To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Crown Office to vacate the old Royal High school in Edinburgh; and what plans he has for the future use of the building.

The Crown Office is expected to vacate the old Royal High school at the beginning of 1994. The building is the responsibility of Property Holdings, which is currently considering its future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the Crown Office is leaving the old Royal High school, that it costs £150,000 per annum to maintain and keep secure, and that it was used only three times last year, surely the time has come for the Government to dispose of the building, which has become a monument to and a relic of the failed and discredited policy of the Labour party? Does he furthermore agree that it would make an ideal art gallery or museum of Scottish history?

The building is not the direct responsibility of the Scottish Office, but the developments that I have just described show the need for the Government to consider where future meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee —if and when in Edinburgh—should take place. There is no shortage of alternative buildings in Edinburgh.

Would not it be in everyone's best interests if the Scottish Parliament moved into the old high school building? The Crown Office team could move across the road to the ministerial suite at the Scottish Office, and the ministerial team at the Scottish Office could be evicted to the top of Leith walk, where I am sure there is a convenient phone box big enough to hold them and their dwindling band of supporters in Scotland.

If the hon. Gentleman has given us a glimpse of the Labour party's manifesto for the next general election, I look forward to that campaign.

Does the Secretary of State recall that three quarters of the Scottish people voted for a Scottish Parliament, and would much prefer that that Parliament met in the Royal High school? Would not it be outrageous if the Government's profiteering dogma led to that building being used for any other purpose? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Scottish people would much prefer their elected representatives to discuss, for example, their local government than to have policies handed down to them in dribs and drabs by leaked documents in a thoroughly unacceptable way?

The Royal High school was built as a school —it may have been an appropriate design for a school in its day—but the building has no special significance as regards the deliberations of the House or its Committee. If it stands as anything, perhaps it is as a monument to the folly of the last Labour Government who, in anticipation of the outcome of a referendum and of a subsequent general election, spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money and subsequently found themselves rejected in a referendum and a general election.

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

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

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

My hon. Friend the Minister for industry and local government and I will be meeting representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on Friday this week as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.

May I jolt the Secretary of State's memory back to the time when he first mooted that stupid plan to reorganise local government in Scotland? Does he recall that the Opposition predicted then that he was not about to embark on a voyage of discovery, because he knew precisely where his journey would lead? If the stories in The Scotsman are right—I suspect that they are not far wrong—how does the Secretary of State justify treating the House and the people of Scotland with such arrogant contempt? Which Minister authorised the leak or, if it was not authorised, what action has the right hon. Gentleman taken to find the source? How can he deny that the purpose of the exercise is to save the last few Tory enclaves in Scotland? Does he seriously expect anyone to believe that the whole blatant, bogus, bankrupt exercise is anything other than a squalid and corrupt piece of gerrymandering by a squalid and corrupt Government?

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not normal practice to comment on allegedly leaked documents. The proposals for local government reform that we shall bring before the House shortly will be the outcome of a longer, more detailed and comprehensive consultation process than any previous Government initiative that I can remember. It is encouraging that, far from being unpopular, local government reform is rising consistently in the opinion polls.

If local government reform is rising in public opinion polls, the same is certainly not happening to the prestige of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which is hitting a new low. Surely the leaks in The Scotsman, which have not been denied by anyone in the Government, confirm that the Secretary of State has lost his hold on the Scottish Office administration, and that something really has to be done about it. It is not good enough to treat the representatives of Scottish local authorities with such contempt. They are elected in their own right, and speak for the people of Scotland in a way that the Secretary of State could not hope to achieve.

Setting aside the hon. Gentleman's last remark, which questions both the validity of election to this place and the importance of this Parliament for Scotland, as for the rest of the United Kingdom, allow me to emphasise that I have considerable respect for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is why I, along with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responsible for local government, have regular meetings with its representatives.

Will the Secretary of State explain his refusal to appoint a committee to investigate the local government changes in Scotland? Did he take the decision upon himself, or did he authorise Vance and Owen to come to Scotland and build safe Tory havens there?

If the hon. Gentleman contains his soul in patience he will shortly understand what we propose for Scotland.

Has my right hon. Friend received representations on local government reorganisation from all the parties, or is he still waiting for the Opposition's policies on that subject, as on so many others?

We have received a substantial number of representations on local government reform, from a broad range of sources. Some were positive and forward-looking, and we have taken those seriously into account. Others were less so, and they, of course, have been taken less seriously.

