To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail about the future of rail services from Edinburgh and the borders to London and the continent.

My right hon. Friend and I meet senior management of British Rail from time to time. Such contacts cover a wide range of topics relating to rail services in Scotland.

If Mr. Richard Branson—or anyone else—is allowed to take over the east coast main line service, what guarantee is there that passengers from the borders will continue to have frequent train services from Berwick and other intermediate stations? With or without Richard Branson, when will there be through services to France, through the channel tunnel, from Edinburgh and the borders?

The answer is 1995. I understand that British Rail intends to operate a day-time service from Edinburgh down the east coast main line and a night-time service from Glasgow down the west coast main line to Paris and Brussels. Day-time and night-time through services are expected to start in 1995, but, for people intending to use the route earlier, there will, of course, be an option of transferring quickly in London to another route. Freight services will be in use as soon as the channel tunnel opens. The reason for the delay to 1995 is that many complex issues need to be resolved.

Has the Minister read the remarks of Lords Whitelaw and Ridley in the other place arguing strongly against any privatisation of British Rail? As one of them is one of the greatest advocates of privatisation, will the Government take account of those remarks? Train services in the borders, in Ayrshire and in other rural areas are bound to suffer if privatisation goes ahead. Clearly, private operators will be after only the lucrative routes, and rural areas, as usual, will be the ones to suffer. Will the Government think again on the issue?

The Government have given a clear commitment to preserving the current national network and continuing to provide subsidy, when it is needed, for loss-making services that are socially necessary. On the privatisation of international routes, the Government's view is that international services will benefit from private sector expertise, and specific options for transferring international services to the private sector are under discussion within British Rail and the Government. I cannot yet say when we shall be in a position to publish specific proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received for Scottish independence.

Since the general election I have received 22 representations in favour of independence for Scotland. I have received hundreds in support of the maintenance of the Union.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Scottish people live in Basildon? They are proud to be Scottish and pleased to live in Basildon. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the overwhelming majority of them are totally opposed to the break-up of the United Kingdom, and does he agree with them?

I am glad to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland are also resistant to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The only political party offering the break-up of the United Kingdom saw its representation in the House reduced by 40 per cent. at the general election, when I was delighted to see my hon. Friend re-elected as the Member for Basildon.

Is the Secretary of State aware that although the democratic opposition to Tory Government in Scotland may be divided on the issue of indpendence, it is absolutely united behind the principle that Scotland should decide for itself what its views on independence are? Who does the Secretary of State think is more representative of Scottish opinion—the 25,000 Scots from every part of the country who gathered in Edinburgh last Saturday to demand a multi-option referendum, or the ragbag of no-hopers on the Conservative Back Benches?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to see a ragbag, he should look at the range of organisations with different opinions that marched in the demonstration on Saturday. They could not even reach the end of the march without disagreeing and falling out among themselves.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that Scotland's greatest benefit is that it is the only country on earth which does not have the misfortune to have a Government? However, Scotland has the good fortune to have control over its affairs and its heritage—for which my right hon. Friend is so appreciated. Will he ensure that when the English work out whether they can buy tea or shortbread on Sundays, under their stupid Shops Act 1950, section 4 of the 1950 Act is never applied to Scotland and that our law remains as free as it is?

My hon. and learned Friend is right to draw attention to the distinctive features of legislation affecting Scotland, which are safeguarded by arrangements in this Parliament. Not for the first time, Scotland is giving examples from which England can benefit.

Does the Secretary of State accept that while 78 per cent. of the Scottish people rejected independence on 9 April, 75 per cent. were not satisfied with the status quo and wanted a Scottish Parliament? Given that the Secretary of State, in his speech to the Monday club at the Conservative party conference, accepted the nationhood of Scotland, how does he envisage Scotland being able to implement the democratic wish of the Scottish people if he and his colleagues in Government refuse to accept that wish?

The vast majority of people voting in the last general election supported parties which are nominally committed to the maintenance of the Union of the United Kingdom. Within that United Kingdom and its Parliament, it is possible to cater for the distinctive needs of the different parts of the Union. That is what already happens in Parliament, and that is what we are considering to find out whether further changes can be made to improve arrangements for Scottish business at Westminster.

What representations has my right hon. Friend received from the dockyard workers at Rosyth about an independent Scotland? If that were to come about, what effect do they think that it would have on their jobs?

