the audiology service in Scotland will be examined at Scottish Office level?

I am happy to give the hon. Lady that undertaking. As part of the patients charter proposals, I have been examining several services, including the supply of wheelchairs, that have involved real difficulties in some parts of Scotland. I shall be happy to examine the services that are provided for those who suffer from deafness to one degree or another. The hon. Lady will be aware of the introduction and expansion of cochlea implants in Scotland as a result of work that was undertaken in Ayrshire. That is a step forward. The hon. Lady is getting a brand new hospital in her constituency, which is a considerable expansion of service.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House how expenditure per capita on the health service in Scotland compares with that expenditure in England and Wales?

Expenditure on the health service in Scotland per capita is 23 per cent. more than in England—£730 per person in Scotland and £595 per person in England. It is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us the reason."] Opposition Members ask me why that is so. They should tell us how a Scottish Parliament would find the money to pay those bills.

The Minister gives us a false picture of what is happening in the health service. Did not waiting lists in Scotland increase by 4 per cent. last year? Is it not also the case that last year the number of nurses in Scotland was reduced by 500? Does the Minister accept that under the last Labour Government expenditure rose each year by more than 4 per cent. while under this Government it has fallen by 0.1 per cent? That is the reality. There have been cuts, cuts and more cuts, for which the Government will pay dearly at the next general election.

The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the 150,000 people who work in the health service, who this year treated 1 million more patients than were being treated when the Labour Government left office. Record numbers of patients are being treated, there is a record number of staff in the health service and there is record investment in the health service. It does the health service no good when the hon. Gentleman makes cheap party points at its expense.

As I said, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has a new hospital in her constituency. There are new hospitals throughout Scotland. When we had a Labour Government, the health service building programme was cut for the first time in its history. That was the Labour Government's record. That happened because of the way in which they ran the economy, and not because they did not want to help the health service. If the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) had his way with a Scottish Parliament, cuts would return to the health service and people employed in it would lose their jobs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet representatives of ScotRail to discuss the planned closure of Eastfield railway depot.

The decision to close the Eastfield depot is an operational matter for British Rail. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet ScotRail to discuss this.

The Minister will know that the Government, at Prime Minister level, gave a commitment that rail safety in this country would be improved, yet this closure decision will lead to 70 skilled railway maintenance workers being put on the dole. The Minister will also know that that means that heavy frieght repairs will have to go south of the border. May I ask the Minister to use his good offices to try to get Scot Rail to change its mind and to save this important depot? I hope that at a later stage the Minister will also be able to provide a commitment as to what British Rail intends to do with that land.

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman at this stage what will happen to the land. It is too early to say. The closure will lead to the loss of 120 jobs, but the hope is that there will be no compulsory redundancies and that many of the employees will be relocated at, for example, the depots at Motherwell, Ayr, Grangemouth and Inverness. The hon. Gentleman may be correct when he says that a proportion of the work for the heavier locomotives may go south of the border, but I hope that the bulk of it will stay in Scotland. The matter must be put into perspective. The decision to site a rail freight terminal at Mossend over the next 10 to 15 years is expected to lead to the creation of 8,000 jobs.

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that safety must be given the highest priority. The high levels of investment in British Rail would not be possible without Government support through the obligation grant, which is about £600 million for the current year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest official count of (a) unemployed persons and (b) notified vacancies.

The number of unemployed people, seasonally adjusted, in Scotland in December 1991 was 227,300 and the number of notified vacancies at Scottish jobcentres was 21,200. Vacancies at jobcentres are thought, however, to represent only about one third of total vacancies in the economy at any one time.

Does the Minister not realise that an unlucky 13 people are chasing every job notified? Does he not realise that in my Maryhill constituency alone, unemployment has risen during the last year by 450 to a total of more than 5,500, leading to an unemployment figure of 18 per cent? The last time I raised the issue at Scottish Question Time, the Secretary of State for Scotland replied that he did not believe that anything should be done, that the recession would finally work its way out and that market forces would provide the answer. If the Government believe in market forces, they will realise that their sell-by date is past. It is high time they realised that the dust is gathering on the wrappers and packed it up.

Perhaps I may point out to the hon. Lady that unemployment is down 14 per cent. over the last three years and that long-term unemployment is down by 1,000 over the last three years in her Maryhill constituency. [Interruption.] The Opposition do not like hearing about unemployment coming down. As for turnover in the labour market, 378,400 people left the unemployment count in 1991 and 211,000 people got jobs through jobcentres in 1991. Those are the facts, even if Opposition Members do not like them.

