To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss trends in the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement.

I regularly meet the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a range of issues relevant to the Scottish economy.

At one of those regular meetings, will the Secretary of State take time to discusss the position of the local enterprise companies in the Scottish economy? Does he accept that the serious problems—indeed, chaos —that have been encountered in a number of local enterprise companies, including Dumfries and Galloway, indicate that something is deeply wrong with the structure that was established a few years ago—a structure which the Secretary of State will recall was meant to introduce a high-wage, high-skill economy and eliminate Scottish unemployment? Specifically, does the Secretary of State support the view of Forth Valley Enterprise that there should be a mandatory declaration of all directors' interests in any company that is being assisted? In a break with normal practice at Question Time, will the Secretary of State address and answer that question?

I do not recognise the picture of the Scottish Enterprise network of local enterprise companies described by the hon. Gentleman. Nor do I think it necessary to issue directives of any kind in the sense that he suggests. Matters of that kind are a matter for Scottish Enterprise. I am confident that, under its new chairman, its responsibilities are being well fulfilled.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that over recent months unemployment in my constituency has fallen month by month? Does he recognise that, with the recent announcement of redundancies by Jetstream, that happy trend may change? Will he ensure that, in the future, Jetstream can compete in the world market on a level playing field?

I agree with my hon. Friend that unemployment has fallen in his constituency and is substantially lower than it was at the peak a few years ago. However, I share his concern to ensure the welfare of the major employers in his constituency. I note his concern over Jetstream and British Aerospace, and I am keeping in touch with developments there. I hope that the world market for the aircraft produced by BAe will improve in a way that will be beneficial to the company.

Is the Secretary of State aware that if we look backwards we can see that the net result of 14 years of Tory Government has been to add more than 100,000 Scots to the doll queues? If we look forward, even his Department's economic bulletin forecasts a further reduction in the Scottish labour force of 34,000 over the next 10 years. Does he not understand that his stewardship of the Scottish economy has caused a whole generation of our most talented and highly skilled youngsters to despair of ever finding a job in their own country? Does he not understand that if the Scottish economy is ever to be made to serve the needs of the Scottish people, it will require an elected Scottish Government set in a powerful Scottish Parliament, and with decisive powers of intervention in the Scottish economy?

The hon. Gentleman's question bears little relation to the facts. The fact is that unemployment is lower in Scotland than in any of the other countries of the United Kingdom. It is below the European Community average. Employment has risen by 169,000 in the past decade. The hon. Gentleman need only look at The Scotsman today to see the confident forecasts of the Confederation of British Industry on manufacturing, investment, exports, construction and a great many other sectors of the Scottish economy.

May I ask my right hon. Friend, who is sitting beside Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, to intervene in the expenditure of the enterprise companies? They have spent nearly £500,000 on tweeifying a roundabout at Turnhouse airport. My right hon. Friend's Department is about to build a palace in Leith, bringing in extra bureaucrats at a cost of £65 million. In the present difficult climate for expenditure, could we not stop Government Departments spending so grotesquely?

I begin by welcoming my hon. and learned Friend back to the House, fully restored in health and vigour and as colourful as ever.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that during the 14 and a half years of his party's Administration, unemployment among newly qualified graduates has rocketed? Quite apart from the frustration that that must cause, will he agree that it amounts to a tremendous loss of skills and abilities from the Scottish economy? When he meets the chairman of Scottish Enterprise, what proposals will he have to ensure that there are jobs for these graduates?

The point that the hon. Gentleman misses is that the proportion of people going into higher education under this Government has doubled—from 17 to 34.5 per cent.—during the 14 years of which he speaks. Thus, if the number of people going into higher education doubles, inevitably the number of people who have difficulty finding jobs afterwards will also increase in the shorter term. We now have a higher trained, more highly qualified work force than we had under the Labour Government —a work force which wins praise from countries all around the world, as I discovered on my recent trip to the far east.

When my right hon. Friend meets and talks to Scottish Enterprise will he draw its attention to the fact that key industry in Germany is working one week in four? The work force performs one week of work and spends three on the equivalent of the dole. Does not that show how Government policies and Scottish Enterprise have brought Scotland through a world recession in much better shape than the former leading country of the European Community?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is also important is the focus and attention given to training by Scottish Enterprise. That is one of the keys to economic success. Germany benefited enormously from it in the 1960s and 1970s. By following its example, we are now in a position to benefit similarly in the 1990s.

When the Secretary of State meets the board of Scottish Enterprise and other Scottish industrialists who rightly look to the Government to create the conditions for growth and for business confidence, how will he explain to them what they have witnessed—the betrayal and destruction of an industry as vital and necessary as coal mining? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, by conspiring directly through a dodgy privatisation of the electricity industry and then artificially rigging markets, the Government have not only blitzed thousands upon thousands of jobs and livelihoods but virtually annihilated a whole industry? Does not that industrial vandalism give a clear signal to industrialists who want conditions for growth and investment that, when it comes to the bit, the Government do little and care less?

