To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of reinstating rail services from Carstairs to Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations from local interested parties about rail services from Carstairs to Edinburgh. The detailed operation of the railways, including the precise level of services to be offered on individual lines, is, however, a matter for British Rail.

The Minister is aware that Carstairs rail junction used to be known as the gateway to Scotland. Is he further aware that since InterCity ceased to stop trains at Carstairs, my 50,000 Clydesdale constituents have been deprived of rail services to the capital city of Scotland? Will he reflect on what he has told the House and arrange a meeting—a meeting that I would want to attend—to encourage InterCity to reinstate rail services between Carstairs and Edinburgh? That would not only open up employment and cultural pursuits for my 50,000 constituents but open up the Clyde valley for tourism.

The detailed operation of the railways, including the precise level of services on individual lines is, at present, a matter for British Rail. British Rail is encouraged to tailor its service to meet the markets concerned. The Secretary of State for Transport, because of his overall responsibilities for railways, may, however, give British Rail such directions as he thinks fit, with regard to recommendations made by transport users' consultative committees. I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's representations to him.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg t o give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to assess public opinion in Scotland on his White Paper, "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good", Cm. 2225.

The response to the White Paper "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good" has been generally very favourable.

If the Secretary of State is still afraid to take up my suggestion of a referendum along the lines set out in my Bill, will he take up an alternative suggestion to test the White Paper proposal for an enhanced role for the Scottish Grand Committee? Will the Government table a substantive motion for a full-day debate in Scotland in that Committee and give the Opposition parties the opportunity to table, debate and vote on amendments to it so that the Government can ascertain, and act upon, the majority view of the elected representatives of the people of Scotland, most of whom want a real Scottish parliament rather than the Mickey Mouse White Paper, which proposes no genuine transfer of voting power from this place?

A referendum was not part of the proposals that we included in the White Paper, and we do not contemplate proceeding in that direction; nor was the suggestion that we should establish a separate Scottish parliament. Central to the White Paper was our commitment to maintaining the integrity of this Parliament of the United Kingdom. As to the views of other parties, I shall be consulting in due course and there will be opportunities, if any amendments to Standing Orders are required, for such matters to be debated.

As the Government flounder for a new bank holiday, may I suggest that it should be on I May? That would give the Opposition the impression that it was union day, when it was actually the day on which the treaty of Union 1707 came into force and it is one of the most important circumstances in our history.

My hon. and learned Friend makes an interesting suggestion. It is worth noting that the May day holiday has existed in Scotland for more than 100 years. It existed long before the Labour party and it will probably long outlast the Labour party.

Is not one of the key arguments in "Partnership for Good" for a new relationship within the United Kingdom, with Scotland's subordinate position being changed? Has the Secretary of State deployed that new relationship with the oil tax changes announced in the Budget? Did he know about them before they were announced? Does he now understand that they will cost thousands of jobs in Scotland? Has he done anything since the Budget to try to alter the changes—or has he just been, in Lord Boothby's term, the scullery maid of the Cabinet attempting to clear up the mess that his political betters have left behind?

Only an hon. Member with the inferiority complex of the hon. Gentleman would regard Scotland's role as in any way subordinate. Scotland is a full partner in the United Kingdom and our White Paper "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good" reasserts that. Within this unitary Parliament and within this United Kingdom, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for taxation matters. I am sure that he will take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's point.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no better commendation of the White Paper than the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) who, at a recent Scottish Grand Committee meeting, pleaded for the Minister responsible for health to be present? For the benefit of those on the Opposition Front Bench, will my right hon. Friend explain that the implementation of "Scotland in the Union" would permit that Minister to participate in future Scottish Grand Committees? Does he agree that all hon. Members should join the hon. Member for Maryhill in welcoming our right hon. and learned Friend from another place?

My hon. Friend has identified an important point in the White Paper. Its proposals include providing an opportunity for greater scrutiny of Scottish Office Ministers, including the opportunity to ask questions of Ministers from another place. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be interested in pursuing that opportunity.

Is not it true that the White Paper "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good" has been received in our country with all the joy that a paperback edition of "Satanic Verses" might have been received had it arrived in down-town Tehran? Is not it also true that the long labour to produce that White Paper has been followed by what looks to be an equally long period of "due course"—as the Secretary of State puts it—before the Government take stock of the Opposition's responses?

