To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the capital spend on primary school building works in Scotland in 1992; and what was the figure in 1979, adjusted to 1992 prices.

Information on capital expenditure on primary schools is not available separately.

I welcome the recent additional funding given to Grampian regional council, which has enabled it to prevent the closure of—and to rebuild—a rural primary school at Logie Coldstone in my constituency. The doubling of many primary school rolls in my constituency in recent years has placed a significant strain on buildings, which require rebuild and extension. Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of primary schools, particularly to rural communities, in which they play a key part? Does he further recognise that Grampian regional council has paid insufficient attention to the growing population of Kincardine and Deeside? Will he urge it to put that matter right at the earliest opportunity?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Rising pupil numbers is an issue which should be properly taken into account by the regional council as it comes under the council's jurisdiction. I am glad that progress has been made at Logie Coldstone primary school. My hon. Friend's constituency is suffering from the benefits associated with success, which brings in its wake problems which should be borne in mind by the regional council.

Is the Minister aware of the vigorous campaign in Ayr to keep Castlehill primary school open? The campaign has the support of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and me, so it must be right. If the campaign is successful, the temporary buildings will be inadequate. Will the Minister therefore given an assurance that Strathclyde regional council will be allowed capital building consent to ensure that a new purpose-built school is provided for the pupils of Castlehill?

In distributing allocations to the regions, account is taken, as far as possible, of the needs throughout Scotland. Councils can supplement their education building programme by the use of capital receipts from the disposal of assets, by the use of revenue expenditure on capital works and by transferring resources from other capital programmes. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, which also apply to many other parts of Scotland, will be borne in mind.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss rural housing.

My right hon. Friend and I met the chairman of Scottish Homes in January to discuss a number of issues, including rural housing.

It is now two and a half years since, with a great fanfare, Scottish Homes launched its rural housing strategy. Does the Minister regard the more than 7,000 homelessness applications in rural and remote areas of Scotland in the past complete year as a sign of a strategy that is working? While Scottish Homes may have made a laudable effort to concentrate on 10 demonstration projects, they will not be of much use unless the lessons learnt can be applied to other rural regions of Scotland. When will Scottish Homes do that, and will the Government provide it with the resources to do so?

I am glad to report that Scottish Homes' programme for rural areas of Scotland will include more than £55 million—an increase of almost 22 per cent. over the planned expenditure for last year. That represents about one fifth of the total development programme. Scottish Homes is giving priority to the issue of homelessness in a number of ways. It has said that 7,000 units will be made available for waiting-list applicants and the statutorily homeless, and is developing a series of initiatives which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome, including one for £2 million to be made available for three years for furniture grants to housing associations.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that Scottish Homes is a major beneficiary of the autumn statement? Will he also confirm that a local authority should sell as many council houses as possible because it can reinvest all the proceeds during the current financial year?

I can confirm that Scottish Homes benefited considerably from the autumn statement when a £250 million debt was written off. Processing council house sales can be a substantial advantage and Scottish Homes does that to the benefit of its programmes.

When, on 17 February, the Minister cut next year's housing support grants to three quarters of the current year's, was he aware of the shocking findings of the Scottish Homes survey into the condition of Scottish housing which was posted to Members of Parliament on 22 February? Was he aware on 17 February that some 94,000 dwellings failed to meet the tolerable standard, 32,000 of them in rural areas and 62,000 in urban areas? Did he also know that one fifth of Scotland's housing stock has damp, condensation or mould? Whether or not he knew then, he knows now. What does he intend to do about it?

Scottish Homes is facilitating repairs or replacements of 1,000 below tolerable standard houses per year through the housing associations and other suppliers in Scotland. Since 1979, more than £1 billion has been spent on improvement grants and local authorities can target their resources on below tolerable standard housing. The house condition survey made it clear that 2 per cent. of Scotland's houses are suffering from severe damp and condensation and we shall give top priority to eradicating that as soon as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what speeches he has made in his ministerial capacity in 1993 on the subject of constitutional change in Scotland.

None.

It sounds as though the Secretary of State has been in constitutional purdah. Is there anything in the "taking stock" proposals which has not already been leaked to the press? If not, they seem to be mainly about increasing the Secretary of State's job description. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that there is a world of difference between increasing the democratic power of the Scottish nation and increasing the Secretary of State for Scotland's personal power of patronage? Will he undertake to put his proposals against independence in Europe and against devolution to the Scottish people in a constitutional referendum? If not, why not?