I have had no such representations, but, in that matter as in so many others, Scotland's benefits derive to a large extent from our membership of this United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State must be aware, even if Basildon man is not, that the latest signs are that independence is the leading option and that it is twice as popular as his option—the status quo. In the light of Saturday's march and rally, does the Secretary of State still believe what he has told us for the past six months—that no one is interested in the Scottish question? On Saturday, 25,000 people demonstrated for freedom and democracy in the streets of our capital city. When will he take stock of that? If the governor-general were to announce a rally in March in favour of the discredited Union, would any Scot bother to turn up—or would he have to bus them in from Basildon?

I have already pointed out that the march last Saturday contained elements that conflict directly with each other in their views of the future of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman asks who is interested in the Scottish question. I am interested in it. That is why I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are taking stock. That is why we are considering proposals to change the arrangements whereby Scottish business is handled and to find other ways in which Scottish interests can be better represented within this Westminster Parliament.

When did the Scottish Tory party manage to get 25,000 Scots marching for anything? The Secretary of State is trying to derive some comfort from the fact that there are honest differences of opinion among the people of Scotland on the exact powers that a Scottish Parliament should have. Why is he so afraid to hold a referendum and let the people decide? Is it because he knows that the overwhelming majority would reject the status quo?

The Scottish Conservative party is pursuing its objectives through democratic and parliamentary means, and it was the only party in Scotland to increase both its vote and its share of the seats at the last general election.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the conduct of local government in Scotland.

The conduct of local authority business in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain was comprehensively examined by the Widdecombe committee, and the Government made a number of changes in the law in the light of its report. I believe that Scottish authorities generally observe high standards in the conduct of their business, but there are lapses from time to time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Scottish people in my constituency have been shocked to learn that 22 relatives of Labour councillors are employed by Monklands district council? [Interruption.] Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, of those 22 relatives, three are employed in the housing department, the wife of the director of housing is employed in the leisure centre—[Interruption.] and the view of the tenants and people of Coatbridge and Airdrie—[Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members must not shout down other hon. Members. We have freedom of speech here. There will be opportunities for rebuttal. Will the hon. Gentleman move rapidly to his question?

My question relates to the fact that of 22 wives, sons and daughters of Labour councillors employed by Monklands district council, three are employed in the housing department, the wife of the director of housing is employed in the leisure centre—[Interruption.]

Order. I am now directing the hon. Gentleman to come to his question. I want a question now.

I hoped that my right hon. Friend would have the opportunity to follow the whole question. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Airdrie and Coatbridge believe that they can obtain houses, council house transfers and repairs only if they have the approval of the ruling Labour families on the council? What does my right hon. Friend intend to do about that?

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot take points of order at this stage. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members are responsible for the comments that they make in the House and there are opportunities for rebuttal. I shall come to that as soon as the Secretary of State has had an opportunity to respond.

I am aware of those allegations and I share my hon. Friend's concern. My powers to intervene in such matters are limited by statute law. Section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 gives me discretionary power to order a local inquiry if I consider that a local authority has failed to carry out a statutory duty or if I am of the opinion that an investigation should be made to determine whether it has so failed. I am currently considering whether any of the allegations made may amount to a breach of the council's statutory duties.

Is it not time that the Secretary of State took the opportunity to dissociate himself publicly in the House from the irresponsible and unscrupulous campaign being run by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and advised the hon. Gentleman that he has much better things to do with his time? Will he also ask the hon. Member to repeat his allegations outside the House where he is not covered by parliamentary privilege?

I have explained my position with regard to the statutory duties of the local authority and my own statutory powers. Others who have complaints in relation to these matters have the option of pursuing them in other ways—through the courts, the local government ombudsman, or the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have tabled a question and received what I judge to be an unsatisfactory answer about the activities of Councillor Brooks, the leader of Monklands district council. My question concerns the amount of public money which has gone into a company that has gone into liquidation and anther company that is still trading. It is only right that the House should be made aware of the public money that has been used and the debt that is outstanding on pay-as-you-earn after four years in relation to the company that has gone into liquidation. Those are matters of genuine interest to the House regardless of the political colour of the individuals concerned.

If the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland concludes that the council has illegally authorised expenditure, it can submit a special report to me with any recommendations that it may have. That may include the surcharging of those responsible; I am empowered to do that, but I have no evidence that it would be appropriate.