Perhaps I do not get about as much as the hon. Gentleman, but I do not know what sells in down-town Tehran. However, I can tell him that the publication of the White Paper received an extremely favourable response throughout Scotland. I feel sure that when we bring more detailed proposals before the House, they will find favour with the Opposition.

As the proposals in the White Paper, however welcome, are really quite minor, why has it taken so long to implement them? When will we have that first opportunity, to which the right hon. Gentleman keeps referring, to question him in the Scottish Grand Committee?

The implementation of a number of the proposals in the White Paper is already under way. I said at the time of publication that I envisaged that any amendments to the Standing Orders of the House would start in the next parliamentary Session. Between now and then, there will be an opportunity to consider what amendments might be necessary, what views people of other parties put forward, and how best to proceed.

Is not it a disgrace that the Secretary of State should even hint at his concern for public opinion? Why is it that in Scotland, with so many people opposed to water privatisation, the right hon. Gentleman is willing to spend vast sums of taxpayers' money behind closed doors to further that issue?

Not only are the hon. Gentleman's figures on water and youth training places wrong, but he knows that they are wrong. He has had the facts pointed out to him and he knows how misleading he has been on those matters. However, the water case at any rate will be aired in future questions when the answer will be spelt out to him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received about water privatisation in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 4,834 individual responses to the consultation on water and sewerage services, and 1,237 other letters about the future of the services since 17 November last year.

Does the Minister agree that chaos and misery have been created south of the border with 8,000 disconnections in 1989–90, 21,000 in 1990–92 and another 8,000 in 1991–92 in the Thames water authority? Those are shocking figures. Seven water authorities have doubled their disconnections, while salaries for managers and directors have increased. Will the Government never learn that the people of Scotland do not want privatisation or franchising? They want to keep their water in public hands.

The hon. Gentleman, like so many of his hon. Friends, jumps to conclusions. We have put forward eight suggestions and we are quite prepared to consider other methods of sorting out water in Scotland after the unitary authorities have been introduced. At present, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no disconnection in Scotland. We shall have to wait and see what legislation is required. But, in the meantime, I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that local authorities in Scotland are finding plenty of ways of collecting water charges without the need for disconnection.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that among the representations that he has received, there have been representations from me, which have clearly suggested that the Government of Scotland must address the fact that we no longer have a means of measuring our entitlement from the public purse, because there is no allocation to England and our share of zero is exactly that—zero? Consequently, we must examine ways in which private money can reach the Scottish water industry in order, first, to take it out of the public sector borrowing requirement and, secondly, so that we do not use money that would otherwise be spent on hospitals and other important matters in our constituencies.

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a number of important points and his representations on the consultation document are being carefully analysed. What he has said is correct. A great deal of money has to be spent in future and the ways and means of providing it is part of the reason that we are dealing with the responses to the consultation document.

As the Secretary of State is leaving the Under-Secretary of State to answer all the difficult questions, will the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) tell us why the cost of privatisation has gone up so rapidly since the £50,000 estimate was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) last year? Why, having spent £100,000 on consultants, are the Government planning to spend £400,000, and where is the money going? If the latest estimate of £2·5 billion to meet EC conditions is accepted by the Government, why do not they meet the local authorities, which are perfectly capable of responding to that figure? Above all, since my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) asked the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question, will the Under-Secretary ask the Secretary of State to do what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did, and drop the whole crazy idea of water privatisation?

I certainly have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman's involvement in the matter, because for some months I have had a postcard on my desk showing the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) in a rather droochit boat, trying to catch something better than a cold. His hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has been misleading Scotland about the cost of water in the past 24 hours. His radio discussion this morning was disgraceful, as he said that water costs had been reduced to £2·5 billion and he is totally wrong. He misread his question, which dealt solely with the European Community directive, and my answer, and he forgot the £2·5 billion required for infrastructure in Scotland, so he was wrong in both cases and he shot himself badly in both feet. The money for Quayle Munro, including the intial tranche and going through the consultation responses, was budgeted for and the rest of the money is certainly there to pay the salaries of the civil servants who are dealing with water, whichever route we decide to take.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on educational standards in Scotland.