The hon. Gentleman will need to contain his impatience for a little longer; he will then discover precisely what our proposals include. But let me reassure him nothing in our proposals will do anything to undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom or Scotland's place in it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the arrogance of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in this matter defies belief'? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that at every general election without exception the Scottish Conservative party has returned more Members of Parliament to the House than has the Scottish National party, and that with our history, our record of commitment and our geographic spread of representation it is the Conservative party which is Scotland's national party?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Scottish National party talks readily about democracy, but I invite it to accept the verdict of the electorate who at the general election reduced its parliamentary representation by 40 per cent.

Does the Secretary of State begin to comprehend that constitutional change is not an end in itself but a means to an end? Does he not understand that 75 per cent. of Scottish voters want their own Parliament not for its own sake but because it frees them to make their own decisions about the future of Scottish water, Scottish local government and Scotland's railway system? Will he at least try to understand that whatever he announces next week about the stock-taking process, unless it frees Scottish democracy from the chains of the Westminster Parliament it will be decisively and deservedly rejected by the mass of the Scottish people?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of that small band, Scotland United, and a great evangeliser for his cause. I am indebted to The Scotsman, which points out:

"Scotland United has a new friend in the redoubtable form of none other than Fidel Castro, the president of Cuba."

"We had two hours with him and he was really interested in what Scotland United was about."

"Which is more than we've had from John Smith."

Can my right hon. Friend explain the Scottish National party's continual obsession with breaking up the United Kingdom? Is it not a fact that a united Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland comprises one of the most influential and powerful nations in the world? Would not a fragmented Scotland become like a big county council? That is not what Scotland or Great Britain wants—we want the Union.

I absolutely endorse every word said by my hon. Friend. We on this side of the House are proud not only of what Scotland has derived from the Union but of the benefits that Scotland has brought to the Union.

Is the Secretary of State aware that any company which took as long to stock take as he has done would be in compulsory liquidation by now? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the extent of his tinkering with our business arrangements over the next week or two will be no substitute for allowing the people of Scotland to determine their constitutional future?

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the time that we have taken. We have been thorough and careful in our deliberations. I note that Labour has not even begun to take stock.

Does the Secretary of State recall that of the 72 Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies, three support independence, 11 support the Conservative party, and 49—a very clear majority—represent the Labour party and support a Parliament within the United Kingdom? Does the Secretary of State intend to consult the people of Scotland? If not, will he accept the Bill that we shall present in the coming weeks and submit these matters to a referendum so that the people of Scotland can decide their future?

No, we will not. I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying hard to cobble together some kind of unity among his divided Back Benchers, but to suggest that the secretary-general of the Scottish Trades Union Congress can somehow act as an honest broker over the future of the Scottish Constitutional Convention is to clutch at straws. I know that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) supports that approach, but the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) described it as a non-starter and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) described it as a red herring. I do not have much hope for the prospects of unity in those discussions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his timetable and what are the proposals he expects to implement in connection with legislation concerning local government in Scotland.

My Department is currently analysing the responses to our consultation paper on local government reform, and the Government will take account of those responses when we make our decision on the new structure of unitary authorities in Scotland. We intend to publish a White Paper this summer setting out our proposals.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the strange and undemocratic practices of Monklands district council under Labour. Can he give an assurance that the legislative changes that he proposes will deal with them? In view of the Labour party's own admission that those practices are wrong, can my right hon. Friend further assure me that the £75 million of taxpayers' money spent annually by Monklands district council is properly spent? What does he think of the letter written to me the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), about the £200,000 of Monklands and taxpayers' money that has gone astray in the last few years?

I will want to consider the points that my hon. Friend put to me. Certainly the Labour party is in my hon. Friend's debt, because it was as a result of his interest in the matter that Labour established its own inquiry—the future of which we look forward to learning tomorrow. I hope that at that stage Members of Parliament who represent Monklands constituencies will finally take a close interest in the matter. After all, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said in a recent speech on standards in government:

"Having the same party in power for fourteen years, and the abuses of that power which we now witness, have served to expose serious systemic weaknesses."

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairs of the local enterprise companies in Scotland to discuss unemployment in their areas.

My right hon. Friend and I frequently meet chairmen of local enterprise companies to discuss a range of economic development and training issues.

