To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ferry companies in Scotland receive subsidies from public funds.

The Scottish Office provides subsidies to two ferry companies in Scotland: Caledonian MacBrayne Limited and P and O Ferries Limited. In addition, some local authorities subsidise ferry operations.

Does that answer not show not only the Government's strong commitment to the Highlands and Islands, but the generosity of United Kingdom taxpayers, some of whom live on the Isle of Wight and travel to and from the mainland in unsubsidised ferries, paying the full fare out of their own pockets?

I should mention that this year the provision is for a £6·5 million subsidy to CalMac, to cover its deficit in providing approved services, and for a £4·1 million subsidy to P and 0 Ferries, to reduce fares to the Orkney and Shetland islands. There are about 100,000 persons living on about 75 Scottish islands, many of which have to be reached by long, difficult and stormy journeys. For example, the journey to Lerwick takes 14 hours. We have a commitment to maintaining that subsidy.

Will the Minister confirm that Caledonian MacBrayne receives large amounts in assistance from the European Commission towards the construction costs of new ferries and piers, and that such assistance would not be available if it were under private ownership?

It is certainly the case that the ERDF subsidy is received by Caledonian MacBrayne at present, and it is not at all clear whether it would continue under a different system. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering future arrangements for CalMac following his decision to privatise the Scottish Bus Group. He has commissioned the Scottish economic consultants Pieda to advise him in that respect. Whatever structure is adopted, it will guarantee the best quality of service, which the islanders rightly enjoy.

We very much welcome my hon. Friend's statement that the situation of ferries serving the Western Isles and the northern isles of Scotland is quite different from that of ferries serving other areas of the United Kingdom, and his commitment to them. Will he go a little further and say that he will ensure that in any privatisation proposals the special position held by those services, and the way in which they are viewed by the communities they help, will be fully taken into account?

Yes. Whatever proposals may eventually be put forward will ensure the best arrangements possible. In our election manifesto we pledged to continue the substantially increased financial support and upgrading of ferries and terminals that are so vital to the islands. When I met the STUC and the joint shipping services advisory committee, I acknowledged that those services are a lifeline to the islands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of cases on appeal dealt with by the Inner House of the Court of Session in the last five years for which information is available.

The information is as follows:

Does the Minister accept that, due to the increase in the number of cases in the High Court of Justiciary, Scottish judges are less able to spend time dealing with civil business? Is this not the time for a radical review of the Court of Session procedures, to ensure that civil business is more speedily conducted? In the end, delay is against the interests of justice.

I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member's comment that delay is contrary to the interests of justice. I confirm that during 1987–88 the number of bench days devoted to criminal business exceeded for the first time those devoted to civil business in the supreme courts. Delays are being reduced, and have fallen from about 10 to eight months, which is an improvement. The 1986 report of the review body on the use of judicial time made recommendations, many of which have been implemented. From April 1987, parties must now appear and give notice that the case will proceed and an up-to-date estimate of how long it will take. That permits more effective planning of court time.

When a judge instructs a regional council to keep a school open, who is responsible for making the extra money available to keep the school open without the regional council incurring a penalty?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that cannot possibly cause further delays in court time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make resources available to Greater Glasgow health board enabling the board to provide geriatric hospital services for all of Cambuslang and Rutherglen within its geographic catchment area; and if he will make a statement.

The Greater Glasgow health board is conducting a major strategic review of its services for the elderly. This will cover the whole of its area, including Cambuslang and Rutherglen. The question of resources does not arise until the review is complete and building plans have been made in the light of its outcome.

Does the Minister agree that the present position causes great difficulties for people from Cambuslang and Rutherglen travelling to visit relatives? Does he further agree that if the review shows that the needs can be met and that further finance is required, that finance will be available?

I acknowledge that there has been a long-standing deficiency in geriatric services in the south-east of Glasgow. As I have said, the board is developing its strategies for the services, and we shall certainly take account of the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made about the extent to which those services could be made a priority.

Given the importance of ensuring adequate services for all the elderly in Scotland, can the Minister tell us whether he is in a position to give a Government response to the Griffiths report and how it will apply to Scotland?

I can give an answer, and that answer is no. As I have said, the report is important and we are giving it careful consideration.

Is the Minister aware of the threat to the Crossroads attendance scheme, which services many geriatric people in Scotland? The abolition of that scheme could throw at least 20 people instantly into residential care, which would cost nearly £3 million a year. Will the Minister give us an assurance that money will be available to ensure that geriatric patients in Inverclyde can at least be looked after?