Scottish education enjoys a high reputation, which is well deserved. The Government's programme of educational reform in Scotland will improve standards further, through changes in curriculum and assessment, teacher development and appraisal, the devolution of management to schools and more and better information to parents. All those initiatives are under way and yielding results.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that an important part of the improvements in education that the Government are determined to introduce is more involvement for parents in the choice of their children's schools, and that we are looking forward to the day when parents are as welcome in schools as they are in Jenners in Princes street, Edinburgh or in Marks and Spencer? Will he outline the ways in which his Department is going about giving parents greater opportunity to contribute and to choose their children's schools in Scotland, so that we can learn about it down here in the south?

I thank my hon. Friend and strongly agree. I do not believe that a little information is a dangerous thing—parents need more glasnost, not less. We have consulted on better information for parents and have received about 300 responses. We are going to take action in that connection and, by early summer, we shall have drawn up a revised circular and regulations. The two sets of regulations will be put before Parliament and will come into effect early in August. Four of the relevant subjects that we intend to cover are pupil attendance and truancy rates; school exam results; school leaver destinations; and school costs, so we are definitely taking action.

The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) could learn more from her area. I have a letter in front of me from a demoralised head teacher in that area, who is complaining about the Government's interference, is weary of being blamed for everything, including the moral decline of society. He states unequivocally that the people responsible are those who have been in power for the past 14 years. Does not the Minister think that the hon. Lady could learn from Scottish education, not least over testing, where changes to the national curriculum in England and Wales followed a successful campaign by parents and teachers in Scotland? Does he agree that comprehensive education has resulted in increased standards and qualifications in Scotland and that such a system, which does not reject 80 per cent. of our young people at a tender age, is good for the aspirations and talents of young people and for Scottish society? Does not the hon. Lady have a lot to learn from Scottish society and education?

All European educational systems have a certain amount to learn from each other. Testing in Scotland is designed to operate as part of our distinctive five to 14 development programme, but the principles underlying our policies are the same north and south of the border—to ensure that pupils are regularly tested against a national standard and at defined stages of the curriculum and that the results are reported to parents. Standards have risen and we have made a lot of effort, through assessment and achievement programmes, research, regular inspection and reports by inspectors—who do an extremely good job. We have information on the level of success of pupils in standard grade, higher and other awards. We have national testing, which will give the teacher a view of a pupil's progress compared with national standards—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] It certainly is not rubbish and it is being delivered.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the figures for reported cases of truancy in Scottish secondary schools in (a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1992; and if he will make a statement.

No accurate truancy figures are available for those years, but we plan to lay before Parliament this summer regulations that will require education authorities to collect comprehensive information on attendance and truancy rates, and to include those figures in school handbooks.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a recent speech made in my constituency, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that truancy and juvenile crime were inextricably linked? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will examine more imaginative ways of combating truancy in schools, including raising the level of parental fines and introducing the suspension or reduction of family allowance payments to the parents of wilful and persistent truants?

I agree that truancy can not only blight education, but because the incidence of youth crime. The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 includes a provision for parents who are brought before a court in this connection——

rose——

There goes a truant.

Order. I have a good sense of humour, but I think that we ought to proceed with Question Time.

The penalty for parents who allow their children to play truant regularly is substantial: a fine of up to £1,000, one month in prison or both. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), however, that I do not consider reducing family allowance payments made to the parents of persistent truants to be the best option at present. Many other measures can be taken, including involving parents at a very early stage; I support that.

I am glad to see that a truant from Billericay has managed to return to the fold after a brief disappearance—[HON. MEMBERS: "She is missing again."] Ah, she is missing again.

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is on the wrong question. The question relates to truancy in Scotland, and I have just given permission for one hon. Member to leave. Let us move on.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the £55,000 paid to Touche Ross for a report by Anna Capaldi on the financing of local government reform he has asked to be returned to the Scottish Office.

My right hon. Friend has not asked for the return of any of the fee paid to Touche Ross for its report on the financing of local government reform; nor does he intend to. The consultants delivered a helpful report on an acceptable time scale.

Ought the taxpayer to pay up in full for a report that is so flawed that Bruce Mackie, the Conservative leader of Tayside council, describes it as having been blown out of the water by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy?