How can LEC chairmen make plans for training, or deal with unemployment, when companies behave like Timex in Dundee, which sacked all its workers in the middle of a dispute? What have the Minister and the Secretary of State been able to do about the abuse of employment legislation that that company has visited on 343 workers since I raised the matter last Thursday?

The hon. Gentleman has indeed raised the matter with my right hon. Friend and me. As I believe, he knows, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service stands ready to assist if both parties to the dispute agree. That has not happened so far, but I know that the local enterprise company in his area is widely supported by the private sector and by local authorities.

Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of all Ayrshire Members for the tremendous achievement of Scottish Enterprise in retaining Digital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), which is adjacent to mine, thus saving some 1,000 jobs? Scottish Enterprise deserves our compliments.

I find myself in an unusual position: not only do I agree with my hon. Friend, which is fairly usual, but I endorse the public tribute paid by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to Locate in Scotland, which worked extremely hard to ensure the continuation of that highly successful operation in Ayrshire. I am sure that it will go from success to success.

Is the Minister aware that Fife Enterprise is struggling to deal with the second highest unemployment rate in Scotland? In south and east Rosyth, for instance, it has already reached 12–1 and 12.5 per cent. respectively, and unless the submarine refitting order is awarded to Rosyth dockyard it will soon be 30 per cent. or even higher. When does the Minister intend to meet representatives of Fife Enterprise—and, indeed, Fife regional council—to discuss the creation of jobs for the Fife area? When does he feel confident that he will be able to celebrate the award of the refitting order to Rosyth, thus saving 18,000 jobs related directly and indirectly to the dockyard and ensuring that they have a future in the Fife area?

The whole House will understand the hon. Lady's concern about what is an important matter for her constituency. As she knows, I am a Fifer myself. She will also know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is carefully considering the position of the dockyards. I assure her that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are in constant touch with Fife Enterprise, and we have every confidence in that body. It is widely supported, by the private sector, the regional council and the district councils.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members, as well as myself, attended a meeting of Nomura International, the well-known Japanese merchant bank? Is he aware that Nomura identified the social chapter as the single factor which would increase unemployment throughout the United Kingdom? Does my hon. Friend not find it amazing that Labour supports the social chapter?

I note from the cheers of Labour Members how strongly they agree with the sensible point made by my hon. Friend. Having been in Japan for a time last September—

Not in Scotland?

Let me tell the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) that Japanese companies in Lothian provide an enormous number of jobs and are constantly expanding and investing. I hoped that Opposition Members would join me in welcoming that.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to meet the chairman of Argyll and the Islands local enterprise company to discuss the effect on unemployment in Argyll and Bute of the announcement that it was to be excluded from objective 1 status?

And Moray.

And the effect on Moray, Arran and various other places. What has happened? Why has there been such confusion? Whose fault was it? Can the Minister assure us that Argyll and Bute will be included in objective 1 status when the matter goes before the Council of Ministers?

I appreciate the hon. Lady's point. As I think she will know, the territorial definitions are made by the European Commission itself. She will also know that the Government have consistently made the case for the whole highlands and islands enterprise area.

Reverting to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire), does my hon. Friend accept that those of us who have the honour and privilege to represent the south-west of England look at the question of the dockyards from a very different point of view and that we maintain firmly that, on any objective assessment, the submarine refitting order should go to Devonport?

I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will read my hon. Friend's comments.

Returning to the question of the enterprise boards in Scotland, has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with Forth Valley Enterprise and other enterprise schemes around Grangemouth port the deep concern that they feel about the dirty tricks which appear to have been played against the Forth ports, including Grangemouth, by Scottish Enterprise? Is he aware that the report compiled by PEIDA did not include a substantial number of facilities at the ports? It would appear that Locate in Scotland and Scottish Enterprise are attempting to sell the idea of a port at Rosyth, which might be welcome, by doing down and hiding from people facilities at the port of Grangemouth and elsewhere which have already received substantial investment. I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland about this. Has the issue been raised with him by the enterprise board chairman?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's letter to my right hon. Friend. Scottish Enterprise has been involved in a study of a possible port development at Rosyth; I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is apparently opposed to Scottish Enterprise considering developments which might involve net additional jobs for Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of COSLA to discuss the provision of local services.

My right hon. Friend met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 18 January. Further meetings, as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters, will be held later this year.