When the Secretary of State meets representatives of COSLA, will he explain to them whether the Government intend to bring England and Wales into line with Scotland by making it illegal to disconnect domestic consumers from the water supply in England and Wales, or to bring Scotland into line with England and Wales by making it legal to disconnect domestic consumers in Scotland? If, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, this is a unitary Parliament ruling over a unitary British state, he cannot discriminate between citizens of that state on the basis of where they happen to live. What is the Government's intention?

Perhaps the reason why the hon. Gentleman is so careless about safeguarding the Union is that he does not realise that Union does not necessarily mean uniformity. One of the features of Scotland's position within the United Kingdom is our capacity to accommodate the diversity of Scottish interests and needs. I am not responsible for disconnections policy in England and Wales, and I would not presume to offer advice to my colleagues on the subject. With regard to Scotland, my answer remains what it has always been: I have no plans to make any changes there.

As a former Aberdeen city councillor, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make it clear to COSLA that many Conservative Members believe that the four Scottish cities should once again become all-purpose local authorities?

My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case, and, indeed, we are already committed to creating all-purpose local authorities, the details of which I look forward to announcing shortly.

If the integrity of the current Borders region boundaries is breached by, for example, putting Berwickshire with East Lothian—causing local anger and outrage, especially in Berwickshire—will the Secretary of State give the House an idea of what level of public demonstration of discontent he is prepared to accept to make him change his cock-eyed proposals?

I hope that when our proposals are presented to the House and to the people of Scotland, they will be popular I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the report in today's newspapers about the forthcoming proposals of the independent and impartial Parliamentary Boundary Commission. That is a matter for it and not for me.

When the Secretary of State meets representatives of COSLA, especially those from Dumfries and Galloway, will he discuss possible improvements to the ferry facilities at Stranraer harbour?

I may not have the opportunity to place the question of harbour facilities at Stranraer on the agenda for the meeting on Friday, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Member of Parliament for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, I attach great importance to the improvement of facilities at the harbour in Stranraer.

One of the most important local authority functions is the police. COSLA and others have already expressed great concern about the wholesale changes to the police authorities and their boundaries that the Government propose. Will he acknowledge that the Sheehy proposals for performance-related pay could, in some instances, result in the police boosting their pay by arresting people for minor offences, which currently are dealt with by a sensible use of discretion? When he next meets representatives of COSLA, will he explain what practical steps the Government will take to ensure that such an unfortunate situation does not arise?

We shall have something to say about the future of police forces when we announce our proposals for the changes in local government. The Sheehy report is going out to consultation and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity, along with everybody else, to submit his thoughts during that consultative process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider making an extra allocation of financial resources to Scottish local authorities to enable them to make safe sites contaminated by former industrial usage.

Responsibility for dealing with contaminated land rests with the site owners. Local enterprise companies can assist with the reclamation of these sites and local authorities already receive funding through the revenue support grant for their expenditure on environmental services.

Is the Minister aware that in Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Toryglen in my constituency a number of sites are contaminated by chromium waste dumped by a long-gone chemical works? Despite appreciated assistance from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), regarding finance for making those sites safe, whether they are publicly or privately owned, there is no finance available totally to clear them and to make them safe. Will the Minister assure us that the matter will be considered at a meeting with myself and other constituency representatives to try to find ways in which we can secure finance to make those sites safe for the public?

I much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's involvement in the problem of chromium waste in his constituency and if I can help, I will gladly do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a matter for the local enterprise company, which in this case is the Glasgow Development Agency, and it must decide what financial assistance it can provide. If a meeting will help, we must arrange one.

One tatty old building that has been contaminated by former industrial usage and neglect, well known to the Minister and myself, is the Gourock ropeworks building in Port Glasgow. Is that disgraceful old building to be conserved or demolished? Will the Minister make up his mind, because the Inverclyde district council simply does not have the wherewithal to pay for the conservation of the building? Why not play the game with the people of Port Glasgow and allow the building to be demolished?

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is an important and listed building, so we must be careful about the steps that we take. I understand that the enterprise authority is considering the matter, and a decision may be made in the not-too-distant future. We cannot pull down such an important building without the most careful consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last had discussions with Scottish Enterprise on its outturn expenditure for 1992–93.