Within the figures that the Minister has just related to the House are those concerning Greenock and Port Glasgow. I think that he will agree with me that the unemployment rate in my constituency is dismally and scandalously high. Were the west of Scotland headquarters of the Land Registry to be located at Cartsburn or the Gourock ropeworks in Port Glasgow, that would help, if only marginally, to reduce the disgracefully high unemployment figures in Greenock and Port Glasgow. When is this outfit going to play the game by my constituents?

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, which was, of course, made by a delegation led by him from Inverclyde district council; my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will have heard what he said. Generally, I accept that there is a serious problem in Inverclyde. We are working on improving access to some of the enterprise zone sites there. That is one of the priorities for the area.

If and when Scotland leaves the Union, that will cause further unnecessary unemployment. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Westminster-based jobs carried out in Scotland, such as jobs in the Inland Revenue at East Kilbride and Cumbernauld, will have to be repatriated to English constituencies?

rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I intend to answer. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that if Scotland were to leave the Union there would be substantial economic dislocation. I am sure that my hon. Friend and fellow clansman is also right to emphasise the real benefits for Scotland in remaining a full part of the United Kingdom.

In the past, on unemployment questions, the Minister has justified the level of unemployment by saying that the Government have created more jobs than ever before. The Secretary of State has used the expression "historically high". Despite the fact that he counts part-time jobs as full-time jobs and puts employment training places in the jobs column, will the Minister admit that by his own Department's figures there are now fewer jobs in Scotland than there were when the Government came to power in 1979? Let us not have the Government misleading the House. According to the Government's figures, there are now fewer jobs in Scotlnd than in 1979. Is that not correct—yes or no?

That is a fairly typical contribution from the English academic who condescends to represent the working class of Clydebank. The hon. Gentleman has opposed every positive training measure put forward by the Government, and every Labour Government ended up with higher unemployment when they left office than when they took office.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet representatives of the Scottish CBI to discuss industrial policy and investment in west central Scotland.

My colleagues and I have continuing contacts with the Scottish CBI on matters affecting the economy, including that of west central Scotland. We hope to arrange a further meeting shortly.

Has the Secretary of State seen the Scottish chambers business survey for the last quarter of 1991, which concluded that confidence had fallen back in all principal sectors, that demand remained stagnant and was contracting in all major sectors, that manufacturers' stocks were running out, that investment was contracting, and that the worst hit areas were central Scotland and Edinburgh? How does the Secretary of State intend to talk that up into a success story?

By selecting parts of the survey to suit his case, the hon. Gentleman seeks to talk down the economy of Scotland. Perhaps he should also consider what the CBI wants for the economy: it wants lower taxes which would encourage investment, but under Labour it would get not lower but higher taxes throughout the United Kingdom and there would be special higher taxes in Scotland under a Scottish assembly which would impose 3p on income tax.

Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the Scottish CBI all the talk about an independent Scotland? I am appalled that Opposition Members should contemplate it after all that the United Kingdom has gone through in the past 300 years. We founded the British Commonwealth together. This nation is one of the most admired in the world. Opposition Members say that they cannot make their voices heard here. What chance then would they have among the Italians, the Germans and the French? United we stand, divided we fall—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask questions of the Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend was absolutely right to identify the dangers to the Scottish economy either from separation or from the Labour party's policy to set up tax-raising assemblies. The outgoing president of Glasgow chamber of commerce said earlier this week:

"The concern of our members is that devolution would be bad for Scottish industry."

In the CBI's most recent survey on the matter, more than 90 per cent. identified the same danger to the Scottish economy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress being made by Scottish Enterprise in relation to its examination of the impact on the Scottish economy of the decline in defence spending.

Within the defence industries initiative, Scottish Enterprise has received a draft impact assessment from its consultants. Information from that study will be used to take forward work already in hand with local enterprise companies and defence companies to identify practical steps to help companies and communities to adapt to the changing demand for defence-related goods and services.

Notwithstanding that interesting reply and the orders that were given to Yarrow's last week for type 23 frigates, will the Minister concede that there is a serious problem in terms of the diminution of defence orders? That is especially aggravated in areas such as Fife and the west of Scotland. What funding will the Minister provide to ensure that the high technology skills embraced by companies such as Ferranti are not lost to Scotland? We need not a paper exercise, but actual funding to ensure that we keep those skills. The Government have that responsibility.