Is the Secretary of State unaware how repugnant it will seem to people at home watching our proceedings that question 2 at Scottish Question Time should be from the buffoon of Basildon about Scottish independence? Question 3, which the Secretary of State is now answering, impugns the integrity of people who are not here to answer for themselves and was asked by a man—

Black shirt.

Never mind my black shirt. Question 3 was asked by a man who brought a prostitute into this building and caused her to have a parliamentary pass. That he should be the man casting aspersions on the characters of other people, and that the Secretary of State should associate himself with that, is a revolting spectacle.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has asked a question for me to answer.

Has my right hon. Friend had any approach from the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow spokesman for Scotland about carrying out an inquiry into these dreadful affairs?

No, I have not had an approach from either the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) or from the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proportion of Scottish Homes budget will be spent in Edinburgh and the Lothians in 1992–93.

Scottish Homes is likely to spend 12 per cent. of its programme in Edinburgh and the Lothians in 1992–93. This will be about £44 million and compares with £36 million in 1991–92.

While I welcome the fact that Scottish Homes has reluctantly increased the amount that it is spending on the east coast of Scotland, is the Minister aware that this Christmas people will be sleeping rough in the doorways and cemeteries of Scotland's capital, that 8,000 people are on Edinburgh housing association waiting lists and that others fear that in 1993 they will lose their homes as a result of increasing rents and mortgages? Will he stop Scottish Homes siphoning off public funds to help private developers and ensure that more money is put into the housing association budget to build desperately needed homes in Edinburgh and throughout Scotland, and, above all, at affordable rents?

I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that early next week we shall make a statement on the additional £7.5 million for the homelessness competition. Proposals have been received from more than 40 local authorities and are currently being assessed. The hon. Gentleman spoke about mortgage repossessions. Only 4 per cent. of the applications for homelessness relate to that cause. I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that Scottish Homes will certainly take into account not only the needs of Edinburgh and the Lothians but those of the whole of Scotland. Scottish Homes has been making substantial progress in giving funds to housing associations to alleviate homelessness.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of houses below tolerable standard in Scotland fell yet again in the past year, this time by about 4 per cent? As it is Conservative policy to improve and not to demolish, is not that good value for public expenditure? Is he further aware that the remaining below tolerable standard houses are on the private ownership side of the housing market? Will he take account of that when allocating public funds for next year's expenditure?

I shall most certainly do that. About £2 million was made available for Edinburgh in a supplementary allocation for the pre-1984 backlog of repairs; that will be borne in mind before we make provisional allocations. I also confirm that Edinburgh and the Lothians received an additional £4.1 million from Scottish Homes in respect of a recent supplementary allocation. Those matters have been carefully borne in mind.

Does the Minister agree that neither Scottish Homes nor Scottish local authorities can solve the homeless problem? Have not 35,000 people registered as homeless in 1992? including 11,500 families? Is he aware that that means 84 children a day becoming homeless in 1992? Is it not clear that the Government do not care about the homeless? If they did, they would not have spent £16 million on a European summit.

The funding for the European summit was money well spent.

Does the Minister know that in West Lothian the number of homeless families and single people applying for housing rose by 65 per cent. this year? Does he know that this Christmas more than 2,500 children will spend the day in local authority temporary accommodation? Does he realise that 120,000 children will spend Christmas in damp and dangerous housing? At 38,000 households, the Government have beaten their previous record for homelessness in Scotland. Do they actually understand the misery for which they are responsible?

The hon. Lady should be aware that last month we requested proposals for a share of the additional £7.5 million made available for homelessness projects in 1992–93. We have received proposals from more than 40 local authorities, which we are currently assessing. I had hoped to make an announcement today, but I cannot. I shall do so as soon as possible. The proposals need to be properly assessed. Of course, the most pressing priorities will be chosen.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards provision of full maternity services.

The Government's policy towards the provision of full maternity services is to enable women to have a choice of how and where they give birth, provided that this can be done safely and cost effectively. The guiding principle is the safety of the mother and child. The way in which that policy is operated is being reviewed in the light of the report by the Health Select Committee on maternity services in England and Wales.

Is the Minister aware that the choice of the vast majority of the people of Dunfermline and West Fife is that there should be full maternity services in Dunfermline? Is he further aware that the most recent survey of the wishes of local people, carried out by the local newspaper the Dunfermline Press and West Fife Advertiser, found that almost 1,000 people—the vast majority—were in favour of that provision? Will the Minister therefore express his support for a full maternity service in Dunfermline? Will he instruct Fife health board to meet the needs and the wishes of the people of Dunfermline and West Fife and to continue to provide a full maternity service in Dunfermline?

