To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met chairmen of health boards to discuss financial allocation.

My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State meets chairmen of health boards regularly to discuss a wide range of strategic issues affecting the management of the NHS in Scotland. Many of those issues may have financial implications. The last such meeting took place on 5 November.

Will the Secretary of State take time to meet the chairmen of health boards? Is he aware that two trust hospitals in Scotland—one is in my constituency and the other is in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and fror Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams)—have already advised doctors and consultants to pace themselves, and that doctors and consultants in Dundee hospital trusts are running short of money? Is he further aware that, of all the state-registered nurses who will graduate in Tayside this year, not one will be offered a job? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman made more funds available so that required operations can be carried out and nurses who have gone through two years of training can get jobs?

I am aware that, since a number of hospitals in Scotland have become trusts, the efficiency with which they have delivered services has so improved that they are already achieving their targets for the whole year. That is a measure of the considerable success of the trust movement. Funding for health care has increased in real terms by almost 3 per cent. in the current year, and it is for the hospital trusts and the health board to decide whether any further resources might be available.

In my right hon. Friend's discussions with the chairmen, has he compared the allocation of funds in Scotland and in England and Wales? Have there been any statistics on the increase in the number of patients treated in England and Wales under the health reforms compared to the number in Scotland?

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. Resources for health care in Scotland are more than 20 per cent. per head higher than in England and Wales. That, however, reflects the relative position as regards the quality of health in both countries—for example, the morbidity rate in Scotland is much higher. I regret to have to say that the quality of health generally in parts of Scotland is very much lower than the United Kingdom average.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the financial allocation process in the health service is being used to create not only two classes of patients but two classes of employees? For example, the previous general manager of Fife health board, Francis Gibb, who left under a cloud, has now been given a £65,000 a year job, whereas hundreds of vital, low-paid health service workers, who have given years of quality service to Fife health board, were yesterday thrown on to the privatisation scrapheap? Should not public money be used to provide quality health service for all staff and patients and not to provide jobs for the blue-eyed boys who are friends of the Tory party?

The hon. Lady's description is a travesty of the reality. Mr. Francis Gibb did not leave Fife health board under a cloud. He was seconded to the management executive between November 1991 and July 1993, where he carried out some very successful and important work setting up the national specialist service unit, which is responsible for cardiac surgery, heart and lung transplants, liver transplants and a number of other contracts worth a total of £75 million. He was offered the chance to transfer to the Common Services Agency in September 1993 to ensure continuity under a two-year contract of employment. I regard that as an extremely sensible move.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from it being a case of jobs for the boys, one of the benefits of NHS trusts is that they have put nurses and nursing directors on the boards of trust hospitals, thereby enhancing their role, as the Select Committee on Employment was told only yesterday?

My hon. Friend is right. The hospital trust exercise has been enormously successful in Scotland and, by next April, some 90 per cent. of all Scottish health care will be delivered in that way.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board the implications for its acute strategy of his decision to allow three acute hospitals in Glasgow to achieve trust status? In other words, will Greater Glasgow health board and the Government still go ahead with their plans to cut at least 1,000 acute beds, or will it be left to the vagaries and brawl of the internal market?

The development of the acute services strategy in Greater Glasgow will be a high priority for the new chairman and staff of Greater Glasgow health board. The hon. Gentleman must wait on events.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to Berwickshire to discuss reform of local government boundaries with local interested parties.

My hon. Friend the Minister for local government and planning discussed the Government's reform proposals as they affect Berwickshire with a delegation that included the hon. Gentleman.

Will the Secretary of State accept that in the run-up to publication of the White Paper last summer, much to the dismay and disbelief of local people in Berwickshire, the Government's policy fundamentally changed in terms of combining Berwickshire with East Lothian? Will he further accept that the people of Berwickshire feel that they have never had any sensible explanation of why the Government changed their minds? If he is not prepared to come to Berwickshire himself or to give the House the reasons why the Government changed their mind, will he undertake to look favourably on an amendment moved in Standing Committee, early in the new year, aimed at keeping Berwickshire within the borders?