I do not want to criticise the hon. Gentleman personally—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is, after all, a rather splendid day for anti-devolutionists. He puts forward a perfectly valid point of which Scottish Enterprise is fully aware. However, an independent Scotland would not get frigate orders for Yarrow's. Moreover, there would be no Rosyth dockyard and no Rosyth naval base.

Will the Minister accept that the defence industries initiative, which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced last October, is utterly inadequate? It provides not a penny of new money towards research and development, investment or retraining. It is clear that the only way to make real progress is to elect a Labour Government and set up a defence diversification agency which will really tackle the problem and help our companies to expand into civil products.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will check with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) to see whether there is any official Labour commitment for that amount of extra public expenditure, as I have never heard of one. I do not take the view that the problems of diversification from defence-related companies will be solved through state intervention. The initiative is right to assist the defence sector companies and subcontractors in commercial adjustments to new markets, to provide support—with other agencies and local authorities—to communities that may be heavily affected, and to support reskilling and retraining needs. That is a sensible and constructive approach. If the Labour party is making any massive public expenditure commitments for a different one, let us hear them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on industrial policy for Scotland.

The central aim of the Government's industrial policy, in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom is to create the conditions for sustainable growth in the economy.

I have today written to my hon. Friend elaborating on how my Department promotes that central aim. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House and published in the Official Report.

Will my right hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that under the old hands-on, interventionist industrial policy that the Labour party is supposed to support, British Steel lost £15 billion and our steel trade was in massive deficit, whereas now British Steel is the most efficient in Europe and we run a healthy surplus on our steel trade? Does he agree that there is something spurious and deceitful about a party that criticises the Government's hands-off policy on steel and calls for a return to interventionism, but does not have the guts to commit itself to keep Ravenscraig open if Labour came to power?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the double thinking of the Labour party. It is significant that last Thursday a motion was tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition calling on the Government to use every possible means to intervene in the Scottish steel industry, while at the same time the Leader of the Opposition was quoted in The Financial Times as saying that

"it isn't intervention that the steel industry needs".

I do not think that the Labour party has any idea what any of its policies add up to.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the success or lack of success of his industrial policy will determine the level of mass unemployment in Scotland? Does he also accept that the only circumstances in which unemployment will be a "price worth paying" in Scotland is when it is paid in full by the Scottish Office Front Bench? Why do the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not do Scotland a favour, pack their collective bags and go now?

The Conservative party needs no lessons from the Labour party about employment and unemployment. Every Labour Government increased unemployment. In four of the past five years unemployment has fallen, and it will fall further when the economy is moving, when investment is rising and when there is increased prosperity. All those things will be achieved by the Government's policies—they would never be achieved by the high taxation policies of the Labour party. Following is the information The central aim of the Government's Industrial policy is to create the conditions for sustainable growth in the economy.

The Government believes that since it is the private sector which creates wealth, the Government must seek to create the environment in which companies are encouraged to establish, develop and expand, in order to create both wealth and employment. Good public services and living standards can be provided and maintained only in tandem with entreproneurial activity.

Central to the creation of such an environment is the rigorous control of inflation. The Government's policies have resulted in the United Kingdom having inflation below that of the European Community average. Independent forecasters expect falls in the underlying rate of inflation in the months to come.

The success of these policies, and of the work of my Department, can be shown through the progress Scotland has seen over the past 10 years.

During the 1980s Scottish manufacturing productivity by an average 5.2 per cent. per annum, contrasting with a mere 2.0 per cent. in the 1970s and 4.1 per cent. in the 1900s. In this respect, Scotland's performance in the 1980s was stronger than any of the leading 7 OECD economies.

Since 1981, Locate in Scotland has recorded planned inward investment by companies totalling £4.2 billion, associated with the intended creation or safeguarding of some 80,000 jobs. Even after appropriate discounting of total company forecasts of prospective employment, to around two-thirds of the initially planned figures, this is a record to proud of. It shows that inward investing companies see our economy as providing an environment in which they can operate successfully. Exports of manufactured goods from Scotland have also been buoyant, with an increase of 26 per cent. in real terms since 1979.

Company and VAT registrations and the numbers of self-employed in Scotland have all increased substantially since 1979. The number of companies registered in Scotland rose by almost 70 per cent. from 1980 to 1991, while the number of VAT registered companies rose by 23 per cent. despite the significant real terms in the registration threshold.

Self-employment in Scotland stands at a historically high level, having increased by almost 50 per cent. between 1979 and 1990 compared with no growth over the previous 3 decades.