I start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench of Scottish politics, and I congratulate him both on his success in the shadow Cabinet elections and on his richly deserved appointment as shadow Secretary of State.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for trust status hospitals are currently being considered in Scotland.

Following the announcement by my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State on 15 October, nine third-wave NHS trust applications remain under consideration. An announcement on these will be made shortly.

I welcome the information that further hospitals are seeking trust status, which brings great benefits to large and small hospitals alike.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am aware that, since becoming a trust in April, Grampian Healthcare has increased significantly the services that it provides to patients. There are other examples in addition to those raised by my hon. Friend, such as the eating disorder and drug abuse services which the trust has introduced.

Does the Minister agree that bringing trusts to Scotland has brought no benefit at all? Since 1990, the Government have spent £120 million for the additional costs of trust status. The Greater Glasgow health board has spent 21 per cent. of its funding on treatment care, and Lothian health board is offering BMWs to its consultants.

I am afraid that I must wholly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am about tell Opposition Members why.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the news from Foresterhill House shows how inaccurate the scaremongering of Opposition Members is? Will my hon. Friend remind the House that Opposition Members said that Aberdeen infirmary would go down the drain if it became a trust? Is not the infirmary doing well, and should not it be congratulated?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As usual, there were all sorts of forecasts of doom and gloom from Opposition Members which have been shown by the facts to be completely invalid.

Does the Minister recall John Chawner, the chairman of the British Medical Association consultants committee, saying:

"The introduction of Trusts has been an extremely costly exercise without proven benefit. Nothing that has happened under the NHS reforms has provided more money for services."

The facts about the established trusts and the improvements that have been achieved are clear. I can give example after example. If the hon. Lady wants examples from North Ayrshire and Arran, I can tell her that a new day surgery unit and open access X-ray services have been provided. Also, the patients' friend welcoming service initiative and improvements in accommodation and services for terminally ill patients and their families have been implemented. I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome those improvements.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on his proposals to reorganise Scottish local government; and if he will make a statement.

I have had no discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the issue of local government reform since it decided to adopt its policy of non-co-operation. I and my colleagues have, however, held useful meetings over the summer with representatives of a number of individual authorities.

Will the Secretary of State rule out any form of domestic water supply disconnection in Scotland and ensure that unelected and unaccountable water boards do not use self-disconnection and water meters as a reason for cutting off domestic supply, thus creating a liquid poll tax that hits the poorest hardest? Will he bear that in mind in his deliberations?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that, at present, the law does not allow disconnections. I have no plans to change it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the so-called policy of non-co-operation adopted by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has had as many relaunches and comebacks as Frank Sinatra? Will he urge COSLA to drop all pretence of non-co-operation, for the benefit of those local government employees who provide such sterling services, and for the people of Scotland who are the beneficiaries of those services?

My hon. Friend is right. The word "non-co-operation" has been redefined so many times as to lose its meaning. At present, some 28 local authorities support the convention, some 29 are against it and eight are undecided. That is hardly the way for the convention to unite local government in Scotland or to represent its interests or the interests of those who rely on its services.

How is it that relatively minor local government boundary changes are referred to an independent commission, yet here we have the Government hell-bent on major surgery without any reference to an independent commission? Could it have anything to do with the Government's desperate desire to carve up the political map of Scotland to prevent the Conservative party from being virtually wiped off that political map, as the Conservative party in Canada was the other day?

I remember the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric before the general election, so nothing that he says surprises me. We are restructuring local government. Once local government is restructured, the Local Government Boundaries Commission will go to work on that in the usual way.

Has the Secretary of State yet found anyone in COSLA or anywhere else who believes his assertion that the transitional costs of restructuring local government will come to less than £196 million, let alone anyone who accepts his naive idea that any savings for council tax payers will arise from the restructuring? Has he yet grasped the fact that the folk of East Lothian want nothing to do with the folk of Berwickshire and the folk of Berwickshire want nothing to do with the folk of East Lothian?

The hon. Gentleman might like to know that his hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) expressed the view during a television interview with me a couple of weeks ago that the cost might be £126 million. More to the point, the small cost that will be incurred in the first few years of reform will be cancelled out and compensated for many times over by the savings in the longer term.

I thank the Secretary of State for his cordial words of welcome. I also had cordial and personally good relationships with the Minister for Europe in my last job.

If that were so, I expect the hon. Gentleman would wish us to proceed with the policies that we have announced. The cost of reforming local government over the first five years will amount to 0.5 per cent. of the tot al funding that we give to local government. That sum will be rapidly recouped and more than compensated for by the on-going savings that will result, year after year, from the reduction in the number of local authorities and their reorganisation in a more coherent and efficient way. The residents of the local authorities will be the beneficiaries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about his proposal to remove Berwickshire from the Borders for local government purposes.

