To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the new water authority board members will be councillors.

There will be a significant number of elected councillors among the membership of the new water and sewerage authorities. Further decisions on appointments have not yet been taken.

I thank the Minister for his reply. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), wrote the Minister a letter some time ago expressing the anxieties of Eastwood district council about the lack of elected membership on the governing bodies of the water boards. The Minister's reply was terse, to say the least. He told the Under-Secretary of State that it would be wrong to put elected members in a position of power on the water boards in case they went against Government policy, inasmuch as the Minister thought that elected members were not the representatives of the people and that local people should be represented on the boards by those with money, companies and so forth—not ordinary elected members, but lackeys whom the Minister would pick—

Order. I hope that a question will come my way soon, instead of a statement. Perhaps the Minister can attempt an answer.

I think that the hon. Gentleman was paraphrasing a rather good letter. I can assure the House, as I have done before, both in the Chamber and in Committee, that there will be a significant number of local elected councillors on the water authorities. They will be there for their blend of skills and experience and perhaps because of their previous work with water authorities and local authorities. After we have consulted and the Bill has been enacted, I think that Opposition Members will be very pleased with the results.

For the benefit of Opposition Members, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to say clearly and slowly, if possible in words of one syllable, that under his plans water will not be privatised but will remain in public hands, that that is enshrined in law, that there can be no disconnections, and that local elected councillors will be on the boards? Will he also confirm that, regardless of what system is in place, water bills in Scotland will have to rise, due to the investment required?

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. I thank my hon. Friend very much for putting his question so concisely.

A splendid response.

What guarantee can the Minister give that the large rural areas of Scotland will be represented on the water quangos? For example, will Orkney and Shetland have any representation in the Northern water area, will Argyll and Bute have any in the Western area, and will Dumfries and Galloway have any in the Eastern area? There is a real anxiety that some of the smaller unitary authorities could end up with no representation at all.

There is always anxiety in any world where change is envisaged. I assure the hon. Lady that this change will be very much for the better. All areas will have reasonable representation, not only on the water authorities, but on the councils that we are appointing.

Has the Minister had time to look at the Which? report on English private water companies, which states that while costs and profits of water companies south of the border have increased by 70 per cent. water costs to consumers have doubled? Indeed, it says that the only things rising faster than the exorbitant cost of water south of the border are the extravagant salaries of the chief executives of water companies. Given the disaster that is unfolding south of the border, is that not an argument for keeping Scottish water under local democratic control?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. On the second part, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, having read the Committee's deliberations, that the authorities that we have set up are public authorities, the members of which are appointed by the Secretary of State and are democratically responsible to him. I think that all will be well and that we shall get on with doing what is required—improving the water and sewerage services in Scotland as soon as possible.

The Minister will recall that in March this year, 97 per cent. of the people of Strathclyde region rejected the Government's proposals for putting water into the hands of quangos. Last Thursday, more than 97 per cent. of the people of Monklands, East rejected the Government and their policies as well, giving the Government their worst election result in any parliamentary by-election or election since 1918 when the universal franchise came in. Does the Minister realise that one of the factors contributing to that is the Government's Marie Antoinette approach to Scottish water? The people of Scotland are clearly saying to the Government that they want water in the hands of local elected people and that unless the Government do that they will continue to be humiliated and punished by the people whom they deny.

Even by the hon. Gentleman's own standards, that is about as far away from the question on the Order Paper as he could possibly get. After all that has happened in the past three weeks, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have raised the subject of Monklands at all. I should have thought that he would go into purdah and shut up for the next couple of years, and see just how much work his party has to do to bring democratic government back into local government in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding safety at outdoor education centres.

My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations on safety at outdoor education centres. He is, however, fully aware of the action that has followed the canoeing tragedy in Lyme Bay, Dorset. In particular, the Government's response to that incident—including new guidance on safety at outdoor activity centres—extends to Scotland.

Is the Minister aware that every year thousands of children in Scotland attend outdoor education centres and undertake potentially hazardous activities? What guidelines have been given to schools in Scotland and what measures have been taken to accredit and inspect the centres to ensure that children's lives are not put at risk?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I can confirm that guidance is likely to be published in the late summer and is intended to supplement the existing guidance, "Safety in Outdoor Education," which was published in 1989.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the extra cost to be incurred by Government sources as a result of alterations in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill between the Bill as presented at First Reading and its current state.