I look forward to debating the issue in the Standing Committee that considers the Bill. That is the place where those matters should be further developed. The Government did not change their mind. They developed the proposals and published them in the White Paper. To some extent, we were influenced by the views of local district authorities in the area. Ettrick and Lauderdale favours a single borders authority, but the other three districts of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Tweeddale favour an alternative arrangement, part of which, in the three-way split, was Berwickshire and the coastal strip of East Lothian. In defence of their proposals, they said:

"This would be by far the strongest in terms of representing the variety of local communities. It remains rooted in many continuing historical associations and links."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of north Tayside welcome the proposals affecting that part of Scotland? Is he further aware that some people are concerned about the absence of any mention of leisure and recreation? We presume that those matters will be properly addressed when the boundary changes.

It promises to be an interesting Committee stage, when we debate the Bill in detail.

If the Secretary of State wants to discuss East Lothian and Berwickshire, he had better come to see me because I am certain that I am the only citizen of Berwickshire who is interested in East Lothian. Is he aware that the one common interest of the people of the two regions is that his low-logic, high-cost plans for local government in Scotland should be aborted at birth, and that goes for the whole of East Lothian, which includes Musselburgh?

I am never sure of the hon. Gentleman's status in this matter; perhaps he lives in Berwickshire and owns East Lothian. I understand that he, too, has been to see my hon. Friend the Minister for local government and planning to make representations. Those, too, will be taken into account when we debate the Bill in Committee.

Is not the Berwickshire decision just one of the many ludicrous proposals in the Government's White Paper that highlight—if it needed highlighting—the fact that this exercise in butchering Scottish local government is conducted purely in the interests of the Scottish Conservative party? Has the right hon. Gentleman not yet grasped the fact that the reorganisation is unwanted and unnecessary, that it will be disruptive to industry and commerce throughout Scotland and that it will be a huge new cost to every taxpayer north of the border? Will he stop it before it starts?

I noticed an interesting opinion poll the other day in the business community, which suggested that more than 80 per cent. of the local business community welcomed single-tier local government. Until recently, the hon. Gentleman's party was committed to single-tier local government, as are the Scottish National party and the Liberals. I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was so frightened of the Conservative party's strength in local government. If he sees great advantage for the Conservative party in local government, it must be as a result of the policies that we propose to reform local government and to strengthen local democracy in Scotland.

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

The latest figures suggest that Scottish manufacturing output in the past year is 1·1 per cent. higher than in the preceding year. Manufacturing output in 1992 increased by 9 per cent. over the 1986 figures, which represents an annual growth rate of 1·4 per cent.

Are not exports from Scotland expanding strongly, and does not that show that, although the Scots may have forgotten how to play rugby, they still know how to manufacture and to sell their products at home and abroad? Is not it a little surprising that Opposition Members do not spend more time praising Scottish achievements, which are in sharp contrast to the position under the Labour party in the 1970s, when manufacturing output fell?

I trust that my hon. Friend's confidence in England's chances in the five nations championship is misplaced, but I am sure that he is right about Scotland's manufacturing export record, which is a tribute to not only Scottish management but the work force in Scottish factories. Scottish manufacturing exports were at a record of £9.7 billion in 1992 according to a survey by the Scottish Chamber of Commerce and the Scottish CBI. That is a real increase of 6·3 per cent.—a faster rate of growth than in the United Kingdom as a whole in five of the past six years. Frankly, I should have thought that Opposition Member would be proud of that.

How can the Minister be so complacent when there were heavy job losses in manufacturing industry in 1992 and 1993, on top of 150,000 job losses in manufacturing since 1979? How can he be complacent about a figure of 1·1 per cent. growth in manufacturing output, which follows growth of only 4 per cent. since 1979, when the Conservative party came to power? How can he be so complacent following last week's Budget, which will knock on the head the already extremely weak recovery in the Scottish economy?

I am not in any way complacent. Of course, challenges face Scotland and the Scottish economy. My right hon. and learned Friend's Budget has been widely welcomed by industry. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that unemployment in Scotland is below the United Kingdom average for the first time since the 1920s, or that the seasonally ajusted total was 8,000 lower in October than in January. He did not mention the fact that civilian employment in Scotland has increased by 169,000 in the past 10 years. That is the reality of the Scottish economy, however much Opposition Members wish to talk down the achievements of Scottish managers and Scottish workers in facing the challenges of international competition.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members seem to be oblivious of the fact that we have just come through a deep world recession, during which Scottish manufacturing industry was out there fighting and succeeding, and that the growth rates that he mentioned show a remarkable success in such times? Does he further agree that Scottish manufacturing industry has welcomed the Budget changes? Small businesses in particular welcome the changes to VAT and other areas.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The VAT changes have been widely welcomed by small businesses, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's decision to freeze excise duties on Scotch whisky. My hon. Friend's more general point is also absolutely correct. Labour Scottish Members hate good news for the Scottish economy. They hate more jobs for the Scottish economy and they hate the fact that self-employment in Scotland is up 54 per cent. since 1979. They also hate the fact that real gross domestic product per head is up 30 per cent. since 1981. They do not wish to recognise the achievements of managers and workers in Scotland.