Some 400 individual letters have been received commenting on the proposal to unite Berwickshire and East Lothian in the new unitary authority. In addition, around 660 postcards, pro-forma letters and petition signatures have been submitted from Berwickshire.

Will the Minister confirm that the vast majority of those representations are against the Government's proposals? Does he recognise that we in the borough of Berwick rely on close co-operation with the Berwickshire district and the Borders region to promote the good of the Borders? That will be much more difficult to achieve if Berwickshire is booted into East Lothian, against the wishes of its inhabitants. How can the Government go on ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Berwickshire to stay in the Borders?

I thought for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman was going to recommend that Berwick be moved into Berwickshire from across the border in England. Combining Berwickshire and East Lothian will produce a new authority with many common features—

What?

Coastal fishing villages, an agricultural hinterland and tourist development potential. We have listened to the representations—indeed, I am meeting the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 5 November—but there is a very strong case for our proposals.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the proposal to take Berwickshire out of the Borders region has caused more consternation in Berwickshire than anything else in living memory? Can he say how many of the 417 letters that he has received about the proposal were actually in favour of it? Will he advise the good people of Berwickshire and tell them what they have to do to get him to change his mind?

I can certainly confirm that the great majority of the letters received were against the Government's proposals. In my experience, it is much more usual for people to write to the Government if they are against what is proposed. Berwickshire has been a part of the Borders region only since 1975. There is an historic parliamentary constituency of Berwickshire and East Lothian which, independently of the Government, the Boundaries Commission is recommending should be reintroduced.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects to announce the conclusions of the Government's review of forestry policy; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's review of forestry.

The forestry review group is continuing its work, and has recently appointed consultants to assist it. The group expects to present its advice to Ministers early next year. Thereafter, Ministers will consider what action, if any, should be taken.

As my right hon. Friend's review will cover the whole of the United Kingdom, will he take note of the substantial concern in my constituency that any changes in the administration or management of the Forestry Commission should not lead to a reduction of public access to areas such as Wendover woods in my constituency, which is very greatly valued by local people?

I certainly give my hon. Friend an assurance that the review group is considering the issue very carefully. The forest authority currently places tremendous emphasis on recreation, access to walks and picnic sites and so forth. Such matters will be given careful consideration, and Ministers will consider what action to take when they receive the report next year.

Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of the Forestry Commission in my Dorset constituency? It is centred in Wareham, and has increased timber production and provides Dorset with a wonderful leisure and educational resource. May I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), and ask my hon. Friend to confirm that he will keep such matters very much in mind when reading the review? Whoever owns the forests, all local people want to retain the access that has been expanded under the present Government.

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. Production from Forestry Commission forests is now very high, which helps our processors and others who have long-term contracts in this country. After the group has reported, we shall certainly give every encouragement to access, education and the other aspects that my hon. Friend has mentioned; they will not be overlooked.

Does the Minister admit that, in the forests that the Commissison has already sold off, there have been 69 access agreements, none of which has worked? That is exactly what will happen if the Minister persists with his misguided proposal to sell off the whole of the forestry owned by the Commission. Given that the proposal is opposed by those who work for the commission, by those who represent constituencies with forestry interests and by all the hikers and ramblers, will he abandon it completely? Not only was it not included in the Conservative party manifesto; it was specifically excluded.

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is going off the rails. I wonder how many of the 69 access woodlands he has been to see.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the existence of a world-renowned research establishment on the Bush estate, in my constituency? Those involved in forestry research there are worried about their future. Will the Minister guarantee that establishments connected with forestry will continue to exist, and explain how that will be possible?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents, and for the high-quality work that they do on the Bush estate. However, we must wait until next year, when the group will have reported and Ministers will have had time to consider the way forward. We shall then make an announcement to the House.

My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency contains vast forest areas. Some are owned by private landowners; a substantial number are owned by the Forestry Commission. He will also know that there are no access problems in the privately owned areas: I regularly walk my dog there, as well as in the Forestry Commission areas. Does my hon. Friend accept that we shall expect the same to apply if any change is made in the Forestry Commission?

I note what my hon. Friend has said about "one man and his dog". There are many very good private landlords who welcome access to their woods, organise education programmes and in every way help the community. That contribution is equalled by the Forestry Commission, which has a broad and encouraging attitude to access for all forms of recreation. There is no reason for anyone to feel that that will not continue in the future.