Is the Minister aware that while he spends his time trying to save Tory Eastwood district council from the effects of his own reforms, the people of Scotland spend their time worrying about the bread and butter issues that they face daily, such as damp, decaying housing, the upsurge in violent crime, the lack of proper community policing, the threat of water privatisation and the Government's failure to prepare properly for the community care of our elderly and disabled people? As they are all vital local services which are in the hands of local government, why does the Minister waste so much time trying to dismantle and destroy local government instead of strengthening and supporting it?

Aggregate 'external finance for local government in Scotland for the forthcoming year is £1,013 per head, compared with £690 per head in England and £812 per head in Wales. That is not destruction; that is a massive investment by the British taxpayer in local authority expenditure in Scotland, which is far higher than anywhere else in the country.

When my hon. Friend meets representatives of COSLA will he draw attention to the article in the Glasgow Herald which said that the Monklands mafia were to be taken to an industrial tribunal by those great friends of the Conservative party, the Transport and General Workers Union? Is not it about time that something was done about what is going on in that district council?

I know my hon. Friend's concern about those matters. His concern is shared by the Labour party —with the notable exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). We all hope that the inquiry will come to sensible conclusions. We have received many letters of complaint about what is going on in Monklands. I hope for the support of Opposition Members in wishing the Transport and General Workers Union well in its complaint to the industrial tribunal.

I notice that the Minister carefully did not refer to water privatisation when he answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster). The Scottish Minister with responsibility for agriculture and environment was more forthcoming when he replied to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). He suggested that the Government intend there to be meter options in April 1993, but the Minister has not mentioned that. May I give him a message from the people of Scotland? We do not want meters; we do not want water privatisation. If the Government franchise or privatise water the 49 Scottish Members of Parliament intend to take it back into public ownership.

I always listen to what the hon. Gentleman says, because he lives in a part of my constituency in which I cannot afford to live. I assure him that I completely support what my hon. Friend said in his letter. My hon. Friend will be answering a question on the subject shortly.

Does the Minister recall that he failed to answer the serious question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South about community care? Does he agree that the concerns are widely shared throughout Scotland—concerns about elderly people and the care gap in residential and nursing homes, concerns about people leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals and going into the community, and concerns about the multiply handicapped? Local authorities must address those issues, because of the changes that will happen on I April. In view of the absence of proper funding, how do the Government intend to deal with those matters—or do they intend to leave elderly, disabled and handicapped people and their carers with the impression that the Government simply have no strategy whatever and have even ignored the report from Sir Roy Griffiths, who warned them that if they did not act, chaos would prevail in community care?

The House expected the hon. Gentleman to defend Monklands district council and its employment policies and religious discrimination. Does the hon. Gentleman not defend every action of Monklands district council? 1 see that he sits silent and I am not surprised. In answer to his specific question, the Government have increased the resources for community care by more than the Department of Social Security would have spent in Scotland. The commitment to community care is absolutely clear and has been backed by massive extra resources.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people received legal aid in each of the last five years.

In 1987–88, there were 305,148 grants of legal aid and advice and assistance. This rose to 366,580 in 1991–92—an increase of just over 20 per cent. in five years. I will, with permission, Madam Speaker, arrange for the detailed numbers for the last five years to be printed in the Official Report and sent to the hon. Gentleman.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that information. Can he say why the Government, having gone some of the way towards reinstating the eligibility criteria for legal advice and assistance, are not prepared to go the whole way and raise the £44 threshold for eligibility for free civil legal aid? Why are the Government determined to deny easy access to justice for people on low incomes such as the disabled, pensioners and others with low basic incomes? Do not they care about justice in Scotland?

Indeed we do, and those on income support levels will continue to receive free civil legal aid and advice and assistance. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, in the light of consultation, the Government have decided to retain the contributory band in the case of advice and assistance. However, the hon. Gentleman should not seek to imply—I do not think that he meant to do so—that we are somehow cutting legal aid in Scotland. Expenditure on legal aid has doubled in the past six years and we are budgeting for a 40 per cent. increase between now and 1995–96.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that statistics provided by his own Government actually deny the figures that he has just given and that there has been very little increase in gross civil legal aid payments? The major jump has been in administrative costs. Is not the reality that changes in civil legal aid in Scotland are being tacked on to the changes in the English legal system, where there have been substantial increases? When shall we see the regulations which he is prepared to debate?