I am aware of the hon. Lady's close interest in and concern about the matter on behalf of her constituents. I shall give her the up-to-date position as I understand it. The Fife health board decided on 15 December to withdraw consultant maternity services from Dunfermline, and instead to introduce a midwife-led service. My right hon. Friend awaits a formal proposal from the board, which will include the results of the public consultation to which the hon. Lady referred. I assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he will not agree to the establishment of more midwife-led units until the pilot scheme in Aberdeen has been evaluated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Council on Alcohol to discuss funding for centres dealing with alcohol abuse.

Scottish Office officials regularly meet representatives of the Scottish Council on Alcohol. The last meeting took place on 5 November. The funding of alcohol misuse services was not raised.

Is my hon. Friend aware that people in alcohol abuse centres are worried that the money allocated to them is going on the community care budget? They feel that that money should be ring-fenced and used specifically for alcohol abuse. Does he agree that the chance of people suffering from alcohol abuse because of drinking too much Scotch whisky is slim, because it is cheaper to buy a bottle of Scotch whisky on the continent than in the United Kingdom due to the terrifying amount of duty charged?

On my hon. Friend's first question, I can reassure him that we are continuing to provide substantial support for the work of the Scottish Council on Alcohol and that the two designated places in Scotland continue to receive substantial direct assistance. The care in the community budget is generally ring-fenced, but aggregate external finance in Scotland is not ring-fenced specifically, as it is in England. However, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has made clear the substantial extra resources that are being allocated to local authorities for the transfer to care in the community.

One of the things that could help reduce alcohol abuse is a reduction in long-term unemployment. In my community, many highly skilled men and women who have been out of work for years are in deep depression, which can sometimes lead to alcohol abuse. Surely it would be better if the Government took steps to give them back their pride and dignity, and got them back to work.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are many reasons for trying to get unemployment down, not just the factors to which he referred. Moreover, a range of measures can be and are being taken to deal with the problems of alcohol abuse. For example, I had a useful meeting recently with the chief medical officer and employers' representatives in Scotland. Further positive moves will be taken to see how we can inculcate a responsible attitude to deal with alcohol misuse in the workplace.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the organisations and individuals who lobbied him in support for a reorganisation of Scottish local government; and if he will make a statement.

The responses to the Government's first consultation paper on the reform of local government, published last February, were made available for public inspection. The Government published a summary of responses to that paper in February of this year and this is available in the Library.

The Secretary of State knows that his proposals are anti-democratic and a further attack on local democracy in Scotland. If he denies that, will he assure the House and Scotland that, post reform, the number of councillors in district councils will not be cut? Will he further assure the House that the joint boards that he envisages in his consultation paper will be manned not by quango Tories appointed by himself, but only by elected councillors?

The proposals in the consultation paper are not undemocratic. The purpose of reform to a single-tier structure is to create stronger, more coherent local authorities. The other points raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered in the consultation process. However, it is worth mentioning that his district council, Clydesdale, while expressing views on a number of other aspects, said:

"The council would offer no objections to a single tier system of local government."

When my right hon. Friend eventually brings his proposals on the future of local government to the House, will he consider allowing the people of our four great Scottish cities directly to elect their Lords Provost and to end the practice of the ruling political group choosing the first citizen?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. It is one which can be considered in the consultation process, along with all the other suggestions that we shall no doubt be receiving.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the people of the East Kilbride part of Busby have voted to stay with Labour-controlled East Kilbride rather than to transfer to Tory-controlled Eastwood? Why, then, has he overridden the views of the people? Is this a foretaste of what will come with local government reform, with the wishes of the people being ignored by the Government?

We have overruled no views. We have put out a consultation paper in which we have listed four illustrative options, but have made it clear that other options can be considered. We shall not approach the decisions that have to be made on a party political basis. I find it depressing that the hon. Gentleman can see the matter only as one of advantage or disadvantage to the Labour party.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the discussion that is taking place about Monklands is serious? He will be aware that I have taken an active interest in local government—[Interruption.]

Order. I have insisted that other hon. Members do not use a long preamble, but put questions directly. I must apply that rule to the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend go ahead with the inquiry and not wait?