Unlike the Secretary of State, I spent the summer visiting people in the forestry industry and spoke to environmentalists, recreationalists, local authorities and industrialists in the Caledonian Paper Mill Company, Irvine. All those people told me that wholesale privatisation will be a disaster for the industry. Given that the Secretary of State is in charge of the review, he has a chance here and now to give an unequivocal commitment that millions of people will have public access and enjoy the right to roam in forests. We wish to know whether the 15 per cent. of Scotland that is owned by the Forestry Commission will remain in public hands for the benefit of this and future generations.

The Secretary of State and myself live in the most afforested region in Britain so we are constantly in the forests, meeting foresters, and know what we are dealing with. We are well aware, too, of the importance of the production by the Forestry Commission to the major processors such as that which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, if he bothers to listen, that he and the rest of the Labour party got it wrong about water privatisation and probably will do so about the Forestry Commission as well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the voluntary sector to discuss funding arrangements following local government reform.

The subject of the implications of local government reform for the voluntary sector was among the subjects discussed at the first meeting, on 11 May, of the new joint forum comprising Scottish Office officials and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. That topic is also on the agenda for the next meeting, which is to be held on 16 November.

The Minister will have to do a bit better than he did in previous meetings, because the voluntary sector in Scotland is very worried. What reassurances can he give to organisations such as Strathclyde Elderly Forum, One Plus and Strathclyde Poverty Alliance about their continued funding if local government reform goes ahead? Those organisations and many like them throughout Scotland—not just in Strathclyde—operate and are funded on a region-wide basis and have genuine fears for the future that are communicated to me and to other Opposition Members. The organisations want to know what transitional arrangements are to be made to ensure that their funding is secure after local government reform so that the essential services that they increasingly provide and the jobs of the dedicated staff are maintained.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the general provisions of the Bill will provide for the transfer of rights, liabilities and obligations of the old authorities immediately prior to 1 April 1996 to either one or more of the new authorities. That reinforces the statement in the White Paper that existing funding arrangements for the voluntary organisations which extend beyond the date of reorganisation should be honoured. I am glad to say, however, that we shall be exploring, at the meeting on 16 November with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, issues involving initial costs because initial costs are difficult to quantify. We shall consider that subject thoroughly at the meeting and we shall bear in mind the point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

The Minister, like myself, is a former councillor and was probably involved in the last major reorganisation of local government. He knows that massive funds were spent in that reorganisation on finding premises, and on senior officials who sought redundancy rather than a move to the new local authorities. That will cost, as my hon. Friends have stated, at least £180 per ratepayer in the whole of Scotland. He must know that that means that there will be fewer funds available for the voluntary sector. Why go on with a reform of local government when, historically speaking, it has been only 20 years since we last had a major reform and we have not recouped the benefit of that reform?

I recall that after the last reform of local government the number of local authority officials increased by about 18,000 in two years. We are going from two tiers to one tier in this case and it is important that the difficulties which the hon. Member mentioned should be settled at local level. I expect the existing authorities, the new councils and the voluntary sector to co-operate in that connection to achieve appropriate solutions for the local circumstances.

May I ask the Minister to remind Opposition Members about the last local government reforms? The only region in Scotland that did not alter was Fife, which is a socialist region, and they all awarded themselves a salary which rose from £6,000 to £18,000 overnight for doing nothing more.

My hon. and learned Friend makes a very relevant point about the Kingdom of Fife. As far as this particular issue is concerned we believe strongly that the new local councils should determine their own priorities for funding voluntary sector activities, ensuring as much continuity as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has had regarding the proposed local government boundaries published in his White Paper.

Since the publication of the White Paper "Shaping the Future—The New Councils" in July, about 1,300 individual letters commenting on the reorganisation proposals have been received. In addition, about 25,000 postcards, pro-forma letters and petition signatures have been submitted.

The Secretary of State cannot point to any demand for the abolition of Strathclyde region, which is one of the best run councils in Britain. In my constituency, he cannot point to any demand for the removal of Toryglen from Glasgow. Does the Secretary of State accept that his proposals are unwanted, gerrymandered and expensive and will lead to substantial increases in the payments made by Scotland's council tax payers? Why does he not just scrap the White Paper?

On the contrary, I can find very few people prepared to stand up and defend Strathclyde. Any local authority that embraces half the population of Scotland cannot, by the normal definition, be regarded as local government. All the local authorities within that area welcome the fact that they will now have the freedom to exercise responsibility for all local authority functions on a scale that is more commensurate with the interests of local population. Toryglen is an issue about which we have had representations and at which we are looking closely. We shall be able to carry these matters further when we bring forward the Bill.

Do not the citizens of the great Scottish cities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen want their unitary authorities to be restored?

Yes, Madam Speaker, my hon. Friend is right. I find warm enthusiasm for the prospect of single-tier, all-purpose authorities in Scotland's great cities.