The Minister is not only complacent but very confused. Over the past six quarters, manufacturing output in Scotland has gone down by 1·7 points. Does he appreciate that, according to his own figures, 20,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past year—a mere 80 jobs every working day? Is he aware that the extra burden of the £2 billion of Tory tax increases that will be imposed on Scotland as a result of last week's Budget will do nothing to stimulate demand? When on earth will the cosy, complacent Scottish Office attack the real problem, which is that 250,000 people cannot find a job in Tory Scotland?

Even by the hon. Gentleman's standards, that was not very good. I do not think that he listened to my answer, which was absolutely clear. Manufacturing output in the past year was 1·1 per cent. higher than in the preceding year. He did not quote the more recent evidence from business surveys such as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce survey and the Confederation of British Industry's industrial trends survey in October, which showed an improvement in business confidence for the fourth consecutive quarter and increases in domestic and export orders in the past four months. The hon. Gentleman's constant campaign to talk down Scotland is not succeeding.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the per capita expenditure on health care in Scotland; and what analysis he has made of similar per capita costs in comparable parts of the EC.

Net per capita NHS spending in Scotland was £717 per head in 1992–93. I have not made a detailed analysis of expenditure per capita on health care in other European Community countries.

I am disappointed that my hon. Friend was not able to produce figures for a comparison with other EC countries, but has he obtained figures for a comparison with at least England and Wales? It seems that the Opposition are always saying that Scotland gets a raw deal. Is that so?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the figures for other parts of the United Kingdom. Net per capita NHS spending is £717 in Scotland, £578 in England, £660 in Wales and £648 in Northern Ireland, which shows that, by any standards, the NHS in Scotland is extremely well funded.

Is the Minister aware that, despite that per capita rate in Scotland, a constituent of mine who attends the Paisley trust hospital must wait until 21 March for an appointment to see a urologist? That poor man, who is 78, must wait four and a half months, although he cannot walk 100 yd without going to the toilet. is the hon. Gentleman happy with that situation? He would not like it if it were his father.

Answer.

I shall answer. The health board contracted for 650 patients, but the trust expects to treat 740. That shows, first, that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are more than being met and, secondly, that the establishment of NHS trusts works in practice for the ordinary people to whom he referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet Scottish Homes to discuss disposal of surplus housing stocks.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to meet Scottish Homes to discuss disposal of surplus housing stocks, but he has issued guidance to Scottish Homes on the matter. Proposals must have the agreement of tenants, after which they are subject to his approval.

The Minister will know, because I have told him, that there have been a series of meetings in my constituency, called by the landlord, to discuss with tenants the options of a new tenancy with a new landlord. The vast majority of tenants have said that they would very much like Kilmarnock and Loudon district council to be their new landlord. If the tenants charter is to mean anything, and if there is to be any sign of a democratic move in that direction, should not the name of the Kilmarnock and Loudon district council appear on the ballot paper when people are given a free and democratic choice of a new landlord?

The current arrangements do not prevent a local authority from putting forward proposals to acquire Scottish Homes' stock. It is for Scottish Homes to decide whether special circumstances arise—including such matters as the number of properties involved and the location and the percentage of stock already owned by the local authority. Some 44 per cent. of the stock in Kilmarnock and Loudon is owned by the local authority. That is above the regional average and well above the national average. The objective of our policy is to provide diversity and choice. For practical operating reasons, Scottish Homes has decided that the ballot paper should contain two options: if the tenants vote against, that is the end of the matter; if they vote for, the matter will eventually come before the Secretary of State, who will have to be satisfied that all considerations had been properly thought through.

Kilmarnock and Loudon district council will look at the Minister's reply with a great deal of interest. Does the Minister expect Scottish Homes' rents to rise next year from their current average of £32 a week? Is it not true that he has cut the housing support grant from £36 million to £26 million—a loss of £10 million—in an attempt to force up council house rents from their average of £26·51 per week to as much as £34·86 a week? Why should tenants pay more and more in times of falling interest rates when mortgage payers pay less and less?