I am in a position to set up an inquiry only where I am satisfied that there has been a statutory breach of local government obligations, and I am not satisfied that that is the case with regard to Monklands district council.

Is not the reform of local government simply a paving measure for the privatisation of Scotland's water and sewerage services? Will the Secretary of State explain why his Ministers squandered £50,000 worth of taxpayers' money in payments to Quayle Monro Ltd essentially to obtain private advice for the Conservative party? When will he publish the report from Quayle Monro? What does he have to hide?

The findings of the Quayle Monro report are reflected in the consultation paper on the future structure of the water and sewerage industries of Scotland, in which we have laid out a range of eight options and on which we welcome views. The hon. Gentleman spoke of costs. I was interested to see in The Scotsman yesterday that Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte has carried out a report on behalf of Lothian region that bears out the findings of the Touche Ross report that the reform of local government to a single-tier structure will result in substantial savings.

In the light of his earlier answers, does not my right hon. Friend find it surprising that he has not received representations from the Leader of the Opposition concerning the reorganisation of local government in his constituency of Monklands, East?

I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition, and all Labour Members of Parliament, will, in due course, address the issue of the reform of local government. I hope that their contributions to the future structure of local government in Scotland will be more constructive and forward looking than their contributions this afternoon.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 26 October, Official Report, column 530, what consultations he proposes to make on legislative proposals relating to the carrying and possession of knives and similar offensive weapons; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend will consult publicly in the new year on proposals to change the law in relation to the carrying and possession of knives. In light of the consultations, we shall introduce measures for consideration by the House at the first available opportunity.

We have heard all this before, time after time. Are not murders at record levels in Scotland this year? Is it not the case that violent criminals are being let out of prison for Christmas, on condition that they do not take drink or drugs? Have not the Tory Government simply gone soft on law and order? For some years, some of us have been trying to get the Government to take action against violence on our streets. How many more people have to be mugged, maimed, slashed, stabbed or murdered before the Government will do something about this ever-growing menace to society?

Why is it that Strathclyde police are 181 officers under strength? It is because Strathclyde regional council has not employed its full complement. The hon. Gentleman should be making strong representations about that. I know that Strathclyde has increased the number of its police officers, but it is still 181 under strength.

May I remind my hon. Friend that the draconian sentences passed on the razor slashers in Glasgow—the razors in question were not lethal weapons—caused the new fancy for the knife, which is lethal? So we must be cautious on this matter. As one who carries a gun himself, even though it is rather small, I know that there are worse things in the criminal law than simple assault—for instance, fraud perpetrated at public expense in Monklands. If that is not investigated by the Lord Advocate, it should be—

Order. That is wholly irrelevant to the question, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows.

I recall my hon. and learned Friend's gun, because he once let it off in the High Court, causing a considerable disturbance, and it was with great relief that it was discovered to have been only my hon. and learned Friend letting off a very small cap gun.

What a pathetic response from the party which is supposed to be the custodian of law and order! Does not the Minister realise that there was a staggering increase of 40 per cent. in crimes involving offensive weapons in Scotland last year? Is it not amazing that in Scotland, unlike England and Wales, it is not an offence to carry an offensive weapon? The ready availability of these weapons causes immense concern. I illustrate that point by referring the Minister to the Sunday Times of 22 November in which an advertisement for a mail order magazine featured such murderous weapons as the Bowie knife—a 7 in stainless steel blad with a serrated edge. Does not that show that this activity can be described as trading in death? The police and public to whom I speak ask whether the Government have given up on crime, and if they have not, when they will start doing something about it.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that when we first brought in police powers of search the Labour party voted against them in the House. If a police officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person is carrying an offensive weapon he may search that person without a warrant under section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. We have said that we will take forward consultations speedily and legislate at the first available opportunity. Our commitment to law and order remains stronger than ever.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many whisky distillers are currently in operation in Scotland now and 10 years ago.

There are currently some 25 whisky distillers operating in Scotland. In 1982, there were 32 quoted companies engaged in Scotch whisky distilling.

Is my hon. Friend aware that distilleries are at the heart of rural communities in Scotland and that any further closures will be quite devastating to the people of those communities? Is he also aware that sales of whisky in the United Kingdom have dropped by 1 million bottles while sales abroad, where it is taxed less and costs less, have held up? Will my hon. Friend consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him, at the very least, to peg whisky duty so it can compete on level terms with imported wines?