I agree that the Crossroads scheme provides a valuable support service for the elderly. Money is available through the MSC, where schemes can be adapted to include an element of training. I understand that there have been problems with some schemes in meeting those criteria. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I am looking into the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assumptions on the likely evasion rate for the poll tax local authorities will be allowed to make when setting a budget.

It will be for local authorities in setting their budgets to take into account, among other things, the estimated levels of collection of personal community charge. But it seems that the hon. Gentleman's "Stop it" campaign has not stopped it.

I am a relative novice in these matters, but that must be the crassest reply delivered by a Scottish Office Minister since I came here. The Minister is proposing to replace a scheme that results in less than 1 per cent. non-collection with a new system which, on the assessment of every independent analysis, is likely to result in at least 10 to 15 per cent. non-collection. Is no guidance to be given to local authorities on what they can do to take account of that? If not, may we have an assurance that local authorities will not be hectored by the Minister if they take reasonable account of that reality?

There is no question of hectoring local authorities. The hon. Gentleman's figures are speculative. The basis of the estimates that we have given so far—I emphasise that they are not forecasts—is the product of rate poundages and local authorities' total domestic rateable value divided by the Registrar General's estimates of the number of adults in each local authority area. On that basis, we estimate that a 7 per cent. cushion is built into the figures, because the actual rate income is less than the total that we have been using.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the policies of the Labour party and the Scottish National party on the community charge are as confused as their policies on defence? Does he further agree that the very high registration figures, running up to 95 per cent. and more, show that the Scottish people will pay their community charge as laid down in law?

My hon. Friend is right. According to the published figures, the registration process seems to be going well and the attempts of Opposition parties to frustrate the future collection of resources for local authorities seem not to have succeeded. I agree about the confusion of the Labour party's policies. So far as I am aware, it has not yet repudiated the policy set out by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), which is to keep domestic rates, to add volatility by basing them on capital values and to have a local income tax. I suppose that that is something for something—or something.

Does the Minister consider that overseas service men who have been exempted from poll tax should be included in the evasion rate? How does he explain to people in Scotland that overseas military personnel will be exempt from the poll tax, while tourists coming to Scotland will have to pay the standard charge? Is the Minister saying that the military contributes more than the tourist industry to the Scottish economy?

The arrangements that we are contemplating for overseas service men in Scotland are broadly comparable to the existing system under rates, whereby they make a contribution to the resources of local authorities.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the bill for Scottish community charge evasion will fall on Scotland and not on the rest of the United Kingdom, and that if the Scottish Labour party succeeds in its campaign to persuade the Scots to fiddle, they will be fiddling their fellow Scotsmen and not the rest of the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend is right. The only effects of the success of the irresponsible campaign advocated by Opposition Members would be a poorer quality of local services, and the loss of jobs in local authorities.

Notwithstanding the reasons for evasion, will the Minister consider the issue of exemptions? What progress has he made in giving guidance to local authorities about exemption for the severely mentally handicapped? In addition, what discussions have taken place with the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to compensate service men who will now have to pay poll tax, but previously were compensated under the rates system?

The arrangements that we are proposing for service men are broadly comparable with those under the present rating system whereby if they have a sole or main residence they will be liable to community charge in place of domestic rates, and if they are living in barracks they will make a contribution through a general fund, handled by the Ministry of Defence, which broadly replaces the present system.

Will my hon. Friend point out to Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who told a selection conference that he would not advise his constituents to pay the community charge, that in a democracy all people have to obey the law, and that we disagree with many laws passed by the Labour Government but we obey them?

My hon. Friend is right. The level of the community charge will be set by local authorities. The more people who are registered in each local authority area, the lower the charge will have to be.

Will the Minister first take the opportunity to repudiate what the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) said about Opposition Members asking anyone to fiddle? Secondly, does he accept the CIPFA report, requested by him and the Secretary of State, that there would be 15 per cent. evasion or non-payment of the poll tax? If he accepts that, will he give a guarantee today that next April the Secretary of State will not use his powers to reduce local authority poll taxes if they are set on the basis of that 15 per cent. evasion rate?

I do not accept the figure that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. It is purely speculative. As for the Opposition policy on non-payment, I accept that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in an article in the Glasgow Herald, said

"All responsible politicians have now rejected the case for a mass campaign of non-payment".