In setting this year's rent increase, Scottish Homes' board considered a number of options and agreed on an increase of 9 per cent. to spend more on repairs, management and maintenance. I expect the average increase in local authority rents to be about 5 per cent. On the basis of current trends in rent charges, maintenance and management, I would say that it will not be above 5 per cent. The reduction in the housing support grant for next year reflects partly a reduced need for subsidy and partly our policy of reducing indiscriminate subsidies, such as housing support grant, so that public sector resources can be concentrated on capital investment. Some £700 million is being spent on housing benefit in Scotland, although not exclusively on council house tenants.

Is the Minister's experience as a constituency Member of Parliament the same as that of most of the rest of us? Housing problems represent the majority of problems that are raised at our surgeries. When the hon. Gentleman meets Scottish Homes, will he draw its attention to the Department's 1991 housing survey, which revealed that about 1·5 million homes were in need of repair and that the number of houses built for rent had plummeted over the past decade? Will he do a deal with Scottish Homes? Will he give it increased resources to do its job if, in turn, it will stop publishing glossy pamphlets, which expensively tell us how good it is?

Scottish Homes has a very good record in the right hon. Gentleman's area. It is doing everything that it can to bring empty houses back into use, to expand the housing association movement and to build a number of new houses. It is important to mention the success stories—the before and after—and what can be achieved. The essence of the matter is that if the private sector becomes involved, public sector funds will go very much further.

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

My right hon. Friend and I are scheduled to meet representatives of COSLA on 28 January as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who rejected plans to opt out Paisley grammar school by an overwhelming majority of 41? May I also take this opportunity to thank the Minister, whose personal intervention helped to ensure the defeat of those plans? If the Minister accepts the wishes of the 80 per cent. of people who voted in that ballot—as I think he does—why will he not accept the wishes of the 82 per cent. of people in Ralston and the 79 per cent. of people in Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor who recently voted in a referendum to reject unnecessary, unwanted, costly and gerrymandering proposals that would bring about the destruction of Scottish local government?

The hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of time during the last general election canvassing against me in Barrhead—a fact to which I largely attribute my increased majority.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding the scaremongering of Opposition Front Benchers, single-tier authorities throughout Scotland will be cheaper to run and more accountable to the electorate, and will save the council tax payer money?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Allegations to the contrary from the Opposition are wholly contradicted by what Labour councils actually say in their individual submissions to the Scottish Office. I will give an example. In its submission to the Scottish Office, Dundee district council—hardly a safe haven for Toryism—estimates that the council tax bill would be £14·45 cheaper per Dundee household if there were a Dundee, rather than a Tayside, unitary authority. That is the evidence from Labour councils.

Is the Minister aware that I loved last week's good news from Paisley grammar school? In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), he seemed to be telling us that he himself was opting out of democracy and was unwilling to accept the views of the people in Renfrew district who told him that they did not want the new local authorities that he proposes to set up. Will he assure me that he accepts the views of parents of children at Paisley grammar school, and also that he agrees with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who told me in a television programme last week that he believed in devolving power?

Of course the Government accept the vote concerning Paisley grammar school. It was this Government who gave parents the choice to make that decision, and this Government who saved Paisley grammar school when friends of the hon. Members for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) wanted to close it for ideological reasons. The Government gave parents a choice on their future.

The parents of pupils at Paisley grammar school have spoken for Scottish education, but who speaks for the Government? Is it the Minister responsible for education, who stated on national television that the result showed a high level of parental satisfaction with the present system, or is it the Secretary of State, who stated that 20 per cent. of the electorate voting to opt out represented a success? I concede that 20 per cent. is a solid achievement in Tory terms, but to everyone else it is a miserable failure. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will clear up that confusion by the time he meets the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 28 January—and that the Government, after getting a bloody nose, will in a spirit of humility stop destabilising Scottish education and support and encourage local authorities, parents and pupils in their education efforts?

Will the hon. Gentleman and his friends give a guarantee that the Labour party will not close Paisley grammar school? That guarantee has not been given. Labour tried it before and will try it again.

Will the Minister guarantee to COSLA that he will not pack the Standing Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill with Conservative Members representing English seats—a guarantee that he singularly failed to give in correspondence?