If the Secretary of State has had 1,300 individual letters from all over Scotland and more than 400 of them concern the removal of Berwickshire from the Borders, does not that indicate a high level of feeling in the Borders region about the proposal? Earlier this afternoon, we were told that Berwickshire had been part of the Borders region only since 1975. Is not that a fatuous statement since the region did not exist before 1975? It has been part of the Borders for many centuries. Will he please leave it there?

In parliamentary terms, it has been part of the Berwick and East Lothian parliamentary constituency for a considerable time. The number of letters suggests to me an orchestrated political campaign being run in that area.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Aberdeen all four political parties have been campaigning for a single-tier Aberdeen since 1974? Is he aware that when he visits Aberdeen on Friday he will be visiting a city which cannot wait for the new authorities in 1996?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I look forward, as I always do, to visiting Aberdeen again. I am sure that I shall find strong support for our proposals.

Will the Secretary of State take cognisance of the vote that took place in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Under-Secretary of State, among the people of Barrhead? They voted massively and overwhelmingly to remain with Renfrew district council. It was a democratic vote, higher than any other local authority vote. Will the Secretary of State give his assurance that the people of Renfrew can remain with the people of Barrhead?

I believe in the democratic process. That process can express itself in the House when the Bill comes before Parliament.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been a series of well-attended meetings throughout Ayrshire and that, after earnest discussions, three main points are coming through from the public and the associations attached? First, they will not accept the partition of Ayrshire because it is seen as a gerrymander to create a Tory enclave. Secondly, historically, Ayrshire has always been known as Ayrshire and we do not wish to be divided into a poor north and rich south. Thirdly, overwhelmingly opinion is opposed to this, apart from a small group attached to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). Does the Secretary of State agree that the majority of representations made from Ayrshire want Ayrshire to remain united?

I have had a variety of representations from people in Ayrshire about its future and it is not as clear cut as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The representations vary between those who want one Ayrshire, those who want two Ayrshires and those who want three Ayrshires. At present, we are proposing two authorities in Ayrshire and the boundary is the one drawn from the Wheatley Commission proposals. I am sure that the matter will be debated further when the Bill comes before Parliament.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the issue of cost has turned the local government reorganisation into a tragic farce? Would the Scots have to pay with money that they do not have, for proposals that they do not want, from a Government that they simply despise? The question of who pays should be answered. Will the Treasury pay, in its £50 billion mess? Will services and jobs go, or will the council taxpayers pay? The reorganisation is a piece of pure political fraud which should be brought to an end at the earliest opportunity.

May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on remaining on the Front Bench and on his promotion? He was never very good at figures and in his question he got them wrong. The reform of local government will lead to long-term savings of considerable substance that will far outweigh the cost of implementing them. It is not a question whether we can afford them, but whether we can afford not to implement them.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to amend Scots liquor licensing so soon after the major reforms introduced by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.

Does the Minister agree that it is absurd that the Government turn a blind eye to supermarkets opening illegally in England? Part of that illegal operation is the selling of a full range of alcoholic drinks, whereas in Scotland, supermarkets open legally, but are not allowed to sell any alcohol whatever. Will he introduce changes to the law that will allow all off licences to open on Sunday?

I agree that the position is somewhat anomalous, as the hon. Gentleman says, but there are strong arguments from both sides. In October 1986, the Scottish Office conducted a consultation and the results were that 43 per cent. wanted the statutory prohibition relaxed, but 57 per cent. did not. So there is a deep division in Scotland on that subject and there are no immediate plans to change the law.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the lobby for off-licence trading on Sunday in Scotland is very much advanced by the trade? Will he assure the House that there will be no further erosion of the quality of Sunday in Scotland?

It may be that in the fullness of time the matter will come before the House and be put to a vote. My hon. Friend is correct that the churches continue to express strong opposition to the Sunday opening of off-sales premises and the Scottish Retailing Licensing Law group has made representations in favour of the point that was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).

Since an important feature of the existing licensing law is to allow local authority licensing boards to determine many applications at their own discretion, would not it be appropriate for the Government to introduce legislation that allows local licensing boards to determine whether in their own areas Sunday opening of off-sales premises is legitimate?

As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Cathcart, we have no immediate plans, but I have little doubt that in the fullness of time the House will consider the matter again. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who is a known specialist on the subject as a Queen's counsel, that the tightening up of late-night licenses, which he spoke about in Standing Committee, has had a beneficial effect. Fewer late-night licenses are being awarded and that has resulted in less trouble that requires police involvement. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will welcome that result.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial targets he has set each of the new town development corporations for the disposal of their industrial and commercial assets.

I am publishing the financial targets for the disposal of the new towns' industrial and commercial assets in the Official Report. All the new towns are on schedule to meet those targets and are progressing successfully towards maturity. I therefore now intend to consult on the basis that the wind-up of Livingston and Irvine new towns should take place on 31 December 1996. That would be two years and three years respectively ahead of earlier plans. The timetable for the other three new towns would remain as already announced.