The privatisation of the two electricity companies in Scotland and of the Scottish Bus Group has led to greatly increased opportunities for employee-share ownership, and in the case of the electricity companies, to more individual shareholders in Scotland. Around half a million Scots applied for shares in the electricity companies and some 400,000 continue to hold their shares.

There have also been a number of encouraging trends in the more recent period, particularly in the Scottish labour market. The Scottish civilian workforce in employment, for example, has seen a growth of 137,000 or 6.5 per cent. over the period June 1987 to June 1991.

In terms of unemployment, the seasonally adjusted total has fallen by over 98,000 in the 4½ year period to December 1991, a fall of some 30 per cent. This has resulted in the differential between Scottish and United Kingdom unemployment rates falling from 3.1 percentage points to just 0.2 percentage points over the same period, the lowest such differential since the war.

Despite these major economic advances, Scotland has been affected by recessionary trends in the United Kingdom as a whole and in the rest of the world during 1990 and 1991. My aim is to minimise these effects, and those of necessary structural changes, and to make the Scottish economy more resilient to future economic downturns using the policy instruments outlined earlier. There are already clear indications from forecasters and official statistics that Scotland has outperformed the United Kingdom economy in each of the years since 1988.

The Government are committed to removing the excess rates burden on Scottish business as quickly as possible. Good progress has been made; non-domestic rates were reduced by £80 million in 1990–91 and a further £100 million in the current year. They will be further reduced by £60 million in 1992–93. These large reductions have encouraged investment and employment, particularly in the service sector which does not benefit from derating.

Another keynote of the Government's industrial policy has been the freeing of previously state-owned assets, allowing the more effective use of these resources under private sector management. This policy, which is increasingly being seen in countries throughout the world as essential to economic efficiency, has promoted efficiency and increased incentives as well as widening share ownership among the general public.

My Department works within Scotland to promote these aims and to foster the development of an environment in which business can flourish. It aims to enhance the role of private enterprise in the economy; to maximise the value added by industry and commerce in Scotland through the modernisation and expansion of competitive industrial and commercial activity; and to encourage a broad and diverse economic base. It promotes the vital links that exist between business and education allowing each to understand better the needs of the other. Through its administration of regional support measures it assists the establishment of viable economic activity in less advantaged parts of Scotland. It promotes the progressive development of the roads and transport infrastructure and the maintenance and improvement of transport services; and it fosters general environmental and economic improvements, essentially through the recently established Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and their associated networks of business-led local enterprise companies.

In promoting enterprise in Scotland my Department, either directly or through publicly funded bodies:— —gives financial and advisory support for competitive firms, entrepreneurial activity, inward investment, the science and technology base, exporting and training; —encourages deregulation where the burdens imposed on business outweigh the potential advantage to the public interest; —seeks to identify gaps which the market is not able to address and seeks ways of filling those gaps; —seeks to ensure that the markets in land and capital are meeting the needs of new or expanding enterprises; —supports urban regeneration, development in remote areas and tourism; —secures the building and maintenance of the trunk road network and allocates resources for local authority road and transport systems; and —secures assistance to appropriate areas from European funds.

I will oversee continued development of the business environment in Scotland to ensure that the many major advances made in the 1980s and early 90s are continued in the future. In particular I will look to: the networks of local enterprise companies, together with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to capitalise further on the integration of economic development and training which they uniquely enjoy; the promotion of Scotland's links with the rest of Europe; the development of Scottish Trade International to further boost export performance; and the further development of the economic climate which will best allow firms to develop, expand and meet the challenges set by the completion of the Single European Market.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Scottish schools currently have school boards; what has been the total cost of school boards to date; and if he will make a statement about the future of school boards.

Around 75 per cent. of schools in Scotland have school boards.

The revenue support grant settlement for 1989–90 took into account the additional costs—estimated at £10 million per year—to be incurred by education authorities in introducing school boards. Education authorities budgeted to spend just over £6 million on school boards in 1991–92.

Does the Minister now acknowledge that the school boards legislation that he imposed on Scotland against the clearly expressed views of the majority of parents has not been quite the success that he claimed? His figures today indicate that a quarter of schools in Scotland cannot even muster a school board, and the number is growing as parents become increasingly frustrated at the Government's failure to provide the resources needed in education. Does the Minister agree that the £10 million allocated to school boards would have been much better invested in books and teaching materials?