The answer to the hon. Lady's last question is shortly. In regard to comparisons with England, we would expect such issues to proceed broadly in line, taking account of the different circumstances north and south of the border. Let me assure the hon. Lady that, over the next two years, we expect that more people than ever before will receive legal aid and advice and assistance.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is a mark of a civilised society that all persons, irrespective of means, may have access to the legal system? It is perfectly clear from the proposals that he is about to bring forward that a substantial group of people who previously had access to the system through legal aid are to be denied that. Why is the Scottish Office following like a lapdog the experience in England? If the right hon. Gentleman were as independent as he claims to be, he would tell the Lord Advocate that we do not need to do in Scotland what the Lord Chancellor feels compelled to do in England and Wales.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have responsibilities north of the border, just as my right hon. and hon. Friends do south of the border, for ensuring that public resources are sensibly spent with proper care and attention to the interests of the taxpayers. However, as I have said already, we expect that more than ever before, not fewer, will be able to receive legal aid and advice and assistance over the next couple of years—something like half the households in the country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on equality of access to justice.

The Government are fully committed to ensuring that all citizens have, so far as possible, ready access to a high standard of justice.

Why have not the Government published the figures on which their claims for an increase in civil legal aid are based? The figures for 1987–1992 show that there is a tiny increase and the claim for changes in the regulations is based on the figures for this year. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish those figures when he releases them to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram)? Why are we having a cut when the citizens advice bureaux report that in significant areas of Scotland there is no civil legal aid because lawyers cannot afford to do it?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to table some specific questions, I will ensure that they are answered, giving such figures as are available. As I have said, expenditure on legal aid has doubled in the past six years from £49 million in 1987–88 to an estimated £100 million in the current year. That is a substantial increase and we are budgeting for a 40 per cent. increase by 1995–96.

Is the Minister aware that, over the past 20 years, many thousands of women have used legal aid to raise actions aimed at protecting themselves and their children from violence? Will the Government therefore support the campaign against domestic violence launched by Edinburgh district council's women's committee and the Edinburgh Evening News by ensuring that the cruel legal aid proposals are scrapped and by giving a more generous donation to Scottish Women's Aid? Its grant is not keeping up with its funding requirements and is falling behind all the time as a proportion of its total expenditure.

Our proposals will have no effect on the eligibility of that category.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to alleviate homelessness in Scotland.

Local authorities have the statutory responsibility for dealing with homelessness. Their capital allocations this year total over £456 million and the Government have consistently emphasised the need to give due priority to homelessness. We have backed this up with extra capital allocations of over £22 million earmarked for homelessness projects over the period 1991 to 1993.

These are empty words when one considers the fact that there were 7,000 applications last year in rural Scotland under the homelessness legislation. Over the past eight years, the total figure has increased by 180 per cent., which is a shame on the Government. Do not the Government recognise that the simple way in which to deal with the problem is not to talk about more hostels and more bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but to give the local authorities money to build houses for reasonable rent? There is no other way in which to deal with the problem effectively.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this afternoon we are making a £2.5 million supplementary allocation. Inverness district council will benefit by £100,000 owing to a shortfall of receipts. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that over the past 10 years £10 million has been allocated through urban aid for homelessness projects. More than 1,200 housing association units have been grant aided over the past three years and some 450 homeless persons and families were provided with permanent accommodation by housing associations in 1991–92. Local authorities are expected to give priority to homelessness within their mainstream allocation.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) used the phrase "empty words". Will my hon. Friend comment on the vast number of empty council houses in Labour-controlled councils throughout Scotland?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We want to bring empty houses back into use wherever they exist. Several study groups are looking into the matter and are considering not only local authority housing, but housing in the charge of Government Departments. We will take every possible measure to ensure that empty property is brought back into use.

Is the Minister aware that the extra money that was allocated to the homeless in Renfrew district will give us three houses? Is he aware that Scottish Homes has thousands of houses in Renfrew district and in Scotland generally? It is not playing a meaningful role in helping the district council to alleviate homelessness because it continues to sell houses that should be allocated to people who live in the local area.

Scottish Homes has taken action with local authorities on nomination agreements, which many local authorities have, and it has said that 7,000 units will be made available for waiting list applicants. I shall check on the position in Renfrew district. However, it has a good record overall and the many strategic agreements formed with local authorities take that factor into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has held with banks in Scotland about bank charges and the effect of changes in the charges on the viability of Scottish businesses, jobs and individuals with low fixed incomes.