The hon. Gentleman has corresponded with me on that matter, but the Committee's membership is a matter for the Committee of Selection. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that he and I disagree on a fundamental point: I take the view that this is the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss the provision of health care in the Glasgow area.

I and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister responsible for health matters meet health board chairmen from time to time, and expect to meet the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board in due course to discuss health matters in Glasgow.

When the Secretary of State meets the new man, when will he be able to give him any assurance that he will not fall victim to the same Watergate-style skulduggery described by the Secretary of State's distinguished predecessor, Lord Younger, as being the fate of Mr. Bill Fyfe—the departing chairman of Greater Glasgow health board? How much longer can the Secretary of State pretend that he and other Ministers had no knowledge of the grisly details of that affair, when Scotland on Sunday revealed last Sunday that on 6 and 30 August, and in October this year, the right hon. Gentleman's most senior and trusted advisers were intervening in the matter? Will the Secretary of State answer here and now the classic Watergate question: what did Ministers know about the Fyfe-Peterken affair and when did they know it?

I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is an expert in skulduggery but I have no doubt that the appointment of Sir Robert Calderwood as the new chairman of Greater Glasgow health board—which has been widely welcomed—will be extremely successful. I can tell the hon. Gentleman also that I have looked into the matter and I am satisfied that Mr. Fyfe was told repeatedly that he could not and should not seek to terminate Mr. Peterken's employment and make the offer of a financial settlement to him. I have to conclude that Mr. Fyfe was the architect of his own downfall.

While the Government fiddle the health service, is the Secretary of State aware that many thousands of people in the Greater Glasgow health board area are on the waiting list for treatment? Is he aware, for example, that one of my teenage constituents was told just last week that he would have to wait two and a half years for necessary dental treatment at Glasgow dental hospital? When will the Secretary of State start putting patient care before Tory party political cover-ups and jobs for his supporters?

The budget for Greater Glasgow health board has been increased in the current year by 2·1 per cent. in real terms. That is a substantial increase, and I shall be announcing further increases later. The waiting list for long-term patients has fallen from 13·3 per cent. in June 1991 to 9·4 per cent. in 1993, so considerable progress in shortening waiting lists, especially for those with long waits, has been made.

When did the Secretary of state become aware of the terms of the letter dated 6 August which was sent to the Treasury by the acting chief executive of the health service in Scotland, who is answerable to the Secretary of State? Did that letter state that the Secretary of State no longer had confidence in Mr. Peterken? If so, did it represent the Secretary of State's view? If not, what action has been taken against a senior official who so grossly misrepresented the Secretary of State's view?

I first became aware of the letter on 23 November. It did not say that I had lost confidence in Mr. Peterken. I had not, and I still have not, lost confidence in Mr. Peterken. The letter was between officials in my Department and officials in the Treasury.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his total silence on this scandal in the Greater Glasgow health board over the past five weeks is both significant and deeply suspicious? Does he seriously expect people to believe that Mr. Bill Fyfe was having meetings throughout 1993 to discuss getting rid of Laurence Peterken—meetings which included the Secretary of State's solicitor and the director of personnel in the Scottish Office—and that a senior official, believed to be the acting chief executive of the national health service in Scotland, wrote a letter to the Treasury on 6 August asking for approval for a £200,000 pay-off for Mr. Peterken? Does the Secretary of State expect us to believe that neither he nor the Minister knew anything at all about that?

I welcome the decision of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to investigate this matter and I look forward to the publication of its report. I have also instructed the chief executive of the management executive to carry out an inquiry into the events surrounding the dismissal of the general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board. That inquiry is not yet complete, but a report will be published. I say to the hon. Gentleman—and I say it more in sorrow than in anger—that when I heard him comparing the resignation of the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board, who had lost the confidence of his non-executive board members, with 25 years of carnage, murder and terrorism in Northern Ireland, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was plumbing the depths of bad taste.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage further inward investment.

My Department, through the work of Locate in Scotland, is continually promoting Scotland as a location for inward investment. My right hon. Friend and I have recently undertaken inward investment missions to the far east and the United States, respectively, where discussions were held with existing and potential investors.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that inward investment has created many thousands of jobs in Scotland and will contribute to the continued regeneration of the Scottish economy? Does he agree that one of the main reasons why overseas investors come to Scotland and, indeed, to Britain as a whole is because the British Government have refused to sign up to Labour's two job destroyers—the social chapter and the minimum wage?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both points. Even President Jacques Delors has admitted that there is no question but that the sensible Government decision not to sign up to the social chapter makes the United Kingdom an attractive place for inward investment from Japan and the United States as company after company confirmed to me on my recent visit.