Why does the Secretary of State not simply admit that he has been told by the Treasury to asset strip the new towns? Is he aware that the business community and the wider community in East Kilbride and in the other new towns are frankly appalled by the mess that has been made of the wind-up proposals? Why does not he just accept that he is wrong? Why does he not use the talents and assets in the new towns to regenerate the Scottish economy?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the development corporations have made a mess of the wind-up of the new towns. They are handling the matter extremely efficiently and professionally, and I commend them for that. Asset stripping does not enter into the matter. The assets created in East Kilbride will remain in East Kilbride. The capacity of East Kilbride to continue to attract new investment and new employment will be maintained.

Can the Secretary of State explain how the following problem will be dealt with? The proposal for Scottish local government reform in my area is to put the new town of Cumbernauld into North Lanarkshire, which would take the town out of Dunbartonshire Enterprise. That would be a serious change taken with the loss of the drive for jobs that goes with the development corporation. Anything that upsets the special relationship with the local enterprise company cannot be good. What is the Scottish Office view on that?

The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point which must be addressed. We are considering the position there and we shall be able to develop our thoughts and to make our view plain as the local government Bill moves through Parliament. For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I add that the responsibility for local authority services such as planning and the management of community assets will pass to the new local authority from the new town development corporations on 1 April 1996.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his best estimate of the numbers of pensioners in Scotland living in houses which are (a) affected by dampness and (b) classified as difficult to heat.

Information is available from the Scottish house condition survey only for houses affected by dampness. An estimated 70,000 dwellings affected by dampness had heads of household of pensionable age.

I thank the Minister for visiting my constituency during the recess and for seeing for himself the dreadful conditions in which some people have to live. Does he agree that the figure he has just announced to the House is an affront to his Government? Does he further agree that the evil imposition of VAT on heating bills will force thousands of pensioners and poor people to choose between eating and heating? How many people does he estimate will die sooner rather than later as a result of his Government's policies?

The hon. Gentleman is naturally expressing a view before the Secretary of State for Social Security takes all relevant factors into account when he makes a statement about benefits being increased for next April, before the higher bills arrive. The details of that uprating will be announced as soon as possible after the Budget statement in November. The hon. Gentleman has made a significant point and his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) also referred to it. As well as the automatic increase in pensions by the retail prices index rate, which will include and reflect the increase in the cost of domestic fuel and power, such pensioners are also likely to receive housing benefit and/or council tax benefit. Our plans for extra help through such earnings-related benefits will assist them further. We sincerely hope that the dire circumstances that the hon. Gentleman envisages will not happen.

Instead of relying on the Minister's verbiage, would not it be much better to look at the facts? Do not the facts tell him that there is a great problem in Scottish housing with dampness and with condensation because houses were not built to proper heating standards? On every occasion, we are told that the problems are exacerbated by people's failure to afford proper heating. Why does not the Minister understand the damage that he is doing? Why does not he insist that the Government drop the VAT, and that they put more money into home insulation and into improving standards, rather than repeating the nonsense that everyone who is on a low income will be magically protected because he says that they will be?

I should make it clear that the house condition survey also records that some three quarters of houses in Scotland have central heating, that more than half have satisfactory insulation of tanks and pipes and that more than three quarters have satisfactory loft insulation. As for the uprating of benefits, the Department of Social Security benefits—including the cold weather payment—for the elderly and those on low incomes are regularly reviewed, taking all relevant factors into account. The DSS will take all these matters into account before it makes a full statement about reviewing the benefits in due course at the end of the month.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what analysis he has made regarding the recent trends in per capita expenditure on health care in Scotland.

Between 1979–80 and 1993–94, real per capita gross spending on the national health service in Scotland has grown by 50 per cent. This represents an average annual growth rate of 3.8 per cent. over and above prices over the past 14 years.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. How is that sustained growth in spending on the health service in the past few years translated into patient care in Scotland?

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that what matters is the effective use of those increased resources. Every year since the Government took office, record numbers of patients have been treated under the NHS in Scotland. An average of 22,500 extra in-patients and day case treatments have been given every year between 1979–80 and 1991–92. Those and a range of other statistics prove the consistent and steady improvement in the standard and quality of patient care under the Government.

Is the Minister aware that in the six hospitals serving the city of Glasgow, one of which also serves his area, when a nurse reports sick she is not replaced, thereby making the staff shortage even greater and putting patients at risk? What is he going to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Greater Glasgow health board is currently examining its acute service strategy, and we shall consider the proposals when they are put to us after consultation. I emphasise that steadily increased resources have been made available to the national health service in real terms over and above the increase in prices.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take following the publication of the Scottish house condition survey 1991 report by Scottish Homes; and if he will make a statement.