The hon. Gentleman has secured an Adjournment debate about the matter on Friday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's question. In that debate, the issues that he has raised can be debated more fully

When examining the figures in the Touche Ross report and considering local government reform in Scotland, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not simply a question of the number of local authorities concerned? It is also a question of the way in which those authorities will conduct their business. Is it not important for us to have well-run authorities, delivering local services efficiently?

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. What will matter is exactly what local authorities do in practice under the new structure. My hon. Friend will also be interested to know that in his own region of the country, Aberdeen City district council, which is run by the Labour party, said of the Touche Ross report that

"Many of the cost assumptions which can be checked have been shown not to be unreasonable, while further sensitivity analysis has been carried out."

If statements are regarded as fantastic, why does the Minister not only publish the full report but all the papers and evidence so that it is available in the public domain and people can make up their own minds? Above all, instead of this flimsy response to local government problems and a reference to an Adjournment debate, important though that is but which few people will hear about, why can there not be a proper commission and a proper review of local government, such as that which is taking place in England?

First, I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's question. We have published the full Touche Ross report. I am sorry that he has not read it.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. I cannot take points of order at this stage.

The Minister has misunderstood the question.

Order. I am sure that the Minister has got the question.

I must repeat that the Touche Ross report has been published in full. Some of the fantastic figures that the hon. Gentleman has put forward in the press about the costs of local government reorganisation are as realistic as the chances of democracy in the Monklands Labour party.

I noticed that in answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) the Minister damned the report with faint praise. He said that its conclusions were broadly acceptable, but he did not say that they were accurate. So that we have an informed debate, not one in which fantastic figures fly around, can the Minister tell us what the cost of savings will be for each of the four different structures that were announced in the Government's consultative document, on the basis of any revised figures that he has received from Touche Ross?

We have not received any revised figures from Touche Ross. We made it absolutely clear in the consultation paper that we would look at the figures in the light of further evidence. That is to be found in paragraphs 5.14 and 5.15 of the consultation paper. Of course we are looking at the Touche Ross figures in the light of the variety of comments upon them, even though many of them have been mutually contradictory. When we publish the White Paper we shall publish the estimates of cost associated with the preferred structure.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Touche Ross report referred to the benefits of compulsory competitive tendering, which has enabled local authorities to give the same or a better service, at much less cost to the taxpayer? Did the Touche Ross report also refer to the cost of nepotism, as practised in Monklands?

The Touche Ross report did not refer to the second matter raised by my hon. Friend, although it has been widely referred to in other ways. I agree with my hon. Friend about the immense benefits that local authorities can gain by pursuing compulsory competitive tendering. That is proved by the gains that many local authorities, even under the present structure, have achieved by pursuing compulsory competitive tendering in Scotland.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, it was extremely far-seeing of you to give us an Adjournment debate on Friday.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many constituents of Renfrew, West and Inverclyde have written to him at the Scottish Office in the last eight months.

Correspondence with the Scottish Office is not normally categorised by constituency, except when received from Members of Parliament. I have received 19 letters from the hon. Gentleman in the past eight months.

I warn the Secretary of State that he will be receiving more letters from my constituents and from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 20,000 of our womenfolk and constituents are living in anguish and anger over the results—or, rather, the lack of results—of smear tests? Those women are calling on the Government to ensure that the inquiry involves no cover-up; that there is no lack of funds available to ensure that the tests are carried out speedily; and that this blunder will never ever be repeated in the health service. Will the Government ensure that there is no cover-up; that the results are circulated quickly to ensure that our constituents can sleep in peace; that the women affected are treated expeditiously, with no lack of funds to the national health service?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that I—in my statement to the House last Thursday—and my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office have made clear the importance that we attach to the need to have this matter concluded as quickly and effectively as possible. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that nine other health boards, in collaboration with the Argyll and Clyde health board, are allowing their laboratory facilities to be used. A large batch of results should be sent out by the middle of May and most of the women involved will have heard the results of their first re-examination by the beginning of June.

Although the Opposition were satisfied with the Minister's immediate response last Wednesday, questions have certainly arisen since. Why were any slides sent to a small private laboratory rather than to other NHS laboratories within Scotland, as was clearly the Minister's intention last Wednesday? How many slides were sent to that small private laboratory and why was there delay in taking up the Minister's own directive of last Wednesday that the matter should be dealt with within the health service?