The Government have incurred no significant costs as a result of alterations made to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill since its introduction.

In the light of the Rowntree study, which showed that the economies of scale in education would be disaggregated, are the Government quite certain that there will be no increase in service delivery costs?

I have made the figures absolutely clear, and the changes that the Government have made since the introduction have been widely welcomed. I quote the views of West Lothian district council in the hon. Gentleman's constituency:

"The new structure of local government must combine democracy and efficiency. A new West Lothian Council would strike exactly the right balance. It would also lend itself to a quick and economical transition, thus maintaining the continuity of service which is vital to both citizens, business and partner organisations."

What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the additional savings that will result from the Bill's provision for the abolition of Monklands district council? In particular, has he received any representations from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), who stated in The Herald on 30 June that he had seen figures which proved the existence of corruption? Does my hon. Friend agree that if those figures were made available to him we could arrange an inquiry into the matter of corruption, which seems to be gaining all-party recognition?

If anyone has evidence that Monklands district council—or any other local authority in Scotland—is in breach of its statutory responsibilities, of course the Government will look into it. I have received no representations from Opposition Members seeking a meeting, but if the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) or the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) wishes to seek a joint meeting with me, I have no doubt that such a meeting would be an entertaining and interesting occasion.

Will the Government now do the decent thing and abandon their expensive and unwanted carve-up of Scottish local government? Would it not show absolute contempt for the wishes of the people of Scotland if a Tory Government proceeded with such gerrymandering plans, especially after the Tories were so resoundingly defeated in the recent regional elections and were virtually annihilated in the Monklands by-election?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consult his own district council, Falkirk, which I understand is very content with the Government's proposals.

Does my hon. Friend agree that any extra costs resulting from the Bill and associated with the abolition of Monklands district council will be money well spent? Do not the revelations of corruption, nepotism and dubious job practices in Monklands during the recent by-election vindicate Conservative Members who have pointed to the corruption in that council? How many other Labour councils in Scotland are getting up to similar shenanigans?

The short answer is that I do not know. The Scottish Office cannot take action simply because a local authority may indulge in practices that others would criticise; we can act only if a council is in breach of its statutory responsibilities.

To return to the main question, can the Minister tell us whether he included in his calculation of the cost of the local government changes the cost of providing in every centre of population the all-purpose offices that will be necessary in areas such as the Borders if local government is to continue to have any meaning at all?

I certainly hope that there will not be huge all-purpose offices in the centres of all the new local authorities—for the very good reason that at the centre of our local government proposals is an emphasis on decentralisation of facilities rather than centralisation. Of course some costs may be incurred, but there will also be savings. The figures published by the Government take no account, for instance, of receipts from property sales.

Will the Minister confirm that he has received a deputation and a request from members and employees of Kyle and Carrick district council? This is the real scandal in Scottish local government. The authority is now re-tendering a contract for cleansing and refuse collection which still had three weeks to run, and it has been discovered that the provost of Kyle and Carrick had five secret meetings with a Spanish contracting company before making the decision. That is the kind of corruption that is taking place in Tory-controlled Kyle and Carrick. The Minister has received a request for an inquiry: when will he conduct one?

I must say that that remark was pretty racist from a party that is supposed to be "communautaire". Did not the favourite for the leadership of the Opposition recently say that it was communautaire? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the question as soon as hon. Members give me an opportunity to do so.

While the Minister sits back and enjoys his hypocrisy and complacency—

Order. There is no hypocrisy in this House. Will the hon. Gentleman rephrase what he has just said?

While the Minister sits back and enjoys his complacency over allegations of corruption, does he accept that the time scale for the implementation of reorganisation proposals is simply a shambles? Does he accept that if he proceeds with the timetable services will be destroyed, jobs will be lost and local government will lose a great deal that it has built up over the past 30 years? In view of the result in Monklands last week, is there not some political merit for the Tories in abandoning the elections next year and returning to the real problems facing local government? Why does the Minister not announce today that there will be a year's delay? Better still, why does he not scrap such crazy, ill-conceived proposals?