Local authorities have been asked to set out strategies and targets for tackling below tolerable standard houses and housing subject to condensation and dampness in their housing plans and housing capital programmes from 1994–95 onwards. In addition, the improvement and repair grant system, which is a major tool in tackling poor housing, is currently under review.

Does the Minister realise that the question was what he and the Scottish Office were going to do to tackle the appalling condition of approximately 30 per cent. of Scotland's housing stock, which is subject to dampness, condensation or mould? Not one hon. Member who represents a Scottish constituency does not have to deal daily with such problems. Is it not most important that the Government should wipe out the housing capital debt, thereby releasing capital for our local authorities to renew and renovate their housing stock and bring it to a proper level of energy efficiency?

The hon. Lady's request would result in either a great deal more taxation or a great deal more borrowing, which is not our policy. We have asked all district councils in Scotland when drawing up their housing plans and strategies to give top priority not only to dampness but to below tolerable standard stock and homelessness, which is precisely what they are doing. We want a concerted strategy as soon as possible and substantial funds will be allocated in due course. Indeed, some have already been allocated, for example, the £513 million for capital investment in housing for this year.

In the context of surveys of housing conditions, can my hon. Friend give us some idea when the results of the radon survey in Deeside may be forthcoming?

The Scottish Office has commissioned the National Radiological Protection Board to make further surveys in the Dee valley and along a stretch of the Caithness and Sutherland coast. I understand that the board expects to publish the findings of the second survey into radon gas before the end of October. I should mention that radon is a natural radioactive gas whose presence is determined by local geology, especially by the existence of more uranium than usual in the rocks. The matter is being followed up quickly.

I wonder at the Minister's complacency. Can he really mean it when he boasts about housing conditions in Scotland, when 392,000 houses suffer from condensation, and the survey reported that 267,000 are suffering from dampness? I hope that he does not mind if I correct his figures, but if we add the 52,000 senior citizen households with dampness to the 65,000 with condensation, we see that one in five of all Scottish households that include a pensioner have either dampness or condensation. I do not know how the Minister can possibly boast when, after 14 years of the Government's bungling, less than three quarters of Scottish houses have decent central heating and less than half have double glazing.

I am not boasting at all. Of course there are problems, but I am trying to put the matter in perspective. Thoroughly thought-out planning and strategies are required to deal with it. The percentage of houses with severe dampness is relatively small, and, of course, top priority must be given to dealing with such houses throughout Scotland.

In view of the number of Members seeking to take part in the debate on the coal industry, I have had to limit speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm to 10 minutes.

At the moment, my net is set to catch not the sprats but the shark.

Not to the hon. Gentleman, but I will give way to the Minister if he chooses to intervene. The House wants to hear from the Minister, because it is he who must answer on those figures.

I will give way to the hon. Member in the hope that he will answer the question that I put to the Minister: how many pits does he expect will close?

How many of the 277 pits that were closed in the six years to 1970 under a Labour Government had reserves that were totally exhausted?

I shall give the hon. Gentleman figures for comparison. Under the Labour Government of the 1960s, output in the coal industry fell by a quarter. Output has fallen by 60 per cent. under this Government. Under the Labour Government of the 1960s, jobs in the coal industry fell by a third. Under this Government, jobs in the coal industry have fallen by 90 per cent. The Labour Government of the 1960s shut 40 per cent. of the pits. This Government have shut 85 per cent. of the pits that existed in 1979. Those are the records for the hon. Gentleman to compare. The figures show the deplorable record of this Administration.

No.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way when I have finished this passage.

If the hon. Gentleman has an alternative energy policy, and if that policy had been introduced in April last year—if the Labour party had won the general election—will he tell the House what proportion of Britain's energy needs would have been met by coal in the year 2000?

The Government cannot tell us what proportion of our energy needs will be met by coal then, but I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question with respect to the pits that we are discussing. If we had won that general election, we would immediately have taken steps to end the rigging of the market, and I am confident that, given a fair opportunity to compete, British Coal could keep the market, which in turn would keep open all the pits currently producing.

rose—

Some industrialists who may, for all I know, have supported the Conservatives in the general election last April view with incomprehension a market that encouraged the expansion of gas, of nuclear and of French imports—all at the expense of a contraction of coal, which provides the best value for money.

"there is a growing surplus of coal-fired electricity generation capacity. The marginal cost of base-load electricity generation on this capacity is less than 1.5p/kwh, yet new generation capacity costing about 2.8p/kwh is being approved, built and prospering within the 'market."'

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of what the noble Lord Wakeham said in another place on 20 October last year? He said:

"as I made clear to the Energy Select Committee in another place in January—and I put it absolutely crudely so that there was no doubt about it—if the regional electricity companies have an interest in a gas-fired power station which is more expensive than electricity they can buy from another source, in my judgment they are in breach of their licence conditions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1992; Vol. 539, c. 673.]