My right hon. Friend and I have regular contact with Scottish Enterprise on a range of matters. No meeting has taken place to discuss outturn expenditure for 1992–93 as it was within the budget limit, but did not involve significant underspending.

Has the Minister asked in the past, or will he ask in the future, for detailed figures about the amount spent by Scottish Enterprise and by the local enterprise companies on consultancies? Is he aware that when I criticised my local enterprise company for spending money on something that I thought was wrong, I had a flood of letters from businesses throughout Scotland saying that what disturbed them was that when they asked for money and assistance, they were sent a consultant? Those consultancies consist of what have been described as broken-down accountants, many of whom are former Scottish Development Agency employees.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's general allegation. There are facilities, which have been used, for audit investigations by Scottish Enterprise when there are allegations against local enterprise companies. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to take a strong interest in the activities of local enterprise companies and that he will make representations to them. They are ultimately publicly accountable, and it is healthy that the hon. Gentleman and others take a real and close interest in their detailed activities.

The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) should come to my part of the world—Kincardine and Deeside. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in commending the Kincardine and Deeside Enterprise Trust, which is part of Grampian Enterprise, for setting up open learning schemes aimed at self-employed managers and intended specifically to teach them small business management and business methods, and to deal with tourism. Is not that Scottish Enterprise working at its best, being flexible and aiming its activities to where they are required in a way that makes it possible for managers to participate?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, when I was in his part of the world recently, I was able to see something of the work that the enterprise trust and Grampian Enterprise were undertaking in open learning and in other ways, such as the skill seeker programme in which Grampian Enterprise has been in the lead. That is the essence of the local enterprise company network. Individual enterprise companies can have flexibility and can take initiatives to meet the needs of their own local areas.

What percentage of Scottish Enterprise's budget is attributable to training? Given that the Minister has just explained to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East the importance that he attaches to public accountability, will he deplore the practice by some local enterprise companies of inserting contractual terms that prohibit any training provider from criticising the local enterprise company for any of the ways in which it handles the budget? Surely the local enterprise companies, which are responsible for public money, should not seek to make themselves immune from public criticism.

The local enterprise companies do not seek to make themselves immune from public criticism. They have to have meetings and they have to publish accounts. Ultimately, they are responsible, through Scottish Enterprise and the Secretary of State, to the House.

Is my hon. Friend aware of allegations made by the Labour MEPs MacMahon and McCubbin that Scottish Enterprise has misused European social funds? The fact that they have made those allegations may have jeopardised future funding. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether there is any truth in the allegations? If he cannot confirm their truth, will he condemn the actions of those who have been elected to responsible places and yet have acted so contemptuously?

Not only am I aware of the allegations, which received wide publicity, but I wrote to Mr. Hugh MacMahon, with copies to Mr. McCubbin and to hon. Members. I shall put the matter in a more neutral way than my hon. Friend has done. I believe that the two Members of the European Parliament were, at the very least, extremely, seriously and deliberately misled about the facts of the situation.

The Minister said earlier that local enterprise companies are publicly accountable. That is nonsense. They are secret, self-serving societies which are inward-turned and do not have to account at all.

The performance of LECs is critical in the determination by Scottish Enterprise of their budgets for future years. That process is comprehensive and rigorous.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce corruption in local government, in Scotland.

There are a number of forms of redress against corruption in local government, notably through the courts, the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland, the local government omudsman and the statutory powers available to my right hon. Friend. The Bill on local government reorganisation that my right hon. Friend intends to introduce will be an opportunity for consideration of the future framework within which local government operates.

Does my hon. Friend think that the events surrounding Monklands district council—council jobs provided to relatives of Labour councillors, the council leader's rather dubious business activities with his own council and the disastrous £1 million a year loss on the Quadrant shopping centre—result from corruption alone, or merely from a mixture of incompetence and corruption?

Order. This is not a statement, but Question Time. The hon. Member has asked enough questions.

I should have thought that the major piece of embarrassment of the Leader of the Opposition on that subject was when he was picketed outside his own constituency surgery by members of his own party. I do not think that that has ever happened to any other hon. Member.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility—

Order. Hon. Members ought to guard their language in the House. As "Erskine May" indicates, moderate language is the cornerstone and the hallmark of our parliamentary debates. I will not take a point of order at this juncture. I will simply remind the House that this is a civilised debating Chamber. We should conduct ourselves accordingly.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Government take seriously the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). The people of Scotland continue to be astonished by the silence from the two hon. Members who represent the Monklands area in the House.