The timetable is almost the same as for the last reorganisation of local government in Scotland, when some difficulties arose during that period—notably a coal strike and a general election, neither of which we envisage happening between now and the elections for the shadow authorities next year. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consult Fife regional council—his own Labour-controlled council—which estimates that the Government's proposals will save £68 million over 15 years. Moreover, it has made no representations to the Government suggesting that it is anything other than happy with the proposals.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the evasive nature of the Minister's answers, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Scottish Nuclear on its expansion proposals for nuclear electricity generating capacity.

As Scottish Nuclear has no plans to expand its nuclear generating capacity, my right hon. Friend has naturally not discussed the subject with it.

Will the Minister take it from me that moves are afoot to expand the nuclear industry? I am surprised at the answer that I have just received. Does he recognise that more than 50 per cent. of the electricity industry's generating capacity in Scotland is through nuclear power, which is extremely inefficient as it costs Scottish people more than alternative forms of energy? When he meets Scottish Nuclear about its expansion, will he recognise the fact that a question mark hangs over environmental arguments and the decommissioning of Hunterston A before he grants permission for any type of expansion? A moratorium would be better. I hope that the Minister will join me in ensuring that the people of Scotland are not penalised further because of the folly of nuclear power in their area.

A large number of people, not just on this side of the House, would disagree with the hon. Gentleman's views. There are no plans for an expansion of nuclear-generated capacity. There is interest in replacement of Hunterston B, but that is a different matter. I should make it clear that the Government are committed to the nuclear option, provided that it can prove economic. One of Scotland's great benefits is the variety of sources of supply to its electricity generation industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Scottish Nuclear is built on success in electricity generation? Does he also agree that, given the restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, an adequate and cost-effective supply of energy resources in Scotland will depend largely on the nuclear resource if Scotland's economic future is to be secure?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the importance of nuclear energy for Scottish industry and Scottish consumers. Scottish Nuclear Ltd. plans to increase its output by 18 per cent. by 1998 and to control costs—wholly consistently with safety, of course. The contribution that SNL has made to electricity generation is one of which all Scotland should be proud.

The Minister will know that thousands of Scottish children travel from school to visit nuclear power station exhibition centres, and they do so in minibuses and coaches. When do the Government intend to bring forward legislation to make seat belts compulsory to protect our children—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is on totally the wrong question. In that case, we shall now move on.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the change in the numbers unemployed in Scotland since December 1992.

Since December 1992, the number of seasonally adjusted unemployed in Scotland has fallen by 17,100.

As unemployment throughout the European Community has increased by 1.5 million during that time, will my hon. Friend consider holding a seminar at one of Scotland's ancient universities—preferably the university of St. Andrews—at which he could point out that deregulation and modern labour relations create jobs while a minimum wage and the social chapter destroy jobs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the United Kingdom is clearly coming out of the recession ahead of most of the rest of the European Community. As regards seminars, I recently addressed a seminar in Glasgow on the European Community's White Paper, where I made precisely some of the valid points that my hon. Friend has mentioned about Britain's economic success.

Does the Minister agree with me that, like the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), he is misleading the Scottish people and misleading the House by giving those figures? Does he also agree that the 249,000 figure of December 1992 is the peak figure, although it is 17,100 lower? Why did he not take the August 1990 figure of 197,000, which is the lowest figure? Does he agree that the figure is 34,700 higher than that?

Now answer that.

The short answer is that the question was:

"what is the change in the numbers unemployed in Scotland since December 1992",

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that we still have very low strike rates in the United Kingdom? Does he believe that Scottish unemployment is decreasing because the Scottish work force in the main refused to strike? Will he, therefore, make it clear to hon. Members in all parts of the House that the condoning of strike action, from wherever it comes, should be condemned from all parts of the House?

I agree with my hon. Friend. All the evidence from inward investment work clearly shows the importance that firms from north America and the far east attach to Scotland's excellent industrial relations. We have a superb and skilled work force in Scotland, as our inward investment record demonstrates.

How many changes have there been to the calculations on unemployment figures since the Government came to power in 1979? If the Minister was able to calculate the figures on the basis that he is suggesting from 1992, could he confirm that the total would be about double that which he suggests?