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the future of the electricity industry in Scotland.

The Government remain firmly committed to their policy of privatising the electricity supply industry in Scotland within the lifetime of this Parliament. The development of our proposals in detail is proceeding well, and draft legislation will be brought before Parliament in due course.

As the Government's own White Paper stresses that a monopoly will continue and that the boards have been efficient, is there any case for proceeding with privatisation other than political dogma and the pursuit of profit by the Government's friends? Above all, is it not incredibly dangerous and reckless, still in the decade of Chernobyl, to put our nuclear power industry in the hands of private profit-makers? It is one of the most dangerous and foolish things that this dangerous and foolish Government have ever done.

There is considerable advantage to he gained from the development of two free-standing companies in Scotland able to offer competitive sourcing of electricity to Scottish consumers. The important point about nuclear power is the way in which it is regulated, and we are not contemplating any change in the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which regulates these matters.

Will my hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that Scotland has electricity consumers as well as electricity producers, and that those consumers employ people and have interests as well?

My hon. Friend is right. If we pursued the electricity policy advanced by the Opposition during the last general election campaign, and abandoned nuclear power, electricity prices in Scotland would have to rise by 30 per cent.

It is now more than three months since the White Paper was published, and we have still not had answers to the basic questions that it raised. Can the Minister at least give us an assurance that, whatever else happens, the industry will not be allowed to fall into foreign hands? Nobody believes that it will stay under Scottish control, but can he at least give us that minimal assurance?

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about this matter. It is an important issue and we are considering it carefully. There will be nothing wrong with a measure of foreign investment in the industry when it is in private hands, but I accept the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about control or ownership being in foreign hands. That is something that we shall consider closely, and we shall announce our decision at the appropriate time.

Does my hon. Friend agree that privatisation of the electricity supply industry will give us an opportunity to export electricity to England on a substantial scale? Does he also agree that it gives the Scots an opportunity to invest in the new electricity companies? More important, is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman and senior executives of the British Airports Authority said on the Terrace last night that privatisation is the best thing that has ever happened to them because of the effect it has had on their management, particularly because it electrifies the management as nothing else does?

My hon. Friend is right. I met representatives of the BAA last night and they confirmed to me the great success that has resulted from privatisation. My hon. Friend mentioned the export of electricity to England. That is an area in which the Scottish electricity industry and, therefore, the Scottish consumer, can benefit considerably, provided that electricity can be generated competitively.

How can the Minister describe the privatised companies as free standing if they are to be linked in a joint operating company for nuclear power? Will he give an assurance that, whatever else happens, there will be separate Scottish legislation when the matter comes to the House? That is surely in the interests of good parliamentary scrutiny and democratic control over what the Government are doing. Perhaps I may echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). We have asked whether there will be effective plans to limit foreign ownership and more, important, to retain control in Scotland. Continued dodging and ducking on that issue suggests that the Government are prepared to watch an essential public utility being sold to anyone, anywhere, at any price.

We are not ducking or dodging anything. There is an appropriate time to answer these matters. Legislation has not yet been prepared or presented to the House. When it has been, that will be the appropriate time to answer these questions. There is nothing anomalous about two independent free-standing companies sharing ownership of a subsidiary. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the Opposition's desire for separate legislation. That will be decided at the appropriate time. The hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that there are many matters that affect the industry both north and south of the border.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet reached any conclusions as to what strategy he intends to adopt in order to ensure that control of privatised Scottish electricity boards remains in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Government will seek to encourage as many Scots as possible to invest in the Scottish electricity industry. We are considering whether a special share or other form of protection is appropriate and our conclusions will be announced in due course.

When the Secretary of State's surrogate perpetrates the plunder of one of Scotland's assets, will he bear in mind the increasing poverty in Scotland? When he clinches the sale of the century, will he at least underpin the position of those in poverty by seeking to guarantee their right to fuel and their right not to be cut off? We do not want to see the same thing happen as occurred after privatisation of the gas industry, where the number of cut-offs leapt by a huge percentage in England and to a certain extent in Scotland. We want cut-offs to be disallowed.

I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can speak about increasing poverty in Scotland when personal disposable incomes in 1986 were 16 per cent. higher than they were 10 years ago. There is no reason why we should depart from the present policy on cut-offs.

If control does not remain in Scotland, how will the Minister explain to the House and his constituents that the common tariff principle, which protects consumers in rural areas in the north of Scotland, will not be applied to rural areas in the south of Scotland?