The hon. Gentleman astutely goes to the heart of the matter. I hope that he will remember that argument at 10 pm. His point is a fair one: the Government have allowed sweetheart contracts to be signed between the electricity companies and new gas power stations, most of which the former own themselves. In the contracts, the gas-fired power stations are guaranteed a price for all their output, however efficient they may be. That is not a market in competition. It is a cartel which is closing the doors on Britain's pits.

rose—

I have already given way several times.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

This is the last time I will give way.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how Britain could meet the reductions in carbon monoxide emissions to which we are committed, and which his party demands, if we were to maintain our coal-fired capacity and not expand nuclear power?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman without the slightest difficulty. I would fit to Britain's coal-fired power stations the technology for clean coal burn which has been developed in Britain and is currently fitted elsewhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much would it cost?") Hon. Members ask how much it would cost. The figures are laid out in the Select Committee report, which made it clear that, even with clean coal technology, existing coal power stations are competitive with new gas-fired power stations.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman may not have liked it, but that was the reply. I told the hon. Gentleman that that would be the last occasion on which I would give way.

The Labour Government made the agreement with France.

The hon. Gentleman has raised another of the questions that have been raised in every one of our debates on the matter.

Answer, then.

The answer is exactly the same as on every previous occasion. The trade across the channel was revolutionised by the decision of the British Government to give the French the subsidy that we pay to our nuclear industry whether or not their electricity comes from nuclear power stations. The previous Labour Government never thought that any Government would be daft enough to offer to subsidise the imports from France. In fairness to the French, I rather suspect that the French Government never imagined that it would happen either. The French must now think that we are mad. The rest of Europe must think that we are mad to close the most efficient pits in Europe.

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

'reaffirms its approval for the White Paper "The Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review" (Cm 2235) which accepted the principal recommendations of the Report by the Trade and Industry Committee "British Energy Policy and the Market for Coal" (HC 237) and in particular the offer of a transitional subsidy for additional sales of United Kingdom underground coal for electricity generation; welcomes the help provided by the Government to coal field communities affected by closures; welcomes the offer of subsidy, subject to EC clearance, to British Coal, for coal from the Ellington colliery; welcomes the fact that British Coal have offered to the private sector the pits that they do not themselves wish to keep in production; welcomes the Government's commitment that the present high standards of safety achieved by British Coal be maintained or improved; and welcomes the Government's intention to bring forward as soon as parliamentary time allows the legislation necessary to privatise British Coal since the best future for the coal industry lies in the private sector.'.

—to the safety record of the coal mining industry. British Coal's overall accident rate has been reduced by more than 50 per cent. since 1985, as a result of many years of consistent effort and commitment by management and employees.

And the trade unions.

The Health and Safety Executive and its mines inspectorate have also played a critical role—as, indeed, have the trade unions. One should never be complacent about safety standards, but we can all be proud that Britain's coal mining industry has one of the best safety records in the world.

Will the Minister give way?

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a while, I will gladly give way later.

Will the Minister deal with two matters? Will he confirm that yesterday the Government—apparently with the support and, they claim, the encouragement of the Health and Safety Commission; that self-same commission which is so concerned to secure consensus within the industry about safety—forced through, against the wishes of the bulk of the people who work in the industry, changes in the rules? Is not it the first time this century that mine safety regulations have been pushed through against the objections of the people working down the mines?

As the hon. Gentleman will recognise when he reads the paper—I think that I have written to him, giving him the full details of it—it does not clash. Secondly, with regard to his attempts to repeat the slur on the Health and Safety Commission which he perpetrated last night, the trade union representatives did not oppose the Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations package. They did not ask for a vote on the package and I am informed that, with regard to the advice which was sent to me and which arrived on Monday, the trade union representatives attended the relevant meetings, accepted the advice, passed it on to me and did not oppose that advice or ask for a vote about it. There has, therefore, been full consultation about the package.

If what the Minister is saying is true, is he challenging the minutes of the Health and Safety Commission, which clearly record that the Trades Union Congress representatives said that they believed that the changes that were pushed through yesterday would not maintain or improve safety underground? Do not those minutes also record that the local authorities' representative expressed similar reservations?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman still seems to be stuck on the debate yesterday. The announcement that I made today, which is important because it relates to advice which has only just been received, and which it is appropriate that I should bring to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, only relates to the MASHAM package in the most incidental way. He has already received from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who answered for the Government yesterday, the answer to the points that he mentioned on the Floor of the House yesterday.

During the past few months, the Minister has frequently appeared on television to defend the Government's safety regulation proposals —which expunge the statutory capacity of the colliery deputy, who ensures that precedence and priorities for safety persist in the pits—on the ground that the proposals represent a considerable improvement because everyone who goes down the pit will be made responsible for safety instead.