What I do know is that all the Labour Governments in history have ended up with unemployment higher at the end of their period in office than at the beginning. The hon. Gentleman clearly will not face up to the fact that unemployment in Scotland, which of course is high, is below that of the United Kingdom average for the first time since the 1920s. Unemployment there is falling at a time when it is not falling in the rest of the European Community.

Does the Minister agree that adult training is crucial to overcoming unemployment? Why are no adult training places available in Angus and Dundee? Why are existing places under threat? Why is adult training not a priority for the Government?

Of course, places are available. There is a further education college in Dundee. Adult training is a priority of the Government, which is why we are giving £200 million to the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise network to provide the resources for adult training in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to arrange for the clearing up of pollution on the foreshores of the Clyde estuary.

Responsibility for cleaning beaches lies with district or islands councils.

Will the Minister borrow a small canoe and paddle up the River Clyde to see the pollution in the water and the dereliction? He will come to the Erskine bridge. A recent paper stated that the bridge is crumbling and my constituents are worried that it may not be safe. Will the Minister give the House and my constituents an assurance that the bridge will be made safe? Will he make a public announcement on the present state of the bridge?

I would rather paddle down the river than up it. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, but it is far removed from my sphere of responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who is responsible for the bridge and for roads in Scotland, will have heard the exchange, and I am sure that if action needs to be taken, he will take it.

The Minister is aware that chromium waste dumping sites in Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Toryglen pollute water courses that flow into the River Clyde, and that contamination ends up in the Clyde estuary. The Secretary of State has said that no resources will be made available to clear up those contaminated waste sites in my constituency. Bearing in mind the fact that the public health board has said that the situation is potentially risky and the fact that the Secretary of State has refused to help because he is looking for evidence, will the Minister tell me what evidence will satisfy the Secretary of State? Is he waiting for someone to die?

The hon. Gentleman must not put it like that. He has had meetings with the Secretary of State and me, and he knows that discussions have taken place and are taking place on how to deal with that serious issue. There is no doubt that action will have to be taken, whether through the enterprise company, the region or the district—the problem must be resolved. I assure him that the Scottish Office will play a full part in trying to find the right solution.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to conduct a review of community care in Scotland.

We continually monitor and review the progress of the operation of community care in Scotland. A major evaluation and research project is being undertaken at Stirling university.

Is the Minister aware of the great anguish and anxiety caused when trusts publish business plans stating how many people are to be discharged into the community and which hostels are to be closed, but make no mention of how the care is to be provided?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about these matters, which he raised in the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday. First, a business plan is an essential starting point. Secondly, like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that close co-operation with local authorities is very important, and we have a working party studying that. Thirdly, no hospital can be closed until after a period of public consultation and after a submission to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

When my hon. Friend and his colleagues are consulting, will they consider Meigle cottage hospital and the proposal to turn it into a day-care centre? If, on examining that proposal, it is found that its capital and revenue costs, especially transporting people long distances to the hospital, are the same as, or greater than, the cost of maintaining the hospital as it is, will my hon. Friend review the decision to close it?

It is no great surprise to hear my hon. Friend raise the issue of Meigle cottage hospital. I reassure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State and I will keep the position at Meigle under the closest review and scrutiny.

Does the Minister realise that his avowed concern for these matters is somewhat less than convincing because earlier this year he admitted that he did not know the number of people paying the full cost of accommodation in residential care and nursing homes, or how many people had sold their homes to meet the charges for their residential care? Is the hon. Gentleman any better informed now?

We regularly collect and publish a whole range of statistics on community care as part of the monitoring process. Inspections are carried out by the social work services inspectorate and the reviews by the NHS management executive.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the principle of care in the community is commendable? Does he further agree that to keep the elderly and mentally sick in normal conditions in the community for as long as possible is better than institutionalising them and putting them in hospital? Will my hon. Friend join me in commending Grampian health care trust on its business plan, although it is only an outline plan? It not only includes, sadly, proposals to close some hospitals, but—this is something that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) did not mention—plans for significant capital expenditure on new hospital provision for those who have to remain in hospital, so that they can have even better care.

My hon. Friend is right. The trust's plan includes considerable capital expenditure. The objective is not simply to maintain, but to improve the standards of patient care.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss disposal of housing stock.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already issued guidance to Scottish Homes on the procedure for the disposal of housing stock. He has no plans to meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss that further.