My right hon. Friend and I have frequent contacts with the Scottish banks which enable matters of this kind to be discussed as necessary. The levels of charges that the banks apply for particular services are, however, a matter for their commercial judgment.

Is the Minister aware that thousands of people are suffering from high bank charges? I give him one example, that of Mrs. Margaret Reid who lives at Easthouses in my constituency. A miner's widow, she is being charged £3 by the Royal Bank of Scotland for every transaction, for which she must pay out of her small pension. When she told the bank that she wanted to withdraw her account, she was told that she would be charged £10 to do that. Does he believe that people on such low incomes should be fleeced by the greedy banks?

I cannot comment on the case which the hon. Gentleman raises. I am surprised that, as the lady's constituency hon. Member, he has not taken the opportunity to raise the matter with the Royal Bank. In general terms, I refer him to a recent survey by the Forum of Private Business, which concluded:

"In almost every aspect, the Scottish banks were perceived in a superior light to the English banks, including bank charges, interest rates, collateral, indices of quality and banking relationships."

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding Operation Blade carried out by Strathclyde police; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce proposals to amend the law relating to sentences available to sheriffs for those convicted of carrying knives or other such instruments.

My right hon. Friend has received no representations concerning Operation Blade, but we strongly welcome the steps that have been taken by Strathclyde police to deal with the serious and growing problem of the carrying of knives. Operation Blade is an innovative strategy by the force and the first of its kind in Scotland. More than 4,500 weapons have already been surrendered. The Government will be supporting the Bill introduced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) to strengthen the law on the carrying of knives in public.

Will the Minister confirm that I have been raising with him the issue of crimes of violence For the past five years? Will he further confirm that last year I asked him to declare an amnesty and that he refused, on the basis that to do so, so soon after 1988, would debase its value? Is not it a fact that as Operation Blade has resulted in nearly 5,000 weapons being removed from the streets of Strathclyde, it is the Government who are debased? Why has it taken campaigns by the Glasgow Evening Times and the Scottish Daily Record to get the Government to act?

Order. Before we proceed further, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not allowed to bring such an implement into the Chamber, or indeed into the House.

I apologise, Madam Speaker.

The hon. Member has been here long enough to be aware of such matters. [Interruption.] I am sure that, at my request, he will remove it from the Chamber. I should be most grateful if he would.

rose—

Order. Before we proceed, I am sure that the hon. Member will agree to do as I say.

Yes, Madam Speaker. I will do that immediately.

Will he do it quickly, so that he can then hear the Minister's reply to his supplementary question?

I welcome the fact that Opposition Members are coming round to the Government's way of thinking on the need for a really strong law and order policy in this country. Only a short time ago they opposed the police having powers of search. The importance of the Bill is that it alters the onus of proof, which will make prosecutions easier. The existing provisions under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 relate to the carrying of weapons and require the Crown to prove intent to injure. Under the Bill, it will not be necessary to prove that intent and that will take the policy much further forward. If the hon. Gentleman feels passionately about the issue, however, will he please make representations to Strathclyde regional council's Labour group and ask it to strengthen the police force, which is some 200 under strength at present?

Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks for the time given by Scottish Office officials in preparing the Bill that will make the carrying of knives in public an offence? Will he welcome the support given by Opposition Members and does he agree that this is only one small step to redress an unacceptable position?

Yes, I can confirm that there is no stronger supporter of law and order in the House than my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. I have no doubt that, with a general consensus of support for tightening the measures in relation to knives, we will strengthen law and order.

In January we had the planted question; now we have the planted Bill. Despite enormous public concern in Scotland at the ever-increasing incidence of violence involving knives, the Minister of State only last week stated that the Government were unwilling to make parliamentary time available to fulfil the Conservative party's election manifesto commitment on knives. Eight days after that statement and one day after I presented my Bill to ban the carrying of knives, the hon. Member for Ayr was furnished by the Government with a Bill to do just that.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes, of course I will meet him. May I add that maximum penalties are now available. For example, if someone were to use a knife, he could be sentenced to life imprisonment on indictment. The Bill ensures that those who carry knives where no intent is proved can be proceeded against. That strengthens the powers of the police and also makes it easier to prosecute. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the measure.