Some 2,000 slides have been processed and the results are now known. A further 1,000 slides from the original 2,000 that were sent to Mediscreen will be reported on by Friday. The remaining 16,000 slides are being sent to other NHS laboratories and, as I told the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), we hope that a large batch of results will be announced by mid-May. Great care is being taken over this matter and all possible speed will be made in ensuring that accurate answers are released to the women involved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for all-party talks on the future government and administration of Scotland.

I intend to invite representatives of Opposition parties in Scotland to meet me in due course to discuss the proposed changes in parliamentary procedure announced in the White Paper "Scotland in the Union: a Partnership for Good".

As there is increasing concern about the lack of progress in resolving matters concerning the administration and government of Scotland, can the Secretary of State tell us even one reason why the Scottish Conservative party is opposed to round table talks with the other three main political parties in Scotland about Scotland's future?

The matter is being pursued not by the Scottish Conservative party but by Her Majesty's Government. We will pursue the matter in the way that I have described and will in due course lay before the House proposals on which I hope we shall have broad cross-party agreement.

When my right hon. Friend meets the other parties from Scotland, will he bear in mind that the comments during the passage of the Maastricht legislation make it clear that if the treaty comes into force and we are bound by it, with subsidiarity and the creation of, for example, the Committee of the Regions, it will lead to structures under which the United Kingdom will be broken up and it will be a vehicle for separatists? Will he also bear that in mind when considering the changes affecting Scotland?

Although of close interest to him, the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred are not part of the subject matter of the White Paper. I hope that he will agree that the best way of maintaining the United Kingdom is to maintain a united Government and a united Conservative party.

If the Secretary of State says no to all-party talks on the establishment of a Scottish parliament, if he continues to say no to 61 of Scotland's 72 elected representatives who are demanding a Scottish parliament, and if he also says no to a referendum on the establishment of a Scottish parliament, how will he assess public opinion in Scotland on that critical issue? Will he talk to the trees or just to the dense undergrowth that sits beside him and behind him on the Government Benches? They do not represent Scottish opinion which remains overwhelmingly in favour of a return to Scottish democracy by the establishment of a directly elected Scottish parliament sitting in Edinburgh and not down here in England.

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should think that he represents Scottish opinion on the matter. He does not even represent his own party on it; he represents the separatist wing of the Labour party. There are also in the Labour party devolutionists, federalists and, I am glad to say, a large number of unionists. The unity of the United Kingdom was the issue at the general election, and the verdict of the electorate was clear.

Since 82 per cent. of the Scots who live in Britain live in England, and since 90 per cent. of the Scots who live in the world do not live in Britain, is not all the nonsense about Scottish government irrelevant? If we are talking about Scottish assemblies, will my right hon. Friend remember that there used to be a kingdom of Fife, and may we be separated from the Scottish assembly? If I do not like that, may Fordell castle be separated from Fife?

As usual, my hon. and learned Friend has the capacity to ask the unanswerable. Let me assure him that the people of the United Kingdom and of Scotland gave their verdict at the general election last year. That was that they wanted to keep Britain united.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Strathclyde regional council about the level of Government support for regional council financial aid to ScotRail services and maintenance programmes within Strathclyde region.

My right hon. Friend has received no representations about the level of Government support for regional council financial aid to ScotRail services and maintenance programmes within Strathclyde region.

Does the Minister accept that Government cuts in financial support have affected the relationship between Strathclyde regional council and ScotRail, resulting in pressure on ScotRail to cut costs by reducing safety standards through the installation of single-lead junctions, particularly at Newton, the location of a crash which was caused by a single-lead junction? Will the Minister give a commitment that Government finance will be forthcoming to implement the removal of all single-lead junctions, not only in Strathclyde but throughout Scotland?

The matter has been discussed in the Standing Committee on the Railways Bill, and I understand that action is being taken. I will ensure that the hon. Member's representations are passed on. With regard to the financial settlement to the region, it is 5 per cent. more than in 1992–93, well ahead of current and projected rates of inflation. The overall resources available to Strathclyde regional council next year are expected to be at least at the level of the resources provisionally notified for last year. Of course, Strathclyde council has discretion to vire from one programme to another if it so wishes, but the settlement was generous. I will make sure that the specific point on safety is passed on.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he intends to meet COSLA to discuss local government services.

I addressed the annual conference of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 26 March. My right hon. Friend and I will be meeting the convention later this year as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.