The reduction in the number of distillers in the past 10 years is mainly attributable to mergers and acquisitions within the Scotch whisky industry rather than to companies going out of business or ceasing to run their distilleries. My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of distilleries, particularly to rural areas and to the success of the industry in the export market. I had the great pleasure to attend a Queen's award for export ceremony at Burn Stewart distillers in Barrhead in my constituency.

Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland had the opportunity to peruse the Pieda report, which stated clearly the importance of the Scotch whisky industry to the Scottish economy—it is responsible for 15,000 direct jobs and 56,000 indirect ones. Those jobs will be threatened if the Chancellor does not show some partiality between the tax on wine and that on whisky—in whisky's favour. At the moment the tax on whisky is twice as much as that on wine and such an imbalance must be redressed.

The hon. Gentleman's record as a strong defender of the interests of Scotch whisky is well appreciated throughout the House. He is, after all, chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky industry group. He has made an immense contribution to the debates about the industry. I repeat that I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the distilleries and the whisky industry are Scotland's premier exporting industry, and that it will continue for ever if it is looked after properly? Would he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have words with the Chancellor and draw his attention to the fact that if whisky and other spirits were subject to the same tax as that on wine there would be a substantial reduction in income to the Treasury, but that if the tax on wine were brought up to the level of that on whisky there would be a substantial inflow of funds to the Treasury? We have never understood why the Treasury has not seen that option as an opportunity to get more money.

My hon. Friend is known for his own Bill that benefited the industry. He is absolutely right; no one can dispute the key importance of the Scotch whisky industry in relation to the Scottish economy and exports, the value of which in 1991 was more than £1,800 million.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many additional households have been connected to (a) water and (b) mains drainage in Grampian region under the rural mains extension scheme over the last six years.

More than 1,500 houses in rural areas have been connected to the public water supply system in Grampian region since 1 April 1986. No similar figures are available for connections to mains drainage, as the rural sewerage grant scheme ended in that year.

I am sure that the Minister will recognise the importance of the programme of extending rural mains and mains drainage in areas such as Grampian, which accounts for about a third of all the households in Scotland that still have private water supplies. Is he aware that, since 1975, 700 km has been laid at a cost of £12 million? Can he assure the House that—whatever reorganisation of water is introduced—the rural mains grant will continue, and the 50 schemes that are still outstanding in Grampian will be not only completed but, if possible, accelerated?

It is certainly important to continue the schemes in Grampian. This year's capital allocation of £25 million is 35 per cent. higher than that for 1991–92, which shows that we appreciate the importance of the schemes. I shall consider whether to write to the hon. Gentleman about the exact details of the schemes in the future, but I think that he should feel fairly confident that, whichever of our eight options is chosen, rural water supplies will be given high priority.

Does my hon. Friend agree that privatisation is the best recipe for those who are concerned about the level of investment in the water industry? Has not the industry in England increased its investment by 50 per cent. since its privatisation?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. As I have already made clear, I do not intend to make any pronouncement on the matter before the end of the consultation period. We have presented eight options, and I hope that all hon. Members will make constructive suggestions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about them. We shall reach a decision early in the spring.

Is the Minister aware that in Grampian region, as elsewhere in Scotland, it is illegal to disconnect the water and mains drainage supplies of domestic consumers? Can he assure the House that, if it is decided to privatise the water industry, the law in Scotland will not be changed to allow disconnections in the future?

The hon. Gentleman is rushing ahead. As I have just explained, we are a long way from introducing legislation. When the Bill is presented to the House, hon. Members will have ample opportunities to go through it line by line and decide—in the light of which option is chosen, and in the light of how it is introduced to the unitary system of local government—what disconnection procedures there should be, if such procedures are considered necessary. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, it is not now possible to disconnect domestic supplies, and that will be taken very much into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Scottish Enterprise to discuss the business plans of local enterprise companies.

My right hon. Friend and I meet Scottish Enterprise regularly to discuss a wide range of issues, including the activities and achievements of the local enterprise companies. However, consideration of the business plans of local enterprise companies is a matter between Scottish Enterprise and the individual companies concerned.