You will be as appalled as I am by that answer, Madam Speaker, when you hear that Scottish Homes held a meeting last week and invited only selected tenants to discuss the disposal of the property. Democratically elected members of tenants associations, residents associations and district councils, and even the local Member of Parliament, were debarred from that meeting, presumably because Scottish Homes thought that they might impose some evil influence on its decision. The Minister will be surprised to hear that those selected tenants unanimously rejected the association that Scottish Homes hoped they would adopt and said that they wanted unfettered—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now making a statement, which is quite unfair. There are many questions on the Order Paper and unless questions and answers are brisk, many Scottish Members will be disappointed. I am asking for a direct question and a brisk answer.

I take the point, Madam Speaker, but I am seriously concerned about this business. Will the Minister, therefore, direct Scottish Homes to give all Scottish tenants a free and unfettered choice in their future landlords?

At the end of the day, if a majority of tenants wish to remain in the public sector, they will have the opportunity to do so through the ballot paper and by voting to remain with Scottish Homes. As for the meeting that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I understand that owner-occupiers were not dealt with in exactly the same way as tenants. Owner-occupiers have an interest in the proposed new landlords and they are entitled to attend public meetings. Representatives of a residents association, representing tenants and owner-occupiers, would have access to the tenants' independent adviser. Unlike tenants, an owner-occupier will not be entitled to vote in the ballot as a tenant because a home owner's landlord is himself or herself.

Will the Minister give me one good reason why tenants of Scottish Homes in my constituency who wish to become tenants of the local authority should be prevented from doing so?

The current arrangements do not preclude a local authority from presenting proposals to acquire Scottish Homes stock. In special circumstances, that option can be put forward, as it was in the case of Berwickshire. Those special circumstances would include, first, the number of properties involved; secondly, their location; and, thirdly, the percentage of houses already held by the local authority. In Kilmarnock and Loudoun, some 44 per cent. of houses are in the public sector, which is substantially higher than the national average. It is our aim to have more choice and diversity in housing stock.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Konver initiative; and what funding he proposes to make available to local authorities to progress economic development.

Scotland received more than £1.7 million from the first Konver initiative, which ran as a one-year programme in 1993. The European Commission is in the process of issuing guidelines for the next round of Community initiatives, including a second Konver programme.

Does the Minister agree that the Government should introduce a national strategy for defence diversification if any progress is to be made in economic development in areas that depend heavily on defence-related activities, such as Fife, which has the highest unemployment rate in Scotland and where we have lost 4,000 jobs at Rosyth in the past three years? Does he further agree that no EC initiative could replace the 8,000 jobs that depend on Rosyth's future? Will he say clearly today that he supports Rosyth and will he link his future to that of the naval base and to those 8,000 jobs?

On the second question, the hon. Lady knows that no decision has been made on the future of the naval base, as well as the other establishments being reviewed under "Front Line First". She will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is to make a statement before the House rises for the summer recess.

My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the Locate in Scotland programme, which has attracted firms such as Hoover, Motorola and Mitsubishi. But does he agree that the distance between Scotland and the centre of gravity of Europe puts it at a great disadvantage? Is it not therefore even more amazing that freight transport from Scotland to the rest of Europe is being disrupted today by the rail strike—[interruption.]—and is it not even more surprising that the Opposition Front Bench—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate what he says more to the original question. Will the Minister answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question?

rose—

Does he remember it?

Yes, I remember it. My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of transport links between Scotland and Europe. That is why the Eurofreight terminal in Mossend is important, as is the open skies policy pursued by the Government. My hon. Friend is also right to say that Scotland is an extremely attractive location for multinational companies, which make their decisions wholly objectively. The recent figures from Locate in Scotland amply prove that.

In keeping with the spirit of the times, would any of the candidates at the hustings for the post of Secretary of State for Scotland like to dissociate himself from the treacherous betrayal of Rosyth by the two previous Secretaries of State? The present Secretary of State—the incumbent for the time being—has failed to lift a finger for Rosyth, and the previous Secretary of State, now Secretary of State for Defence, has physically presided over the impending closure of Rosyth? Why should anyone in Rosyth or in the rest of Scotland who is interested in jobs or in the defence of Scotland and the rest of Britain ever trust whoever succeeds the present incumbent?