If the Government insist on continuing with the unwanted and unnecessary reform of local government, does the Minister agree that all the existing services provided by local government should continue to be provided by a direct democratically elected local government? If so, does he believe that he should stop his open and active campaigning for the retention of Eastwood district council as a single absurd unitary authority which made a nonsense of the consultation process on local government reform? Does he accept that the logic of his argument means that Eastwood should be part of a Greater Glasgow council that is democratically elected? Does he also agree that it would be obscenely unfair if his wealthy constituents in Giffnock and Whitecraigs should sponge off my poorer constituents in Castlemilk when they use the facilities provided by Glasgow?

May I first wish the hon. Gentleman many happy returns on his birthday? I am sure that hon. Members will agree that he is wearing well. He will not be surprised to learn that I wholly disagree with him and deprecate his remarks, as do, for example, the Labour leadership in Strathkelvin district council. I suggest that he consults them on his plans for a Greater Glasgow. Objectively, one might look at what has happened, for example, to Roukenglen Park. Glasgow district council wanted to walk away from it, but it is now a major excellent asset for the whole community under Eastwood district council. That is a classic example of the success of Conservative local government policies in action.

When my hon. Friend meets COSLA, will he discuss the employment practices of Scottish councils? While English Members find many Scottish customs both colourful and quaint, one that we find extremely strange is the practice of issuing green forms to general job applicants and pink forms to applicants who apply through councillors or who are relatives of councillors at Monklands council. Does that novel application of the share and share alike principle account for the fact that no fewer than 22 close relatives of councillors are employed at Monklands council?

I think the figure may be higher than that. My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted matters of major concern to people in local government in Scotland. What is absolutely astonishing is that the shadow Secretary of State and the leader of the Labour party have remained silent on this matter for months, even though it directly affects their constituents at least one way or the other. They are capable of commenting on anything except this matter which affects their constituents.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the outcome of the consultation on the future of water and sewerage services; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make a statement on the future of water services in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend will make an announcement on the future of water and sewerage services in Scotland in due course.

Is the Minister aware of the devastation caused by the disconnection of domestic water supplies to tens of thousands of individuals and families in England and Wales? If so, why did he say in a letter to me that the Government will consider such powers in Scotland? Will he give an absolute guarantee that there will he no disconnection of household water supplies and that this obscenity will never be visited on Scotland?

I am really rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask a question on water when he is quoted in The Scotsman as saying:

"sabotage could mean everything from turning a tap off to blowing a pipe right up…when we threaten, we will deliver."

Can the Minister name any people or organisations in Scotland who have written to him supporting water privatisation?

Yes, indeed, I could. If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Library he can wade through the list and see the number of people who have supported it. I accept that many more have been against privatisation, but all the Opposition Members jump to conclusions. They think that the horse called privatisation is past the post. The fact is that there are still eight or nine other runners in the starting stall. It will be up to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide later this summer which style we shall use to bring good quality water services to Scotland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than scaremongering with this emotive claptrap, the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) should address the main issue of how to fund £5 billion of capital expenditure on water services and sewage treatment during the next 10 to 15 years? Does he agree that the most important decision to be taken is how to fund that expenditure at the least possible cost to the taxpayer?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not know why the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) cannot understand the difference between £2·5 billion and £5 billion. We have to accept that, whatever happens, water charges are steadily increasing and have increased dramatically in the past few years. It is the duty of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to provide the best service in the future and to provide the best quality water and sewerage in Scotland. That is what we will do and we shall announce how later this summer.

Will my hon. Friend confirm to the House that, whatever option Her Majesty's Government take up for the future of Scotland's water and sewerage, it will not be the option suggested by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)—bomber Welsh—who advocated blowing up water pipes throughout Scotland?

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is disgraceful.

Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot take a point of order at this stage. I do not wish to take up time. However, we should watch the language that we use in the Chamber. Tolerant language at all times is the hallmark of good parliamentary debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will remember that.

I note what my hon. Friend has said. Anyone who looks at Library cuttings of what the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and the Scottish National party have said will know that what my hon. Friend says is true.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order at the end of Question Time.