Apparently, the Government do not intend to listen to Sir Brian Wolfson, the man selected by the Tory Cabinet to establish the training and enterprise councils and the local enterprise companies. Sir Brian has criticised the attitude of voluntarism being taken to both TECs and LECs, and also the failure to establish a training levy of companies. But will the Minister at least listen to Scottish Enterprise Tayside? That body told me last month that it was experiencing increasing tension in its efforts to provide high-quality training for a special needs group, and that, if its budget were cut, it might reluctantly have to sacrifice both quality and quantity.

This year, Scottish Enterprise Tayside received a budget of £23 million. Its budget increased by 5 per cent.—a larger increase than was received by any other LEC except one. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Scottish Enterprise's planned budget for next year is £9 million up on this year's plans, and an additional £20 million is expected from the European regional development fund. There will be no reduction in the overall resources available to the Scottish Enterprise network.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the 11 per cent. increase for enterprise and environmental expenditure by Scottish Enterprise and the LECs that was announced last week by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will enable those bodies to continue, at local level and with local expertise, the good work that they have carried out since their very recent inception less than two years ago?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The substantial increase in resources for the environmental and enterprise budgets has been warmly welcomed by the local enterprise network because it offers it flexibility between its different budget heads. I have no doubt that the excellent work that the local enterprise companies have done in the past two years will continue, and that, as they gain experience, they will be able to lever in increasing resources from the private sector.

The Minister spoke of the achievements of local enterprise companies, but Renfrewshire Enterprise has achieved nothing on the lower Clyde. Many people are deeply concerned about the decision of Auld's the Bakers to move to Inchinnan. Did it receive no help from Renfrewshire Enterprise officials to locate within the Inverclyde enterprise zone? How valuable is the enterprise zone when a local company is forced to move a few miles away? Will he investigate this and other cases that reveal the pathetic performance of officials of Renfrewshire Enterprise on the lower Clyde?

I do not understand that question because Inchinnan is in Renfrewshire; the company is moving within the territory covered by Renfrewshire Enterprise. That does not seem to be a matter of great criticism of Renfrewshire Enterprise. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member would allow me to answer the question. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and I have had a number of meetings about the Inverclyde enterprise zone. We are aware that there have been some difficulties, but I assure him that Scottish Enterprise and Renfrewshire Enterprise are doing all that they can to ensure that the zone is a success.

When will this humbug and hypocrisy end? Why is £20 million being cut from Scottish Enterprise's training budget this year, including a 13 per cent. cut in youth training and a 7 per cent. cut in adult training? Does the Minister accept that, with high unemployment, deepening recession and the guarantee for young people not being met, we should be spending more on training rather than less? When will the Government put the real needs of Scotland first instead of Ministers being content to hang on to the coat tails of English employment Ministers?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday morning, he would know perfectly well that Scotland's share of Britain's unemployment has fallen. The implication of the hon. Gentleman's statement is that he would have preferred it to rise. When shall we see an end to the humbug and hypocrisy of Labour Members about training, because the Government have increased real resources for training two and a half times in real terms compared with the Labour Government, yet every training initiative that the Government have taken has been opposed by Opposition Members?

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the fishing industry in Scotland to discuss conservation policy; and if he will make a statement.

Let us get back to quieter waters.

The Minister may seek quieter waters for questions, but is he aware of the great depth of anger in fishing communities that neither he nor any Conservative Member of Parliament for Scotland was prepared to march with the 4,000 fisherfolk who came to Edinburgh from the length and breadth of Scotland last week? The only support that we received from the Scottish Office was from civil servants who waved and cheered as we walked past. Given the deep anger in those communities, will he assure us that when he next discusses fisheries at the Council of Ministers he will guarantee that there will be no consecutive tie-up and that any tie-up will be flexible, will enable boats to be taken out of harbours for repairs and will take account of bad weather conditions, which often enforced a tie-up? Without that, there is no way in which he will make his policy work.

The hon. Lady attended the recent fishing debates and she knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I take the fishing problem extremely seriously, which is why we are so frequently in touch with the fishermen's interests. We shall go to Brussels this Friday, Saturday and Sunday, determined to achieve the best possible result for the United Kingdom's fishermen and I shall, of course, be looking after the interests of the Scottish fishermen in particular. They will and can look forward to a much better quota of haddock, in which I think that they are especially interested, and to other improvements. I gave the hon. Lady a clear understanding that we are wholly opposed to the 10-day tie-up, which we shall oppose in Europe this weekend.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I shall hear points of order after business questions.