Such personal attacks are unbecoming to the hon. Gentleman and are wholly without foundation. I suggest that he awaits the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence.

Is it just possible that the Secretary of State might manage to take time out from the royal pageant in Edinburgh to consider the future of Her Majesty's naval base at Rosyth, or has he completely given up the fight to save it? May I tell the Minister, who seems to be standing in for the absent Secretary of State today, that if the Government do not listen to the defence case and the human case for—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is taking some advice."] Obviously the parliamentary private secretary is giving the Minister advice. Let us hope that it is the right advice—although if I were the Minister I would rather accept advice from somebody else. If the Government do not listen to the defence case and the human case for the Rosyth naval base, and act on it, they will be roundly condemned all over the country. If they do not fight for the base, they will betray the defence of Britain and the thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on Rosyth. If they do not care about Rosyth and the people connected with it, they will be swept away—and swept away for a generation.

Of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland is in touch with the Secretary of State for Defence on matters affecting Scotland. Naturally, there is constant communication on such matters. I must tell Opposition Members that I find it astonishing that a party that historically has favoured cutting defence expenditure year after year, with manifesto commitment after manifesto commitment, now wants very high expenditure on defence. But of course the matter is of concern. That is why, for example, I understand that yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met a delegation from Fife accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about skill shortages in Scotland.

It is primarily for business to identify and provide the skills and associated training which it requires for success in today's global marketplace. The substantial funding given to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise enables them to assist businesses and individuals to acquire skills which will benefit the economy of Scotland.

The short answer is that the Minister knows nothing at all about skill shortages in Scotland, and he admits that in his parliamentary answers to my questions. He referred me to Scottish Enterprise. Scottish Enterprise wrote to me and said that it does not collect information on skill shortages in Scotland. How can the Minister give assurances that all is well, when neither he nor Scottish Enterprise has a clue about skill shortages in Scotland?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman one figure, if he is interested. It is from the latest CBI industrial trends survey, in which the percentage of respondents quoting shortages of skilled or other labour as a constraint on investment was precisely zero.

Is that all the Minister has got?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I shall tell him. May I, in particular, refer the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and other hon. Members to the clear strategy set out by Scottish Enterprise last week?

It does not mention skill shortages.

The hon. Gentleman says that it does not mention skills. He obviously has not read the document. The document lays great stress on Scotland's skills and knowledge base as the greatest single source of competitive advantage. In that context, Scottish Enterprise aims to improve and develop the national training schemes which it delivers to combine development of appropriate skills with placing people in work to stimulate and help articulate demand for skills from businesses and individuals. However, of course, the bulk of training is and will continue to be carried out by companies themselves. That is the point which the hon. Gentleman appears not to appreciate.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Locate in Scotland campaign has been so successful that £5 billion has either been invested or planned to be invested and that that has created jobs for or retrained 96,000 people in Scotland? But, returning to the skill shortages, 47 per cent. of all companies from overseas who have located in Scotland conduct research and development. That is where the skills come from and it is time that Scottish Opposition Members woke up to that.

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I fear that he is being optimistic if he thinks that Opposition Members will ever find it in themselves to say anything good about what happens in Scotland. My hon. Friend is right to point to the success of Locate in Scotland, which had a record year last year. I pay tribute to the dedicated staff of Locate in Scotland for all their work. Again and again, potential inward investors say to us that one of the great attractions of Scotland is—[HON. MEMBERS: "The golf courses."] It is not the golf courses. One of the great attractions is the skilled and dedicated work force that is available.

If the Minister insists that the largest amount of training is done in industries in Scotland, will he take my word for it that Rolls-Royce in my constituency, which was one of the great trainers of apprentices in Scotland, has, in the past six years, trained six apprentice engineers, the last of whom finished a year ago? There are now no new apprenticeships at Rolls-Royce in Hillington. Will the Minister produce his evidence and tell us how many industrial apprenticeships there are in Scotland?

Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that the number of apprentices is an appropriate measurement of the total training undertaken by British industry? That is absurd. Employers in Britain spend more than £20 billion a year on employee training and development. The comparable figure for Scotland is about £2 billion a year. That is a measure of Scottish companies' commitment to training of all sorts.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from fishermen's organisations regarding the use of drift nets; and if he will make a statement.

I receive frequent representations from those concerned about the drift net fishery for salmon off the coast of north-east England. The matter of drift net fisheries was discussed at the last Fisheries Council.

Will my hon. Friend find time today to recognise the important economic contribution of angling to the rural communities of Scotland? Will he pay tribute to the fact that in Scotland drift net fishing for salmon has been almost entirely curtailed? Does he agree that the Northumberland drift net fishery, which catches almost exclusively salmon heading for Scottish rivers, is an anomaly and a disgrace, and that, after proper compensation to the netsmen, it should be stopped?

I agree with my hon. Friend that salmon fishing in Scotland is of enormous importance to the community in that it brings tourism and business for hotels and shops, for example. We want to see as many anglers coming to Scotland as possible. My hon. Friend is right also to say that we banned drift net fishing many years ago around the Scottish coast. The issue of the north-east drift net fishery is complicated and it is difficult to be precise when discussing it.

Can the Minister justify and explain why it is right for monofilament nets to be used by English fishermen in English coastal waters but not by Scottish fishermen in Scottish coastal waters?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the use of such nets has been banned in Scotland for many years. We feel that that is the right step to take, bearing in mind the conservation of fish as well as the power of catching. I believe that we have come to the right decision. It is not always accepted by fishermen, especially those on the west coast, but throughout the rest of Scotland it is generally believed that we have made the right decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on developments relating to the governance of Scotland since the publication of "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good".

We have pressed ahead vigorously to implement the various proposals in the White Paper "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good", published last year. All the commitments have either been implemented or are well in hand.

Does the Minister agree that earlier supplementary questions suggest that Labour will revert to cover-up and bluster rather than taking the opportunity to clean out the Augean stables that exist in its organisation in the Greater Glasgow area? Does he further agree that the recent election result shows that there is an urgent need for the creation of a moderate, right-of-centre, pro-Union alternative to Labour, which the present Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties cannot provide, and that without such an alternative the outlook for Scottish politics is not encouraging?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's sturdy support of the Union of Great Britain. The Conservative party stood on that platform before the last general election and the number of Conservative Members increased as a result. We will continue to fight as hard as we can for the Union on every conceivable occasion. The proposals in the White Paper strengthen the Union between Scotland and England. The Standing Order changes that are proposed will be introduced early next Session after being debated and we look forward to Scotland benefiting greatly from the changes. We will bear in mind the problems in relation to Greater Glasgow that the hon. Member has mentioned.

Does the Minister accept that the whole concept of the White Paper has been made ludicrous in the eyes of the people of Scotland because of the growing number of quangos and the fact that the Secretary of State appoints all those people who are answerable only to him? With regard to health, the quango is answerable to a health Minister who is in another place and who has not even been elected, having been rejected by the people of Scotland. How can the people of Scotland give any credibility to any movement in "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good" until we get rid of the quangos and put elected people in responsible positions in Scotland?

I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to ask a question of that nature when the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland served on the Scottish tourist board, the Scottish Development Agency and on a third quango relating to the police. We have considerably reduced the number of quangos throughout Britain and that is greatly to our credit. However, where there is a need for them—for example, Scottish Homes—they will, of course, survive in the public interest.

Time is up. I call the Secretary of State for National Heritage to make his statement.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I take points of order after statements.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in clause 5, page 3, line 32, after 'may', insert 'after 1st April 1996'.

The Opposition have tabled the new clause and amendments to give the Government another chance to reconsider their ludicrous timetable for the implementation of the measures contained in the Bill. We are opposed to the Bill in principle and we think that it has some serious practical faults. We are extremely unhappy with the Government's lack of attention to the practical difficulties that their proposals will bring to education. We believe that it would be appropriate, even at this late stage, for the Government to think again.

Just for the record, does the hon. Lady concede that the Bill does not preclude that either? The fact that something may be desirable does not necessarily mean that it must be prescribed in statute.

Something as desirable as a partnership in this critical area should be on the face of the Bill. We will reach a critical amendment on that point later and I know that some Conservative Back-Bench Members are concerned about that issue.