Would not it be a most serious piece of corruption for Scottish local government to be carved up by the Government purely on the basis of the Government's political expediency? Will the Minister give an undertaking that no historic Scottish county will be carved up in the forthcoming review without the consent and support of the people in the area concerned?

I note that that is another example of Scottish Labour Members being prepared to discuss anything except Monklands.

Whenever we discuss the allegations about Monklands district council, is it not apparent that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) never reveals to the House that from 1975 he served as provost to Monklands district council?

To be fair to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), it is a matter of public record that he was provost to that council. He does not hide that. But he certainly hides his opinion about what has been happening in that district council since his tenure as provost.

Is the Minister aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is busy promoting a policy of good governance throughout the world and that one of the principles involved is that the party in power should not seek to manipulate the constitutional or electoral rules to its advantage? Is the Minister aware that the Scottish

Answer the question.

I am answering the question. I repudiate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Such language does his considerable reputation no good whatever. The right hon. Gentleman will have to await the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that when he sees and understands the details of the Government's proposals, he will be the first to withdraw his absurd allegations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figures on sales under the rents-to-mortgages scheme in Scotland.

As at the end of June, there had been 765 sales under the pilot rent-to-mortgage scheme operated by Scottish Homes.

I am delighted at the growing success of that scheme in Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that it just shows that the people in Scotland are great supporters of that fundamental Conservative policy, which is the antithesis of the policy of the Labour party, which has always opposed the sale of council houses? Is my hon. Friend aware that the scheme was pioneered in my constituency, where we are joining in with the sales? Is he further aware that, following its success in Scotland, pioneered by the Conservatives, of course, the scheme will now be introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom?

I whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The scheme has been a great success. It will be an even greater success. It will create a wholly new market. My hon. Friend will be particularly interested to know that to date in Scotland 26·4 per cent. of council houses have been sold and that the figure for England is virtually identical-26·5 per cent. The rent-to-mortgage scheme will open up a whole new market. It will give a statutory right to those involved. I believe that that will be widely welcomed throughout Scotland.

Instead of continuing his obsession with selling as many houses as possible, will the Minister tell the House what progress he is making in establishing mortgage-to-rent schemes rather than rent-to-mortgage schemes to allow people who, as a result of the Government's economic policies have been made redundant and are unable to continue with their mortgage payments can continue to live in the house which has become their home?

I have no objection to mortgage-to-rent schemes where the local authority considers that they are practicable and that there is a priority for them. In both Clackmannan and Kyle and Carrick such schemes are in operation. I am in favour of them if the district council considers that local circumstances demand them. In Scotland, some 257,000 houses have been built since 1979. That is a considerable number. The funding for housing in Scotland is substantial.

Does the Minister accept that at least in Gordon district in my constituency the council has been willing to adopt every conceivable means of providing homes to meet needs and has not argued with any of the various options on offer, yet it is still far from able to meet the demand for affordable houses in Gordon district? When will the Minister ensure that all the relevant agencies in Gordon can provide the houses that people need?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman's constituency suffers from the problems associated with success and a growing population. I know that he has been in touch with Scottish Homes. It is investing millions of pounds in his constituency. That should be an on-going process. I hope that the strategic agreement, which I understand has been formed with the local council, or is about to be, will prove to be extremely successful. All possibilities should be explored.

Will the Minister confirm that, by the end of 1992, 24,000 council houses had been sold and were not replaced with housing for rent? Does he further agree that, as it is the better housing that goes, council tenants will soon be left with nothing but tenements and multi-stories in which to live? Did not the Scottish Office once again grossly overestimate the sales of council houses, knowing full well that the supplementary allocations would not be enough and thus would result in less money being spent on making council houses fit to live in? Does not all that give a good idea of what tenants can expect if the Government's gerrymandered boundaries become a reality?

Some 266,000 public sector houses have sold in Scotland. Each one of them has its own market value. They have sold throughout councils in Scotland. I can say also that the funds recovered have been spent on public sector housing in Scotland as a result and have greatly benefited the rest of the public sector housing. On supplementary allocations, we will not know the position until later this year. I will bear in mind the hon. Lady's constituency representations, and those from other constituencies in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reassessment he has made of the Touche Ross report on local government reform.

We have taken account of the wide range of comments received on the Touche Ross report on local government reform. I intend to include our revised estimates of costs and savings in, the White Paper setting out our local government reform proposals, which I hope to publish shortly.