Has the Minister read the recent report by the electronics industry in Scotland, which points out its vulnerability to the fact that it consists largely of screwdriver assembly plants, with little research and development, little marketing and little worldwide product responsibility? Has he further read the report by Scottish Enterprise and its chief executive, documenting the lack of entrepreneurship in Scottish industry? Has the Minister any comment on that after 14 years of Tory government?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest and expertise in those subjects, and I have read the reports to which he refers. About 47 per cent. of all overseas-owned manufacturing companies in Scotland undertake some form of research and development. The Scottish electronics forum, which was addressed by my right hon. Friend earlier this week, is addressing those challenges. Of course there are challenges—let us not be in any doubt about that—but we must not, and I do not suggest that the hon. Member did, underestimate the huge successes that Scotland has had and is continuing to have in the electronics industry.

Does my hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the Budget statement announcing the investment of about £200 million in the new air traffic control centre at Atlantic house in Prestwick in my constituency? Does he accept that my constituents express relief and enthusiasm that the service that they provide to the airline industry will continue, and does he agree that that gives an almighty boost to the economy of south Ayrshire and the surrounding area?

My hon. Friend is right to welcome that important announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his Budget statement. In addition, as my hon. Friend knows extremely well, because he was very much involved, the decision by Digital to centre its European operations in my hon. Friend's constituency—[Interruption]—well, close to the border of the constituency of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—is a good example of Locate in Scotland's immense success not only in attracting but in retaining key overseas investment of the highest quality in Scotland.

Does the Minister agree that, in addition to his efforts to attract investment to Scotland, the Government must support existing industry in promoting and exporting services and goods overseas? Will he confirm the work of Scottish Enterprise and congratulate it on identifying excellent potential hydro-electricty sites in Vietnam? Is he aware that approval for those projects can create employment in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Will he urge the Overseas Development Administration to approve those projects so that work can proceed?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's close personal interest in this matter, and I regard those projects as having considerable potential for Northern Ireland and Scotland. I had the opportunity to discuss the projects briefly with the Prime Minister of Vietnam when he visited Scotland, and I can assure the hon. Member that Scottish Enterprise is doing everything possible to put forward a positive case for the developments to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the Coalition for Scottish Democracy in relation to its demand for a multi-option referendum on the government of Scotland.

I have had no discussions with the Coalition for Scottish Democracy, whatever that body may be.

That is a pity, because a Secretary of State who governs Scotland by quango, without the support or consent of the people, desperately needs to talk to people who understand what democracy is all about. Will the right hon. Gentleman try to explain the riddle of why the Government support the Unionist status quo in Northern Ireland, on the ground that it is supported by parties with 67 per cent. of the popular vote there, but oppose the break-up of the Unionist status quo in Scotland despite the fact that that is supported by parties with 75 per cent. of the popular vote in our country? Is not the Government's support for self-determination for the Province of Northern Ireland while denying self-determination to the nation of Scotland based not on any political principle but on the grubby political fact that they need the votes of Ulster Unionists to save them from a general election and from the votes and the judgment of the people of this country?

I do not think that such simplistic comparisons do anything to add enlightenment either in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. Part of the nature of the United Kingdom is its diversity. What is important is that we maintain its unity. I am content and satisfied that the arrangements that Scotland has in the United Kingdom Parliament offer the best protection for Scotland's future in the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who stand for election to this Parliament and come here should recognise that it is this Parliament to which they were elected and that their allegiance should not lie elsewhere unless they have declared that fact clearly, as a few do? Should not those who come to Parliament without declaring that allegiance, and then attempt to destroy it by means of bogus vehicles and sounding operations, recognise that that was not how they were elected to this place?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that the changes recently proposed in the White Paper affecting the handling of Scottish business in the House will be able to make progress early in the new year.

Following the comments of my Unionist friend the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), and as we in England, Northern Ireland and Wales have a legitimate interest in any constitutional changes in Scotland—indeed, we are concerned about the value of such changes—can the Secretary of State assure the House that if a referendum were held in Scotland an identical referendum would be held elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

The right hon. Gentleman knows better than most the differences between the different parts of the United Kingdom. However, as his question is hypothetical, no answer of mine could have any substance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received recently about the Sunday trading law in Scotland.

