To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effects of the poll tax and the top-up loans scheme on Scottish students, especially nurse students, of low-income families on university courses.

Most Scottish students in higher education will benefit from the additional resources to be provided by student loans. Loans will also reduce dependence on parents—a particular benefit for low-income families. Full-time higher education students, including those seeking academic qualifications in nursing, are required to pay only 20 per cent. of the personal community charge.

Does the Minister agree that there has been a drastic fall in the number of entrants to higher education, especially in the fifth and sixth year? Does he also agree that student nurses and pupil nurses have not only been subjected to the full poll tax but cannot get a job when their training is finished? Will the Minister approach the new supremo—the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar)—and ask him to abolish all poll tax for students?

No, I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There has been a massive increase in entry to higher education, which is up by about a fifth since the last Labour Government were in power. Student nurses are now paid about £6,660 compared with £2,660 when the last Government were in power and are therefore much better off. Student nurses, like other nurses and members of the public, are assessed for community charge on the basis of their income.

Why has there been an increase in the number of Scottish students applying to come to the two universities in Northern Ireland this year? Is it because of the higher level of education in Northern Ireland, or is it because there will be no poll tax for Scottish students in Northern Ireland?

It certainly would not be the latter since about 25 per cent. of students in Scottish universities have come from outside Scotland. The massive expansion of higher education in Scotland is such that many students are probably beginning to look elsewhere as well.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that student support next year will increase by a massive 25 per cent., probably the largest ever single increase? Can he confirm that that includes an element of £420 interest-free student loan? Will he also confirm that such loans are not repayable until the student is earning 85 per cent of the national average wage? Will he further confirm—[Interruption.]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has asked three questions and that is enough.

We have budgeted for substantial expansion in higher education next year. Student loans are a valuable top-up to student income and will be of great advantage to those on low incomes and, indeed, on other levels of income.

Will the Minister accept that many students find it difficult to manage financially and could be left facing debts and the threat of warrant sales as a result of the poll tax and the falling value of student grants? Does he accept that since the introduction of the poll tax not one warrant sale for poll tax arrears has been authorised by a Labour council? The Labour-controlled Strathclyde council has not held a domestic warrant sale in 12 years, while in the 18 months during which the SNP was part of the administration in Grampian its finance convenor authorised 41 warrant sales. Would not it be sensible to consider whether we really need a method of debt collection that is expensive to operate and deeply resented?

Students are liable for only 20 per cent. of the community charge, which takes a proper account of the local services from which they benefit. Under the old rating system, students were not entitled to any kind of special relief. The hon. Gentleman should tell us whether students would be liable to pay 20 per cent. or the full amount of the Labour party's roof tax.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met ScotRail to discuss rail electrification in Scotland.

My hon. Friend and I discussed electrification and various other topics relating to rail transport when we met the former general manager of ScotRail, Mr. Ellis, arid the former chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, on 31 October last year.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, whatever claims are made for the new class 158 trains which are coming into service on the Edinburgh-Glasgow line, there is no escaping the fact that electrification is needed if we are to have the most modern inter-city service in Scotland? Is he aware that the position is becoming urgent because the electrification programme on the Carstairs line comes to an end later this year, so the Government must intervene to ensure that a start is made on the Edinburgh-Glasgow and Edinburgh-Aberdeen electrification programmes before that scheme is disbanded?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, electrification is essentially a matter for British Rail to ecide. He will share my pleasure that the east coast line is nearing completion and that British Rail has various other forms of major investment in the Edinburgh-Glasgow route, which will no doubt be of great value to his constituents as well as mine who use those commuter services. British Rail is in the best position to judge whether it should be express units or electrification, and whether the necessary investment would be appropriate.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that British Rail is proposing to withdraw one of the two Aberdeen to London sleeper services? That decision has been taken without proper consultation, and the timing of it has been for convenience of handling at Euston and not for the needs of passengers in Aberdeen. That leads many of us to worry about British Rail's commitment to the east coast line, particularly when it is so reluctant to consider the electrification programme seriously.

I am naturally concerned at what my right hon. Friend has said. I understand that British Rail may be proposing to combine two overnight trains, putting sleeping and sitting passengers together on the one train. I know that my right hon. Friend will be pursuing this matter to protect the interests of his constituents. We shall ascertain from British Rail what it is proposing to do and why it feels that it is appropriate.

I am naturally concerned at what my right hon. Friend has said. I understand that British Rail may be proposing to combine two overnight trains, putting sleeping and sitting passengers together on the one train. I know that my right hon. Friend will be pursuing this matter to protect the interests of his constituents. We shall ascertain from British Rail what it is proposing to do and why it feels that it is appropriate.

We understand from ScotRail that it is prepared to consider electrification of the Glasgow-Edinburgh line. Will the Scottish Office for once enter with some constructive spirit into the subject of rail services in Scotland, and particularly electrification? Will the Secretary of State use whatever diminished influence he has to get rid of the absurd 8 per cent. per annum investment criteria which deter ScotRail from undertaking schemes which have a social and environmental justification even if they do not have that excessive financial justification? What is the Scottish Office doing about the advent of the channel tunnel and the now imminent prospect of Scotland being further isolated and disadvantaged because electrification and top-level high speed rail services will not extend into Scotland? Is there any Scottish Office strategy on the channel tunnel?