I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's question that he welcomes the prospect of control and ownership of the companies returning to Scotland, because, at present, the industries are owned by the Treasury.

Answer the question.

On the question of common tariffs, the only requirement is for the north board to provide a common tariff, and it will be able to do so as largely a result of the availability of hydro power. There is no requirement at present for the south board to provide a common tariff and we see no need for that.

Will my hon. Friend resist the pathetic chip-on-the-shoulder paranoia of Opposition Members? Will he contrast the apparent wish of Opposition Members to restrict ownership of a utility to those within a particular geographic area with their welcome for the jobs generated by external investment in Scotland over many years? Can my hon. Friend tell me how many jobs in Scotland depend on investment by what Opposition Members call foreigners? What confidence does he have that restricting ownership to Scots would do any good for the Scottish economy?

Since Locate in Scotland was established in 1981 about 50,000 jobs have been created or safeguarded in Scotland as a result of inward investment. We share my hon. Friend's view that the electricity industry in Scotland is a great potential asset. We believe that by privatising it we will enable Scotland to enjoy the maximum benefit from it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of the recent pay award to nurses in each health board area.

We have already announced that an additional £92 million is to be made available in Scotland to finance the full additional cost of the review body awards. The distribution of that amount among the various health service bodies is currently being calculated. Health boards will be informed of their additional allocations shortly.

The Minister will know that he intends funding only the sum above the 4·5 per cent. that he believes to be the rate of inflation. The Grampian health board will receive only 4 per cent. for inflation, which leaves a shortfall of at least £500,000. What will the Minister do about that shortfall?

The hon. Gentleman chose the worst possible example to make his point. Grampian health board will have the biggest increase of any health board in Scotland. If he wished to seize on a board to make his point, he would have done better to choose his own health board of Tayside, which will not benefit from the 1 per cent. distribution of resources under the SHARE formula. The overall cash increase for health boards in Scotland is 5·8 per cent., which is well ahead of inflation. We have chosen to allocate that in three parts: first, the flat rate 4 per cent. allocation to all health boards, then a further 1 per cent. distributed differentially according to the SHARE formula and then an additional 0·8 per cent, to meet specific priority areas such as breast cancer, AIDS and the waiting list initiative, from which Tayside, along with other boards that are not benefiting from growth on the SHARE formula, will benefit.

Does my hon. Friend agree that under the last Labour Government nurses' pay fell substantially in real terms? Does he also agree that the fact that thousands of new nurses have come into the Health Service since 1979 in Scotland shows that they believe that the Conservative party accepts patient care as the first priority? Does he further agree that they welcome warmly the new structure for nurses' pay?

My hon. Friend is quite right. Under the Labour Government nurses' pay fell by more than 20 per cent. in real terms, whereas under this Government it has increased by 44 per cent. in real terms. For those who dismiss such figures as mere statistics, that means that a sister's income will have increased by as much as £5,000 in real terms as a result of this Government being in power.

Will the Minister confirm, or correct, the impression that in granting extra funds to the Health Service to fund nurses' pay the Government omitted from their calculations those nurses who work in hospice care?

No, I cannot confirm that. If the hon. Gentleman is thinking of hospitals in the private or independent sector, which are run as voluntary hospitals, as many hospices are, they would not be affected by our commitment as they are not funded by the Government.

Is not one of the greatest advantages of this nursing settlement that it allows us to pay the proper rate for the job, which is needed by qualified nurses if we are to uphold the NHS?

I agree with my hon. Friend——

Does the Minister know what his hon. Friend said?

The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) asks me what my hon. Friend said. The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what he said. My hon. Friend was making a point which, as a Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Gentleman should welcome, namely, that, as a result of the pay review body recommendations, nurses who are involved in clinical duties will be rewarded. For the first time we are providing nurses with a career structure that does not take them into administration if they wish to remain at the patient's bedside.

The Minister should not get so angry so easily. As he knows, I have written to every health board in Scotland on this matter and, as the Minister will also know, because they are now in the habit of making private correspondence available to him, they have replied saying that they do not know how much the nurses' pay award will cost, because of the regrading. If, as a result of the regrading, the award costs more than £92 million. will the Minister make the extra funds available?

On the point about private correspondence, if the hon. Gentleman has looked at the letter that was sent to him by Grampian health board he will see that it was copied to other Members of Parliament representing that area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) along with others, wrote to me about that.. The hon. Gentleman should check his facts before he makes such allegations.