Will the Secretary of State give the House of Commons a clear, unambiguous assurance that no part of public expenditure in Scotland will be cut because of the transition costs of local government reform or its on-going costs? Do we have that clear assurance?

The transition costs of local government reform will have to be borne from the resources available to the Scottish Office block. However, as the figures that I shall publish in the forthcoming White Paper will show, the cost of transition will be recovered quickly as a result of the savings to be had from single-tier all-purpose authorities.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that savings from local government reform will take place in a manner that will benefit the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom? Will he ensure that the incompetence and corruption of Monklands district council is squeezed dry by local government reform so that that council is in a better financial state and we stop the £1 million a year wasted on the Quadrant shopping centre development and the £3 million a year wasted on the leisure development, which is costing people in that area a considerable sum of money?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks. On the second part, when the Government bring forward proposals for reform, he will be able to judge for himself whether his anxieties are met.

Has Touche Ross made any recommendations on the number of councillors who will be required under local government reform? When the Secretary of State presents his White Paper to the House, will it cover any recommendations on the number of councillors? Has that been addressed in the White Paper, and will we be able to discuss it?

Touche Ross did not make recommendations on the number of local authority councillors, although in preparing its report, it had to make a number of assumptions across a broad range about the number of officials who would be involved in certain areas of local government expenditure. On the question whether that matter will be addressed in the Government's forthcoming White Paper, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to contain his soul in patience.

I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's earlier remarks. He was extremely careful not to deny the accuracy of The Scotsman leak. Does he not think that the gerrymandering of Scottish local government boundary lines is too high a price to pay for keeping a blue rose on the lapel of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)? Does he not understand that, with 16 per cent. of the vote for the Tory party, it is geometrically impossible to draw lines in a way that guarantees safe havens for his party? Does he think that a Secretary of State who has failed on Ravenscraig, Rosyth and the Euro-seats and who is now gerrymandering Scottish local government is fit to occupy that high office?

I have already made it clear that the Government do not comment on allegedly leaked documents. Therefore, the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question falls.

As local authorities have a statutory requirement to advertise certain of their activities in the local newspapers, does the Secretary of State accept that he has failed in not taking action against Monklands district council, which campaigned against the local newspaper, and instead is awaiting the outcome of the Touche Ross report?

I have certain statutory powers, but they are limited. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have given close consideration to the matter and I continue to keep a close watch on it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the Touche Ross figures to which he gave so much regard are fatally flawed and therefore make this whole exercise inappropriate? Will he accept that the House is sick and tired of his teasing at the Dispatch Box about when the White Paper is to be published? When will it be published? When will we know? Perhaps more importantly, will he accept that, given that this whole exercise is fatally flawed, he ought to do the decent thing, abandon it, and appoint an independent commission that can do justice to the whole of Scottish local government?

The Touche Ross report is far from being flawed. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities co-operated in the preparation of that report and all the signs from subsequent work by consultants for other local authorities and from other submissions to the Government show that the broad trend of the Touche Ross report is accurate. That report made a certain number of assumptions, which it had to do in the context of the work that it was carrying out. More detailed submissions have led to some of those assumptions being refined further, but the broad trend of the report remains as it was. If anyone is discredited on the question of the cost of local government reform, it is the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). We have not forgotten his belief, publicly stated without qualification, that the cost of local government reform would be £600 million. The hon. Gentleman is in for a shock, which for him will probably be a sad one.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Scottish Enterprise to discuss employment prospects in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend and I meet frequently the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a wide range of issues, including economic prospects generally.

The Minister will realise that government by the Tories in Scotland has cost nearly 200,000 manufacturing jobs. We have seen the threatened loss of roughly 1,000 jobs in Rosyth and 450 jobs are to be lost in my constituency in the royal ordnance factory. The Government are dillying and dandering while thousands of young people are not receiving appropriate training or apprenticeships. All that we have seen is the continual decline in manufacturing industries in Scotland. Is it not time that the Government gave us hope by resigning and allowing the people of Scotland to get back to work? I am sick and tired of seeing my folk facing the dole. Is it not time that the Government faced the dole?

Unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is 2,421, which is a decline of almost 1,500 over the past five years. I should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. As to manufacturing, I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman, and to the hon. Member for Fyfe, Central (Mr. McLeish) who is muttering on the Front Bench in his usual way, that manufactured exports from Scotland are, on the most recent figures, at a record level.

Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) that the percentage of the working population in Scotland in work compared with others in the European Community is second in the league table? Is that not more positive information as opposed to the doom and gloom that Opposition Members are spreading?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Denmark is the only major European country with a better figure. Luxembourg, which of course is fairly small, also has a slightly better figure. Civilian employment in Scotland increased by 173,000 between March 1983 and March 1993. Those real figures reveal the nonsense of the constant doom and gloom from the Opposition Benches.

Will the Minister explain to the House the shocking state of affairs in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds? Since 1988, thousands more youngsters have become unemployed and out of training as a result of the Government's very unpopular policy of taking benefits away from those kids. Will the Government consider restoring benefits to 16 and 17-year-olds? Will the Minister also consider the discriminatory age-related benefit for 18 to 24-year-olds who do not get paid the same as 25-year-olds and who actually receive £8·55 less? Will the Minister agree to abolish that?

This Government have brought in a guarantee for youth training which is being fully met. That guarantee is available in no other European country. That is the reality and it shows the Government's commitment to ensuring that young people acquire the skills and have the training for the jobs of the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet trade Ministers from overseas to discuss bilateral trade with businesses in the far east.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and I meet trade Ministers from the far east from time to time. Most recently my right hon. Friend has met the Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and a delegation of Taiwanese business men.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does the Scottish Office intend to target particular territories? My right hon. Friend has already mentioned South Korea and Japan. Does he also intend to target growing territories such as Hong Kong and Singapore?

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we are indeed keen to do that. Our targeting has been extremely successful. In the last year for which figures are known, exports to Japan rose by 10 per cent., to Hong Kong by one quarter and to Singapore by one third.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the oil fabrication industry in Scotland faces increasing competition from south-east Asia yards and particularly from South Korean yards? British Petroleum has already awarded a major order covering the Forth field to a South Korean yard and Phillips is considering giving out another major order. Is the Secretary of State just going to leave that kind of situation to the free play of market forces? Does not he believe that it is the responsibility of the Government, and particularly of the Scottish Office, to ensure that the Scottish fabrication industry can compete effectively with South Korean yards? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted his Energy colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry in an attempt to ensure that such orders continue to go to yards in Scotland and yards in the United Kingdom?

I certainly understand the importance of those yards to the economies of the areas where they are located. However, there can be no question of protecting manufacturing industry in this country from the competitive forces that blow around the world. The only way in which those yards can secure long-lasting employment and security is by being competitive and able to compete and beat the worldwide competition. It is increasingly encouraging that Scottish industry, because it has modernised and because it has invested in new technology, is now competitive and is beating off competition from around the world. Our export orders show the success that we are achieving.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the most recent total of long-term unemployed people in Scotland; what plans he has to reduce this number; and if he will make a statement.

In April 1993, there were 86,591 people in Scotland who had been unemployed for 12 months or longer. That represents a rate of increase since April 1992 of about one third of that for Great Britain as a whole. More help than ever before is now available to long-term unemployed people in their efforts to return to work.

Has the Minister absolutely no shame or anger at the tragic figures which, in the case of Glasgow, account for almost one in two of the unemployed? Does he not realise that many long-term unemployed have never had a job since they left school and may never obtain one? Does he not realise that we now have a second generation of long-term unemployed and that those scandalous figures are the biggest blight on the face of Scottish society today? Instead of cutting funding and training, when will the Government tackle that problem with the priority, urgency and resources that it so desperately requires?

The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware of the measures that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) in the Budget. The hon. Gentleman might have mentioned that, in his own constituency, for example, the number of unemployed has dropped over the past five years from 6,968 to 4,723—a very substantial drop indeed. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the long-term unemployed are a priority. Two out of three unemployed people go off the register within six months —they go back into the labour market. The Government have brought in a package of new measures such as learning for work, the local enterprise company challenge, the expansion of business start-ups and community action, all of which are directed specifically to help the problem of the long-term unemployed. Frankly, it does neither the long-term unemployed nor anyone else any good when Opposition Members do not recognise that the Government are tackling the problem and are devoting considerable resources to it.