Before my hon. Friend jumps on the bandwagon of Mr. Boutros Boutros's Bill, may I remind the House what the law is? It is more than adequate. Under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, it is an offence punishable by two years' imprisonment—more than is sought in the Bill—to carry any offensive weapon in any public or private place, the proof of the carrier's intention, being neutral, being upon him. Furthermore, the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1961 provides for the prevention of sale of offensive weapons. If the Government do not know what the law is, it is time that they did.

My hon. and learned Friend is a brilliant man, but he is not always right. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr changes the burden of proof by requiring the accused to demonstrate lawful authority or reasonable excuse for carrying the implement. That undoubtedly takes us further forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss the economy and employment.

I have frequent meetings with the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a range of economic, employment and training issues in Scotland.

Leaving aside for the moment the intense local speculation concerning Mimtec and Faulds Farm, Gourock, may I remind the Secretary of State that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), told me just 13 days ago that more than 48,000 people in Strathclyde, 2,000 of whom live in Inverclyde, have been unemployed for more than 12 months? Will the Secretary of State ensure that Scottish Enterprise involves itself in the sale of Scott Lithgow so that more employment may be provided in the area? Does he agree that if Scott Lithgow were brought into the enterprise zone it would be very attractive to a potential inward investor in shipbuilding or shiprepairing?

The hon. Gentleman must know that I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to change the boundaries of the enterprise zone. However, the very existence of the enterprise zone, together with the other benefits, schemes and initiatives that the Government and Scottish Enterprise bring to Inverclyde and other parts of Scotland, has helped to sustain the area's economy quite effectively during the period of recession. The hon. Gentleman mentioned unemployment. He should not overlook the brighter signs. Unemployment in his constituency, far from rising in the past year, has fallen. Although the level is still too high, it is more than 4,000 lower than it was six years ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under the rules governing assisted area status and enterprise zones and the European Commission's rules, only 15 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom may have assisted area status? In view of the great success of Scottish Enterprise in bringing jobs to Scotland, is not it now time for the assisted area status of some Scottish areas to be given up to other parts of the United Kingdom? It is clear that those parts of Scotland no longer need assistance.

As my hon. Friend knows, the assisted areas map is drawn on an even-handed basis across the United Kingdom, taking account of objective criteria that have been agreed. In this respect, Scotland is no different from Northern Ireland, Wales or England. However, the assisted areas map is under review. The issue is being carefully considered to ensure that we get the right structure and the right map for the future.

What progress has the Secretary of State made in pursuing companies that came to Irvine, were given massive grants and have now left without repaying any money to Scottish Enterprise? What progress has been made towards recovering this money?

Regional assistance is carefully controlled. Resources have to be repaid if the investment to which they relate is not undertaken within a certain time limit. That happens on rare occasions. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any cases in his constituency, I shall certainly follow them up and give him a detailed and specific reply.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the work of Scottish charities in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received no specific representations and while the Scottish Office has no responsibility for the work of Scottish charities in eastern Europe, he associates himself with the widespread appreciation of their efforts.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate Scottish European Aid—formerly Romania Project UK —on the excellence of its work at lonaseni orphanage and Podriga hospital? Will he support Scottish European Aid's appeal for a mobile medical camp for Bosnia's stricken refugees?

I will consider my hon. Friend's request for assistance for the Edinburgh headquarters and I will write to him as soon as possible with regard to ways forward. On the question of training schemes, we should need detailed information, but we will consider the situation sympathetically. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work, not only in founding the all-party campaign for inter-country adoption but for the orphanage in Ionaseni, Romania, and the psychiatric hospital at Podriga. I understand that rehabilitation of buildings at Tuzla, too, is proceeding. We warmly welcome the work of Scottish European Aid and wish it every success.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received the health board's recommendations regarding the future of Stobhill hospital.

The Greater Glasgow health board has yet to conclude its review of acute and maternity services. Stobhill hospital features as part of that review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks forward to receiving the health board's recommendations in due course.

Will the Minister tell the health board and its new chairman that Stobhill is an excellent facility at the north end of the city? It serves not only my constituency but many other constituencies in Glagow—and, indeed, Strathkelvin and further afield as far as Kilsyth and Torrance. To lose the facility will mean a lot of harm to the health of many thousands of people. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that we have a first-class team in Stobhill from the doctors down to the domestics. I hope that the hospital has a good future.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. The review to which I referred is about putting patients first and providing patients with important services. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, once the recommendations of the board are with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, they will be happy to meet him to discuss the matter in detail.