:Yes or no?

The hon. Gentleman says, "Yes or no?", but the position is that the costs of the review body recommendations were calculated on the basis of the information that was supplied by the boards themselves.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implementation of regional industrial policy since the abolition of regional development grants on 31 March.

My right hon. and learned Friend considers that regional policy will be more cost-effective following changes which included the ending of the regional development grant scheme. Planned spending on regional assistance is being maintained but, through selective schemes, support will be directed to where it is needed.

Is the Minister of State aware that, because of the rush to beat the 31 March deadline for RDG, there is now a considerable backlog of applications and that that could take between one and two years to work through? Is he further aware that, as a consequence of that, business men in Scotland are not getting grants through as quickly as they should, with the result that there is now some doubt about the total budget available for regional selective assistance and regional development grants? Will the Minister look into those matters and report back to the House about the gravity of that situation, which has been caused by the incompetent decision to phase out regional development grants far too quickly?

I believe that that decision was correct. It is certainly the case that the number of RDG applications increased before the deadline, as one would expect. The hon. Gentleman underrates the capacity of my Department to handle those applications. My officials are giving them as much close and effective attention as they can. The hon. Gentleman will be aware from the public expenditure White Paper that net provision for industrial support over the three years covered in the White Paper remains largely unchanged.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify the position of the Highlands and Islands with regard to the European regional development fund? Several weeks ago the Foreign Secretary said that a deal had been clinched, although I suspect that that has subsequently been clouded by word from Europe and that that is not the case. Will he clarify the position?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, negotiations are continuing. I am under the clear impression that agreement has been reached that the Highlands and Islands will be covered under objective 5 of the European regional development fund, which relates to rural areas.

Is not the biggest single threat to overseas investment in Scotland the regional policy of Mr. Ron Todd, who puts the lads at Dagenham before jobs in Dundee? Would not the Labour party be a little more credible if there was any evidence that it made these points to Mr. Todd?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The contrast in the successful generation of employment during the period of this Government with that of the previous Government is a dramatic illustration of the Labour party's inability to control its trade union friends.

In view of all the hard work by Central regional council in preparing an updated submission in support of enhanced development status for the Falkirk travel-to-work area, where more than 8,000 people remain out of work, why did the Minister refuse a reasonable recent request for a meeting with council representatives to discuss this important matter? Is it not treating my constituents with absolute contempt for this Minister to refuse even to meet local councillors, who received a better mandate to represent their people than did the Minister, whose Government were rejected by more than three quarters of the people of Scotland?

I often meet representatives from many different local authorities. I am sure that if an appropriate issue can be resolved only at a meeting, that, too, can be arranged. The hon. Gentleman will welcome, as I do, the fact that unemployment in Falkirk has fallen by 1,900 in the past year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the provision of higher education in Scotland.

The number of students in higher education in Scotland has risen steadily since 1979 and is higher now than ever before. Participation rates are above those in Great Britain as a whole. I am confident that our universities and colleges will be able to meet the increasing demands from employers for highly qualified manpower, while still maintaining standards.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these statistics demonstrate how well Scotland is doing through the Union under this Government? Does he agree also that in future it is much more important to increase the number of places in higher education than to maintain a system of student support that is the most generous in the free world?

I agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks with great authority on these matters as a graduate of St. Andrews university and as a former lecturer at two of our universities in Scotland. He is right to point out the importance of the number of students in higher education, both in universities and elsewhere. Contrary to popular belief, the total funding of our universities has increased during the period that this Government have been in power, partly through their efforts at obtaining funding from elsewhere.

Is the Minister aware that the previous answer is wholly unacceptable, in that since 1986 the Government have cut grants to the eight Scottish universities by more than £12 million? [Interruption.] This year Edinburgh university faces a deficit of £3 million, Aberdeen university faces a deficit of £1 million, and Glasgow university faces a deficit of £500,000, and the hooligan interjections of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) will not change that. In short, the future of many of our brightest Scots is being blighted by this Government through their cuts in education and in funding to universities.

If the answer is unacceptable to the hon. Gentleman, it is because it is the truth. I accept that a party that has no policies must rely on claim and counterclaim. The hon. Gentleman has a constituency interest in Edinburgh, which, for research funding, is one of the top four universities in the United Kingdom.

No thanks to the Minister.