Will the Minister acknowledge the specific and persistent difficulty of long-term unemployment in the highlands and islands? After the exchange that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) had with the Secretary of State, will the Minister bear in mind the great concern that was expressed at a meeting earlier this week of Ross and Cromarty district council about the downturn in the fabrication sector, for example Highlands Fabricators at Nigg and McDermotts at Ardersler, and the huge impact that that is having on the region's economy in terms of the massive increase in unemployment? Would the Minister be willing later in the year to meet representatives of the various public agencies from the area to discuss difficulties that are becoming deeper by the week?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for the highlands and islands are always willing to meet, as appropriate, representatives of the agencies concerned. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to congratulate the Government on achieving objective 1 status for the highlands and islands. The whole House will want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on a great achievement for the highlands area.

Is the Minister not ashamed that some of those who are now categorised as long-term unemployed are 16 and 17-year-olds who, despite his claims, have not had a job since they left school? Six days after the Budget, Youth Aid advised the Government that 124,700 young people did not have a job or a training place and that 78 per cent. of them had no money. When will the Minister get his backside off his seat and do something about the real problem for young people in Scotland?

Not all young people want a training place. [Interruption.] They may or may not want a training place. We hope that they do. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are training places available for all young people who wish to have training places. Indeed, that is why we improved the quality of the training guarantee by setting time limits within which young people would be guaranteed to receive the offer of a place.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the submissions he received to the Scottish Office consultation paper "Investing for our Future" favoured a system of franchising; and if he will make a statement.

An analysis of responses to the consultation paper will be made available once a decision on the future structure of water and sewerage services is announced.

The majority of Scots, including leading Conservatives, are totally opposed to any form of water privatisation. It is strange that not one Scottish Minister has defended any privatisation policy in Scotland. Will the privatisation of water simply be bundled in with equally unacceptable gerrymandering and destruction of Scotland's local government system? Will there be separate announcements or will the Minister simply present a single large insult to the Scottish people?

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see and contain himself for a few days, or even a week or two longer. He is a glutton for punishment on water. Month by month, he asked questions about water at the same time as his party and his leader made totally irresponsible statements aboout civil disobedience relative to water, and he' should be ashamed of himself.

The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly anxious to find out about the number of submissions to make a political point. Will my hon. Friend share with the House the number of submissions that he has received that support the option of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), which is for wilful acts of sabotage and violence throughout Scotland?

I have not had one letter supporting violence, so the SNP is on its own.

Will the Minister return to the original question and tell the House how many submissions he has received?

As I indicated in my original answer, once all the submissions have been analysed and the announcement has been made, they will be available in the Library.

Is the Minister aware that top water analyst Robert Miller-Bakewell of Natwest Securities is advising his corporate clients that they can buy franchises in Scottish Water in early 1995? Is it not a scandal that financiers in the City are informed of these matters before either Parliament or the people concerned? Will he confirm that up to 20 per cent. of jobs will go; that 10 English companies, three Spanish companies and one American company will bid and that—[Interruption.] The Minister may not like what is being said but it is factual.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to apologise to Conservative Members for the irresponsible statements that he has made recently and a mass of statistics that mean nothing at all. I am not especially interested in the report from Natwest Securities. We will wait and see what happens when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announces what we intend to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss Scottish industry.

My right hon. Friend and I have frequent contacts with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on a range of matters concerning Scottish industry. We look forward to a continuing exchange of views.

Will the Minister arrange a meeting with the STUC on the future of the coal industry in Scotland if and when privatisation takes place? The Scots are worried —I am sure that the country is also worried—that the premature closure of Frances colliery, with the potential loss of 1,000 jobs, is in the offing. I hope that the Minister will support that and the future of Monktonhall colliery in my constituency. Will he give a guarantee that such a meeting will take place and that the whole of the Scottish coalfield will be sold to a consortium of the people whom I represent?

The whole House knows the hon. Gentleman's knowledge and expertise of the industry. He led a delegation to discuss proposals for a separate Scottish coalfield. I can certainly give him an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I, in addition to my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, who has direct responsibility for these matters, will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and others concerned to discuss the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of grants to voluntary organisations from his Department in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure for 1978–79 at constant prices.

Grants paid to voluntary organisations by the Scottish Office in 1992–93 totalled £25·7 million compared with £11·9 million in 1978–79 at constant prices. That represents an increase of 116 per cent. in real terms.

That is an impressive increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a cost-effective form of public expenditure and that it should be increased wherever appropriate?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is extremely cost effective. We see voluntary organisations as an important third force co-operating with the Government in delivering a broad spectrum of services.