I published a survey of school boards today which shows that they have been remarkably successful—[Horn. MEMBERS: "It would."]—an independent survey which shows that school boards have been remarkably successful. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has a cheek coming here and criticising me because a quarter of the schools have no school board. That is a matter for the schools themselves. Many of them are small. It was as a result of pressure from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that I accepted an amendment to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill 1987, changing our original proposal that schools with fewer than 100 pupils would not be eligible to have boards and enabling them to do so. The hon. Member for Gordon was among those who lobbied that small schools should have the opportunity and that it was a matter for them if they did not want a board. Yet now he comes to the House and criticises the Government for the consequences of his own policy.

In the rural areas, where people care very much about the education of their children and where the school boards are functioning extremely well, proposals have been put to me which suggest—this does not contradict what my hon. Friend said in his answer just now—that small country schools, particularly primary feeders, might be better looked after if they were part of the school board system of the secondary school into which they feed, so that the school board would supervise both the secondary school and the primary schools feeding into it. Might that not help the situation in the rural areas, and will my hon. Friend consider the idea?

There are many small schools where school boards run very effectively and there are others where people have chosen not to have school boards. The point is clear. The Government have given parents a choice and a voice in education. I hope that the whole of Scotland will recognise that Labour Members have opposed us every inch of the way while we have sought to enfranchise parents and to give them more say in the education of their children. I do not believe that the proposal put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is the way forward. The way forward is to give school boards a greater role in education in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his visit to Germany.

I had a successful visit to Bavaria in September last year when I led a trade mission organised by Scottish Financial Enterprise. The mission has assisted in establishing stronger financial and commercial links between Scotland and that part of Germany.

Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the reasons for Germany's outstanding economic success is its decentralised form of government? Does he not also accept that Scotland would gain by having its own Parliament with control over key decisions while at the same time using the clout of United Kingdom partnership in a Europe dominated by large countries? The Secretary of State's policy of doing nothing and of stagnation, and the nationalist policy of taking Scotland into Europe's second division, would both be disastrous for the people of Scotland.

The thing that struck me most on constitutional matters during my visit to Bavaria was the complete incomprehension of my Bavarian hosts that anyone should take the view taken by Opposition parties in this country that constitutional mechanisms can be the key to economic success. In Germany, the Länder compete with one another to keep taxation down. Labour is seeking to raise taxes exclusively in Scotland, which would be more damaging for Scotland's economic future than almost any other proposal.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Bavarians would be just as baffled by his own view that the constitutional mechanism would lead to economic ruin? I am sure that he did not explain that to the Bavarians. When the Secretary of State went to Germany, did he find any part of Germany which had suffered as a result of the devolved system of government? The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), was present at a press conference about recent inward investment in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). Did the Under-Secretary feel uncomfortable when the owner of the company bringing the investment to East Kilbride said that he would still have made that investment against the background of a Scottish Parliament?

I could quote many business men who have said the direct opposite. If the hon. Gentleman cared to read the Scotland on Sunday business view survey of 200 company directors last december, he would see that 86 per cent. said that a Scottish assembly would not help the Scottish economy, 78 per cent. said that it would deter inward investment, and 64 per cent. said that they would rethink investment strategy and levels of employment. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand the damage that a tax-raising assembly would do to Scotland's economy, and what the raising of a tax border across the frontier between Carlisle and Berwick would do to the people of Scotland, he had better have another look at his plans.

rose—

Speak for England!

Order. It is about Germany.

As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a devolved system of government in the Federal Republic of Germany. If there were a devolved system of government in the United Kingdom, and if Scotland had its own Parliament, would it not be democratically improper and immoral for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to harbour ambitions to govern England? Is not devolution a fraud?

My hon. Friend identifies a very important issue which the Labour party has completely failed to address. Labour has failed to recognise that if there is a measure of devolution of the kind that Labour identifies, it is not just some bolt-on extra but brings costs and a down side as well as the benefits that Labour perceives. That is the kind of issue that would have to be addressed. I can see the strength of my hon. Friend's view that it would be very difficult to sustain morally the position that the Labour party advocates.

Reverting to the Secretary of State's foreign travels, does he accept that, by continuing to pretend that there can be no change, that the German option, the Spanish option and the Italian option can never be the British option or the Scottish option, he is in danger of destroying the Union to which he pays lip service?

The German option, the Spanish option and the other option that the hon. Gentleman identifies are not the option that his party is offering the people of Scotland. If he does not understand that, he really should go back to the drawing board.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase expenditure on advertising aimed to encourage electoral registration in Scotland.

I am satisfied that the current level of expenditure on advertising for electoral registration in Scotland represents good value for money and is highly effective.