The hon. Gentleman may say that, but last year it received £18 million in research grants and contracts, including the largest grant ever awarded by the Natural Environmental Research Council. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the Fraser of Allander Institute report—an institute that is hardly a friend of the Government—which showed clearly that, in real terms, the income of Scottish universities has increased substantially.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the emotional exaggeration of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) does nothing to carry forward the cause of university education in Scotland? Does he further agree that although universities in Scotland have been successful in recent years in obtaining funding from sources other than the Government, it would be right to bring to bear on our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the fact that there is a limit to that funding? Are not teaching and fundamental research the primary responsibility of Government?

I agree that the UGC's allocation system applies the same criteria to all universities in Great Britain, which the majority of the Scottish universities wish to continue. It is true that Aberdeen's funding from the UGC has declined by £7·5 million, but it is also true that its total income has increased by £190,000 because of its efforts to find additional money. If the Scottish universities are obtaining more funds and becoming less dependent on the Government, surely that is a far healthier position for them to be in and one in which academic freedom can flourish.

As the Minister has read the Fraser of Allander report, does he agree with its finding that the impact of the cuts in Scottish universities will amount to a cut of £33 million in the Scottish economy by 1990? What is the merit in making those cuts in the academic life of our universities? Who will benefit from cuts that damage academic life, the local economies where universities are based and the economy of Scotland? Who will be the gainers from that policy?

I am astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman saying that. If he accepts the Fraser of Allander report's conclusion that the overall net resources to Scottish universities have increased because they have found private and other sources, how can he argue that there has been a net loss to the Scottish economy? The net effect is a net increase to the Scottish economy. Do the Opposition believe that only public expenditure creates wealth, and not money that comes from the private sector?

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the figure for the number of student nurses in Scotland; and how that figure is expected to change over the next three years.

Since 1979 the number of qualified nurses employed by health boards in Scotland has increased by more than 30 per cent.?—from 26,929 to 35,110. The number of student nurses in training has increased by 15 per cent. At 30 September 1987 there were 8,694 student nurses in training in Scotland. The number of student nurses over the next three years will be affected by a range of factors, but we intend to maintain our splendid record in this area.

Does the Minister accept that falling school rolls will make it difficult to keep up the number of recruited student nurses? That is, perhaps, something that the Government can do little about. What effect does he think the poll tax will have on that, given that Scottish student nurses will have to pay it for at least a year, while English student nurses will not? Will that not have a devastating effect on student nurse recruitment north of the border?

If it were true it might, but it is not true. As the right hon. Gentleman must know, we have responded to the Project 2,000 proposals and there is no question of the status of student nurses in Scotland being altered in 1990 or of there being a period when student nurses are put in a different position from anyone else. The right hon. Gentleman might have taken the opportunity to welcome the new £32 million hospital in his constituency, which will be opened this week by Her Majesty The Queen, which will have a new training centre for student nurses to ensure that student nurses are recruited and equipped to meet the needs of his health board and his constituency.

Surely the Minister recognises that as things stand student nurses in Scotland, unlike their English counterparts, will have to pay the poll tax in its first year of operation. Surely that is anomalous and unfair. Are the Government prepared to look at that again?

That is the unsophisticated version of the argument that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) was making. Student nurses and every other group in Scotland will pay the poll tax before those in England [Interruption.]—the community charge—because we are introducing the community charge a year earlier. Why does the hon. Gentleman not ask me about the fact that student nurses will stop paying rates in Scotland a year earlier than in England? [Interruption.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Scotland's splendid record for training nurses has been continued and improved under the Conservative Government, and that one of the things that we are so proud of is that in every part of the world one will always meet nurses who have been trained in Scotland? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that nurses, like everyone else who will be required to pay the community charge, will, where their incomes so merit, receive rebates, so all the Opposition's fears are just nonsense?

My hon. Friend is correct about rebates, but as we have increased the pay of student nurses so substantially they will find themselves moving up the income scale. Those hon. Members who shouted out that student nurses do not pay rates either do not live in the real world or assume that all student nurses live in hospital accommodation, which they do not. The end of rating will be taken into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received from England on the poll tax.

Eighty seven such representations have been received since 1 January 1988.

Is the Minister aware that, despite the Government, Scottish higher education still enjoys a high reputation and that a large number of English students go to Scotland for their education? Is he further aware that the poll tax will act as a disincentive to those students and the reduced number of English students going to Scotland to study may well diminish the number of Scottish Tory Members in the House?