"The planning and implementation of ITT will necessitate the strongest possible partnership between ITT providers and schools."

I was not aware of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office document. Her points add a great deal of weight to the new clause.

"give students the opportunity to bypass teacher training."

"By all means let us try to reform teacher training…by encouraging a great deal more emphasis on classroom skills and experience…However…we must be careful not to reduce too far the role of higher education institutions. They have a great deal to contribute".—[Official Report, 23 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 353.]

"The trouble with learning in the classroom is that you get few second chances. It is not easy in school to admit when things are going wrong, for fear of an unsympathetic response or being labelled incompetent."

One understands that the hon. Gentleman is a former lecturer and that he wants to stand up for the old higher education lecturers who are his friends, but has he taken the trouble to go to a school which has a school-based initial training scheme and assess it for himself, as I asked in Committee? Has he done so yet?

I have not been to one of those schemes, but I intend to do so. As I said in Committee, I do not expect to be critical; I expect such schemes to be well run. That is not the substance of my argument.

The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that all is well in higher education institutions. That is certainly not the case. There is enormous dissatisfaction with diploma of education courses and others. That is fundamental to the pressure for change, and the hon. Gentleman should know that.

I did not imply even remotely that everything was perfect in existing teacher education institutions—that would be foolish. Of course we need continual change and improvement. If such institutions are as appalling as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why are Ministers constantly concerned to tell us that they are only tinkering with a corner of the postgraduate certificate of education courses and leaving all the rest of them alone? If matters were as appalling as the hon. Gentleman says, they would wipe the lot out and start again. Some Conservative Back-Bench Members would like to see that happen. I have seen no evidence in any quantity to suggest that dissatisfaction with the present teacher education arrangements in colleges and universities is as widespread as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as an indictment of the training of teachers that so many school leavers are illiterate after 11 full years of compulsory state education? Is not that an indictment in some way of teaching training?

No, it is an indictment of 15 years of Conservative control of the education system. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) cannot have it both ways. His Government have been in charge of the education system for 15 years, and presided over a period when the education standards to which he refers fell.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again.

Order. Before we go any further, hon. Members should get back to debating commencement.

If the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) is suggesting that the figure for the literacy of school leavers was significantly better in 1979, he is entirely mistaken. I suggest that he looks at the statistics.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that literacy has not decreased? I do not follow that argument at all. I shall try to wind up quickly.

I want to make a brief contribution to the debate on new clause 1, not only as a former teacher from the 1970s but as someone who is married to a teacher. I shall begin by commending the work on the Bill by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and the Ministers on the Front Bench, my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). It is pioneer work and should be supported by the House.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. It seems that he always wants to wait until tomorrow.

I am struck by the fact that the hon. Gentleman has told us that the majority of teachers are good. He said that the majority of teachers have the skills. Almost all of them have been through the present training system, and they have acquired those skills from that system. Why is the hon. Gentleman confident that these changes will result in all teachers having those skills? What evidence does he have that there will be an improvement? We think that the whole thing is rubbish and will not help at all.

That is the voice of unenlightened self-interest—the voice of teacher training colleges and lecturers. What I am saying is that teaching changes. We are in a different world now. We are on this side of the House because Labour are still living in the 1960s.

rose—

I will not give way. I must be brief because other hon. Members want to speak.

rose—

I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution in a moment; I know that he wants to do so.

It is extremely difficult to make a speech following the one by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). The hon. Gentleman said that he wants to see high-quality teaching in our schools from well-trained and highly motivated teachers. No hon. Member would disagree with that. The problem is that the hon. Gentleman has failed to give an example of one element of the Bill which will lead to the improvements that he wants to see.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is bought and paid for by the union for higher education lecturers—

Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Bath is in order; otherwise I would have ruled him out of order.

I should point out to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) that I am not bought and paid for by the union for higher education. I would be interested to know the union to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. As he is well aware, and as I have declared on many occasions in the House, I am supported by two teachers' unions. That has been regularly declared, as the Secretary of State will recognise. [Interruption.] I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I went into the question of how much, which would lead me to ask the Secretary of State how much he has been paid recently for a number of his activities.

"When I eventually leave my post in a good number of years' time".—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 597.]