Since December 1992, my right hon. Friend has received 11 representations, including two letters from one individual supporting restrictions on Sunday trading. He has also received two letters in support of the Shopping Hours Reform Council partial deregulation model and one letter in favour of the present arrangements.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows the widespread support of the Scottish people for the present arrangements? Does he therefore agree that it would be illogical for Scottish Members of Parliament to vote to impose on my constituents restrictions from which they do not suffer and which those Members would not seek to impose on their constituents? Does he also agree that the present position in Scotland demonstrates that it is individual conscience rather than legislative fiat that keeps Sunday special?

I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. The arrangements in Scotland are working well, and hon. Members will have the opportunity to vote later today on the issues as they relate to England and Wales. I shall watch with particular fascination how the Leader of the Opposition votes, as I understand that he has reservations about English Members voting on Scottish matters.

In connection with Sunday trading, and with trading in Scotland, what representations has the Minister received about the disgraceful fact that it is now possible for planning permission to be given for alcohol to be sold in garage forecourts? An amendment was passed to make that totally impossible in England. Will the Minister take the earliest opportunity under the Sunday trading legislation to outlaw totally the selling of alcohol in garage forecourts? Is not that wrong, whatever view one takes?

The Bill applies in England, but I have some sympathy with the point made by the hon. Gentleman and I will examine the matter. A number of issues in relation to the subject are under consideration. For example, hairdressers are not allowed to cut hair on Sundays, which is a restriction. That is the type of issue that we are examining.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to pay an official visit to Easter Ross to assess the local economic situation; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit Easter Ross, but, as Minister with responsibility for the highlands and islands, I am always willing to meet the hon. Gentleman and local representatives to discuss constituency matters.

May I thank the Minister, following our conversations during the past week or two, for clarifying the to-ing and fro-ing between himself and the Ross and Cromarty district council? Will it be possible, probably early in the new year, for representatives of the district council to meet him to discuss their anxiety about unemployment, particularly that relating to the oil fabrication centre?

I understand that action on fish farming has been taken with the Commission, and that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture is following it up. A considerable amount has been done through Highlands and Islands Enterprise with Ross and Cromarty Enterprise to establish a Moray firth oil initiative. I recognise the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I can tell him that some 500 people who had been laid off found employment through the initiative and through retraining. I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman, but I stress that I have had 60 meetings in the Highlands and Islands. If necessary, I will meet him with representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry and, if possible, the Minister concerned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) to discuss measures to promote economic growth in Scotland.

I keep in regular touch with the Scottish Council on matters relating to the Scottish economy.

I should like to ask a question on the Scottish salmon farming and fish farming industry which was not answered by the reply to the previous question. The Secretary of State must be aware that 6,000 jobs and £200 million on the balance of payments are at stake in an industry which provides vital employment in many rural areas of Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the industry as an important provider of jobs in rural areas, and I agree that about 6,000 people are employed in the industry. It is an important industry and, through meetings that I and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Scotland have had with the industry, I am aware of the anxiety.

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the members of the Scottish Council on their work? Will he also congratulate the members of Locate in Scotland on their work and, in particular, on the fact that they have just brought to Scotland a firm that will provide 1,000 jobs in the west of Scotland thanks to their aptitude and excellence?

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to emphasise those two important components of the Scottish economy. Not only did Locate in Scotland have an exceptionally good year in attracting inward investment to Scotland in a fiercely competitive world environment, but the export side has also been extremely successful—a matter in which the Scottish Council is heavily involved. Our exports were up by 9·6 per cent. in value in 1992, and by 6 per cent. in volume, to their highest ever value of £9·7 billion.

On salmon farming, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the actions so far taken by the Commission are completely inadequate to defend the industry against the uncompetitive practices of the Norwegians? Why is it possible to impose a 12 per cent. import levy on farmed trout but not on farmed salmon? Why is it possible for the Americans to impose a 26 per cent. levy against Norwegian salmon entering the United States? Will the Secretary of State undertake at least to push for this sort of measure to defend the Scottish salmon farming industry?

The introduction of a minimum import price has provided a base around which the market can stabilise, although I acknowledge that many salmon farmers regard that base as too low. As I have already said, we continue to be in touch on these matters, and consideration is being given to further action.