The hon. Gentleman's question makes a change from the usual complaint that we receive in Scotland that there are too many English students corning up. But the quality of higher education in Scotland is such that it will continue to attract English students in large numbers. Where they find themselves liable to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge they will be able to console themselves with the thought that they are saving a substantial amount on rates, which would otherwise be included in their rent and rates payment.

The Minister will be aware that there is widespread anxiety that, with revaluation and the introduction of the uniform business rate in England and Wales, the present beneficial treatment that the north of England receives in terms of the amount of rates paid will be even greater and there will be a substantial disadvantage to Scottish industry. The Minister will also be aware that the CBI and the chambers of commerce in all sectors of Scottish public life are worried that the Scottish Office is taking no steps whatever to protect Scottish industry and commerce when that occurs. Will he comment?

I shall gladly comment. As a former finance convenor of Strathclyde regional council, the hon. Gentleman knows better than most the measure of the burden that Scottish Labour-controlled councils have laid on business in Scotland over the years, as a result of which Scottish business pays higher rates than other parts of the United Kingdom. Until we can achieve harmonisation of valuation law and practice north and south of the border, we have introduced index-linking in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 to protect business in Scotland from the depredations of members of local authorities, which is what the hon. Gentleman was formerly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to raise money for health boards by means of a lottery.

No, Sir.

In the light of that definite reply, will the Minister explain why he contemplates a lottery for the funding of local authorities?

I am sorry, but I did not hear the question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The reason why the Minister did not——

Order. Mrs. Fyfe.

Conservative Members seem to think that they are wits, but they are only half right. I shall repeat my question. If the Minister thinks it is so easy to answer no in the case of health boards, will he explain why he can contemplate such things to provide funding for local authorities, to reward people who pay the poll tax properly?

I apologise to the hon. Lady.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I hope that this is a genuine point of order and not merely the hon. Gentleman disagreeing with something.

It is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was asking her question I heard Conservative Members making racist remarks across the Chamber. I distinctly heard them asking her to put her question in English, which was clearly a racist remark.

Order. Points of order of this sort take up time. Perhaps the hon. Lady was not heard easily from the Government Front Bench when she put her question, but she put it very well.

rose——

Order. Other hon. Members want to take part in Question Time, too.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the executive director of Scottish Financial Enterprise; and what matters were discussed.

I met Professor Shaw and other members of the board of Scottish Financial Enterprise on 6 June as part of a regular exchange of views on topics relevant to the financial services industry in Scotland.

Does the Minister agree that Scotland's growing importance as a financial centre is a considerable asset to the country, but one that could be used to greater advantage? Would he be prepared to discuss ways in which this financial strength could increase the number of home-grown locally controlled enterprises in Scotland, and could initiatives be taken to achieve that?

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Scotland's financial sector has increased by 40 per cent. in employment terms in the past decade. We are increasingly attracting overseas companies to invest in Scotland because of this strength. I know that Scottish Financial Enterprise is perfectly willing to contemplate a greater involvement in parts of Scotland other than just the central belt. We are also developing enterprise trusts around Scotland—there arc 40 around the country—with a view to developing a greater commitment and understanding of enterprise.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the location of overseas financial institutions in Scotland is making a substantial contribution of our balance of payments and is a vote of confidence in the Scottish and United Kingdom economy?

That is absolutely right. It may be because manufacturing productivity in Scotland has risen by 5·6 per cent. a year on average in the past eight years, thus taking us to the top of the league of OECD countries.

Speaking in a posh accent for the benefit of The Guardian columnists, may I remind the Minister that Jackie Stewart and his Tory friends recently visited Gleneagles? Those individuals repeatedly dodged tax and made sure that the Exchequer did not receive sums of money that should have been spent in Scotland. Clearly, something should be done about that. Will the Minister comment on that abuse?

If the hon. Gentleman would like to send me further details of his allegations I shall look at them. As far as I am aware, Mr. Jackie Stewart and some other people recently visited Gleneagles to raise a large amount of money for charity. That is an altogether commendable activity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the Scottish unemployment figures for May 1987 and May 1988; and if he will make a statement.

The total number of unemployed claimants in Scotland was 346,140 in May 1987 and 296,821 in May 1988. Unemployment in Scotland has now reached its lowest level for six years. The firm downward trend over the last year is clear evidence of the success of the Government's economic policies.