The new electoral registers for Scotland show a fall of 85,000 since 1987. That includes a fall of 16,000 among 18-year-olds. The position relating to the number of 18-year-olds and older is far worse, in that there is a shortfall of 140,000 on the electoral register, which averages 2,000 per constituency. In those circumstances, emergency action should be taken. Is the only way that the Tories can win seats in Scotland by fiddling the franchises?

We are spending considerable sums on advertising—£47,000 next year and £46,000 this year. We strongly encourage everybody who is entitled to register to do so and to use their democratic right to vote. There are many reasons why the numbers have been decreasing. There have been changes in registration practices, there have been changes in legitimate dual registration—for example, in the case of students—and there have been people moving from house to house and not registering. There is a greater inclination to register near an election. There are also demographic changes. It is virtually impossible to state a single cause without an enormous amount of research, which we believe would not involve value for money.

Does my hon. Friend agree that even a substantial increase in the number of those registered to vote in Scotland would do nothing to alter the tremendous imbalance in this House between representatives from Scotland and those from England?

My hon. Friend touches on a very sensitive point. The one part of Britain which was devolved was Northern Ireland, with Stormont. Of course, the number of hon. Members per capita was very much lower in relation to that part of Britain than it is today. It is well worth the House bearing that in mind.

In answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), the number of young people registered in 1991 is substantially up on the 1979 figure. It was 62.1 per cent. in 1979, and it is now 69.3 per cent. We want the figure to be greatly increased; that is why we are advertising.

May I make a special plea to the Minister for the case of offshore workers? There are 35,000 offshore workers. So far as I am aware, there is no special advertising targeted at them. That is a serious point because they make a major contribution to the economy. From my contacts with them, I know that there is great uncertainty about their right to a postal vote. Given that they travel to Aberdeen from all parts of the country, it is a central Government issue. Will the Minister take that on board?

I will look into that point and write to the hon. Gentleman because it is extremely important that all of them should have the opportunity to exercise their rights.

The Minister may be complacent about the electoral registration figures, but we know that many of his ministerial colleagues are very cynical about this, and see it a last benefit to be obtained from the poll tax in its dying days. Whatever other factors there may be, the Minister knows that tens of thousands of youngsters have been frightened off the electoral register, however misguidedly, by the belief that it would help them to avoid the poll tax.

In the dying days of the poll tax, having had to surrender on every other front, will the Government at least have the decency to go to those young people, to advertise and to use some resources to try to get them back on to the electoral register? The Government have taken everything else off those people. They have taken jobs and decent training off them. Will they at least leave them the right to vote, so that they can exercise their democratic right to change the Government of this country?

The fundamental principle is that where electors are entitled to register they should do so, but the hon. Gentleman should examine his own record. He supported the Stop It campaign and discouraged people from paying, and there were payment delays. Indeed, a number of Opposition Members delayed their payments, and at least one has not paid.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people under 24 years of age are unemployed in Scotland; how many of them are long-term unemployed; what plans he has to reduce these figures; and if he will make a statement.

The information requested is available for the 16 to 24 age group only. In October 1991 there were 68,674 unemployed 16 to 24-year-olds in Scotland, of whom 13,589 had been unemployed for more than a year.

The Government have introduced the most comprehensive range of measures ever in this country to help unemployed people back to work. The measures include a wide range of assistance from the employment service, youth training, employment training and employment action. However, in the final analysis it is a productive economy which provides new jobs, and we are vigorously removing barriers to economic growth.

The Minister must be thoroughly ashamed of those figures. They are not numbers in a balance sheet; they represent real people trapped in the misery and poverty of unemployment. Many of those people are denied benefits by the Government. Has the Minister not even begun to realise the frustrations of young people in Scotland who see their future and their hopes being destroyed by his party? When will he realise that the only unemployment that we in Scotland want to see is that of Tory MPs after the next election, when a Labour Government will be elected?

Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not read the most recent opinion polls. He represents a party which, when in government, has always increased unemployment. On the question of youth unemployment, the present Government have given school leavers a guarantee of youth training—a guarantee that was never given by the last Labour Government and is unique in Europe. The present Government have brought in employment action as an extra weapon in the battle against unemployment. If the hon. Gentleman really cared about unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds he would dissociate himself from his party's policy of a national minimum wage. [Interruption.] Hon. Members laugh. Did not they see the report in the Sunday newspapers that Coats Viyella, a major employer in my constituency, is expressing concern about the effects of a national minimum wage?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. This behaviour is very unseemly. I hope that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is not rising because he was not called. I think that I shall call a lady Member first.