On two occasions here today, the Minister has mentioned that privatisation is not necessarily the solution that the Government are looking for. May I put it on record that on two Saturdays in one part of my constituency alone—Dennistoun—6,000 people put their name to a petition saying that they did not want privatisation? That included three French visitors who visited Duke street. Even they said that they did not want it. So there is no one in Dennistoun who wants privatisation.

I would much rather drink the water in Dennistoun than the water anywhere in France. But I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on boundary reviews for both Westminster and European elections in relation to Scotland.

Under section 2(2) of the Boundary Commissions Act 1992, the Boundary Commission for Scotland has a statutory duty to complete its fourth general review of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland by 31 December 1994. The commission will undertake a review of European parliamentary constituency boundaries in Scotland immediately thereafter.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the strengths of the Union is the equitable way in which it should treat all its citizens? On the basis that very large numbers of Scots have now migrated to their colony of England and are much involved in the government of that nation, why should those Scots be disfranchised because their vote is worth less in England than it is in Scotland? Will the Scottish Office please give instructions to the boundary commission that the next time the boundaries are reviewed it should work on the average constituency size for the whole of the United Kingdom?

The general answer to my hon. Friend is that the Scottish electoral quota takes account of Scotland's status as a small nation of large, sparsely populated and inaccessible areas. I. have good news for him in one respect. Since 1918, the number of Scots constituencies has increased by one, which is less than 2 per cent., whereas since 1948 the number of English seats has increased by 18–3·4 per cent.—and in Wales by two—5·3 per cent. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the changes in population since 1918, when the present arrangements were set up, are broadly reflected in changes in representation in the House. In other words, if England's population is swelling, England may have a case for more Members of Parliament, but there is no need to alter the number of Scots.

More seriously, will the Minister ensure, first, that the Boundary Commission for Scotland has sufficient funds to carry out the important task on which it is presently engaged and, secondly, that a specific household survey is carried out by electoral registration officers throughout Scotland to ensure that the registers are up to date?

Yes, I will make every effort to ensure that both the requests of the hon. Member are acted upon.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the details of Scottish representation on the Committee of the Regions; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are still considering the detailed arrangements for Scottish representation on the Committee of the Regions.

What is more important to the Secretary of State, his shabby deal with the Scottish National party or the representations that he has received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities? Is he aware that yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) pressed the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to give the terms of the deal between the Government and the Scottish National party? This information was not forthcoming, either from the Minister or from the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) who on that occasion was making a feeble attempt to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party. Will the Secretary of State this afternoon tell us the terms of the agreement with the SNP and end once and for all speculation on this matter?

As regards the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I would certainly expect to be interested in its views about representation on the Committee of the Regions. As regards the deal with the Scottish National party, contents of deals of that kind are confidential and I do not regard it as my job to breach a confidence. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Scottish National party failed to honour the deal that it offered the Government and therefore the Government regard themselves as under no obligation to it.—[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The answer we have just had to my question is so important for Scottish Members that we must have clarification of it from the Government and from the SNP.—[interruption]

Order. I cannot take a point of order at this stage. The hon. Gentleman is in any case not raising a point of order.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will examine ways of reducing the level of water charges faced by island authorities.

The setting of water charges in the islands is a matter for the islands councils. It would therefore be for the councils to examine ways of reducing the charges. There is no statutory basis on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can intervene in the setting of charges.

Does the Minister accept that the island authorities face a particular problem in that they must finance very expensive schemes on the basis of a relatively small population and that this leads to a huge disparity in the costs faced by island consumers compared with those on the mainland? Will he therefore undertake to look at this problem and try to find ways to reduce the disparity and to bring the water charges in the islands more into line with those on the mainland?

The Western Isles has been allocated £3 million for water and sewerage for 1993–94. That allocation has more than doubled in four years. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Western Isles council qualifies for the top rate of grant of 75 per cent. for rural water supplies. In the past three years, around £600,000 has been paid to the Western Isles in respect of assistance for eligible schemes, and the council will continue to qualify under particular schemes.

Given that it was necessary to wait for the advent of privatisation to find the £85 million necessary to invest in a badly needed new sewerage treatment plant in my English constituency, will my hon. Friend join me in my enthusiasm that Scotland should benefit as soon as possible from the very many advantages to be gained from privatisation of the water industry?

As my hon. Friend says, there are considerable advantages south of the border from water privatisation. My right hon. Friend will, of course, be considering all the representations he has received on this issue.