In welcoming my hon. Friend's announcement of this excellent trend in the figures, and in trusting that the Opposition will unreservedly welcome it, may I ask him to confirm that the trend is due to the burgeoning success of the private sector in Scotland? Does he also agree that the traditional and historic over-dependence of Scots on the public sector is now firmly behind us and that we can look forward to a continuing fall in unemployment because of the success of the private sector?

I entirely share my hon. Friend's view about the reason for this growing success of the Scottish economy. He will be as encouraged as I was today to learn that the latest Fraser of Allander Institute report shows that the Scottish economy is now moving in line with that of the rest of the United Kingdom and expects that over the next five years employment in Scotland may grow by 100,000.

How does the Minister justify his complacent statement that we are performing in line with the rest of the United Kingdom when we have slipped so conspicuously behind the rest of the United Kingdom in productivity, and especially in unemployment rates?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about productivity. I said that it had increased by 5·6 per cent. per annum since 1979. That compares with 3·9 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. Scotland has done remarkably well. The news about the Scottish economy now moving in line with the rest of the United Kingdom came from the Fraser of Allander Institute, not from me.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department is taking to encourage local authorities to seek the prompt payment of poll tax as a lump sum.

Following consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities an amendment has been made to the Local Government Finance Bill in the other place which would give community charge levying authorities in Scotland power to offer discounts or other incentives to encourage community charge payers to enter into payment arrangements of financial benefit to the authority. Such arrangements could include payment by a lump sum.

Scottish Opposition Members understand just how much of a lottery Government policy is. Chancellors tend to like lotteries. Will the Minister take this opportunity to try to expunge some of his heinous guilt by saying that he will dissociate himself completely from any local authority attempting to run a lottery for those who can afford to pay their poll tax in one lump sum? That excludes the vast majority of people who cannot afford to pay it in that way.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the amendment tabled to the Local Government Finance Bill had no effect in changing the law, but simply clarifies it in response to a request from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The provision for lotteries which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Max ton) described as, "Mad—a really crazy scheme," and which his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described as, "A bad joke", was enshrined in the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 brought in by the last Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been, in percentages and for each year since 1974, the average increase in bus fares in Scotland.

Information on bus fare increases in Scotland is readily available only from 1980. I have arranged for a table to be placed in the Library which shows annual fares increases from 1980.

Does the Minister agree that since deregulation of public transport there has been a substantial increase in fares and drastic cuts in services in some areas that have brought hardship to large families in perimeter schemes? Does he also agree that all transport should be transferred back to the regional authorities?

No, Sir. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The figures show that the overall annual fare increases from 1983 have been modest and below the rate of inflation. On routes that are subject to competition, fares have generally fallen or have increased at a rate below the rate of inflation. On other routes fares have generally increased in line with inflation. What has undoubtedly happened since deregulation is that vehicle mileage has increased by 4 per cent. and many innovative services have been introduced. For example, in Fort William, independent Gaelic Bus is competing with the Scottish Bus Group operator, Highland Scottish, and that has led to fare reductions on some routes.

Will my hon. Friend tell some of the carping Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches that there were plenty of their spiritual cousins south of the border before deregulation, but that since deregulation they have been strangely silent? Perhaps Opposition Members should take a leaf out of our book.

The object of privatisation is to ensure that the services are more responsive to the requirements and needs of the consumer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made in his inquiries into the treatment in Her Majesty's prison Barlinnie of the late Mr. Bandur Singh; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that the procurator fiscal has instructed the police to investigate the allegations. It would not be appropriate for me to comment before the outcome of those investigations is known.

Is the Minister aware of the state of anxiety, bordering on real fear, felt in many of Scotland's ethnic communities as a result of this case and others? Can he begin to grasp what it must have been like for a person to spend six months without being able to speak any English, in the cauldron of hate that Barlinnie and other Scottish prisons have become, for no crime other than being in the country without proper documentation? Is there not a better way of treating people suspected of being in the country illegally than slamming them up in Barlinnie for six months, where this particular individual was treated so badly that he ended up dying on a bus in the Punjab when he was released.

The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of very important points. I have asked the Chief Inspector of Prisons to make inquiries and investigations as to whether the prison service ought to be making any improvements in the arrangements for accommodating those who may be deported. I have given details to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who raised this matter. One of the reasons why the person was in prison for so long was that the hon. Member for Monklands, West had applied on his behalf for political asylum. Thorough investigations were made, and I shall give whatever information is available to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway).

rose——

Order. I shall take points of order after the statement.