I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for rail travel, and I am looking forward next Wednesday to declaring open the new bridge over the River Ness, which shows British Rail's continuing commitment to the north of Scotland and to the real requirements of those who live there. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of ensuring that British Rail carries out the necessary investment to ensure that Scotland gets the full benefit of the channel tunnel. Not only the Scottish Office but the Government as a whole are anxious to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom north of London share in the benefits that the channel tunnel will provide.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres of green belt exist at present; how many there were 11 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

There are 502,225 acres of green belt in Scotland at present, and in 1979 there were 539,621. The reduction from 1979 is due almost solely to the abolition of the Dundee green belt in 1982.

Will my hon. Friend say what he is doing to defend the green belt against Scottish Labour local authorities which cannot be trusted with it if they attack it as their English counterparts do? What is the position with playing fields, which are most important recreation facilities?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about playing fields. It may be that some unused playing fields can sensibly be released without detriment to the local authority, but each case must be considered on its merits. We must remain strongly committed to green belts and our policy remains that developments in green belts will be strictly controlled. The Labour-controlled Dundee district agreed with both Tayside regional council and the Angus district council that abandonment of the green belt would not result in any material change in attitude to development in the rural hinterland of Dundee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I were not involved in that decision, but it was not contentious at the time.

Will the Minister reflect on the way in which certain distinguished multinational companies have held a proverbial pistol at our head, saying that if they do not get a green belt site they will not come to Scotland at all? Will the Minister call in papers from the West Lothian district council and the Lothian region about the history of the welcome Digital factory at Queensferry?

With regard to the green belt, that strong presumption will remain and we shall not be pressured into abandoning it. We shall look carefully at the considerations that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned for incoming jobs for Scotland, and I will examine the case that he has mentioned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met teaching unions in Scotland.

Since last July, I have had useful meetings with representatives of all the teacher unions in Scotland.

Is not it about time the Minister met the unions to advise them that he intends to withdraw the inane scheme to allow schools to opt out? As no school has put itself forward as a candidate to opt out, is it not about time that he consigned the scheme, along with all the other nonsense relating to schools, to the bin?

The hon. Gentleman's presumption is incorrect. The Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 enables schools to opt out if they wish to do so. That is a right to which parents are entitled, and I have no doubt that it is a right which school boards and parents will be considering in increasing numbers. It is a welcome option.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sweetly ironic that the Labour-controlled Strathclyde regional council is campaigning for re-election on the Government's school boards policy when the Scottish Labour party opposes them? Does my hon. Friend agree that opportunists are at work?

My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition said that school boards were not wanted and not needed, but 80 per cent. of all schools in Scotland have boards, including 90 per cent. of all secondary schools. It is plain that the boards are widely welcomed by parents and that they have an important role to play in improving the quality of Scottish education.

Does the Minister have any intention of meeting the Educational Institute of Scotland to discuss, especially, class sizes in primary schools?

I have no plans at present to do so. I am happy to reassure the hon. Lady that class sizes have been falling steadily in recent years. Pupil-teacher ratios have also been improving steadily in recent years, and I hope that that will continue.

Pupil-teacher ratios and class sizes have been improving because Labour local authorities have defied the Government's wishes. In 1989–90, regional councils spent £120 million more than they were told to spend by the Government. Will the Government tell local authorities what they should have cut? Should it have been nursery schools, one in nine teachers, further education, or making building standards even worse? Will the Minister be explicit about what Labour local authorities were overspending on?

The reason why class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios have improved in recent years is the substantially increased funding per pupil as a result of the Government's management of the economy and funding of local authorities. As for local authorities defying the Government, the hon. Gentleman and his party should ask themselves how much longer Strathclyde regional council intends to defy the Labour party.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies have been commissioned by his Department into the economic consequences for Scotland of the introduction of single European market; and what action has been taken as a result of these findings.

The single market committee of the Scottish Economic Council, which I chair, has commissioned and published three booklets this year on aspects of the single European market as it affects Scotland. Further work is currently in hand.

Is the Minister aware of the potentially grave consequences of the single European market for Scotland, and not least for the Scotch whisky industry? Is he further aware that unless there is Community agreement on full fiscal harmonisation for alcoholic drinks, and unless intra-EEC duty trade-for-trade is safeguarded, the Scotch whisky industry will have far more to lose than to gain? Is this another example of the Secretary of State's interest being for the Prime Minister in Scotland rather than for the 16,000 whisky workers?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the substantial improvements in the whisky industry in recent years, which are to some extent the result of the 30 per cent. real terms reduction in duty payable by that industry. That is reflected in the fact that the industry now has exports of £1·5 billion a year, which is a dramatic improvement. Clearly, the industry is doing well.

Does the Minister accept that before the creation of a single market in 1992 it is absolutely essential that he reconsiders his refusal to create in Scotland rural development areas on a par with the rural development facilities in Wales and the facilities enjoyed by the development commission in northern England? If he does not do that will not Britain lose out on European funding as well as Government funding after 1992?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware of our substantial success in obtaining development funding from the European Community—some £800 million in the past decade. In addition, we have made bids under RENAVAL and RECHAR to enable certain parts of Scotland to be eligible for further funding. We are certainly representing the interests of all the relevant parts of Scotland.

Is the Minister aware that the Scottish steel industry will be even more vulnerable after 1992 unless it obtains the desperately needed investment in its plants? Is he further aware of the information from the steel union conference in Aberdeen this week that imported steel is already replacing what ought to be produced from Scottish plants? Why has the Minister or the Secretary of State still not met the chairman of British Steel? Why are they idle spectators when decisions are being made which will affect the long-term future of the industry?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be meeting the chairman of British Steel. We are all very keen to ensure that the Scottish steel industry continues to prosper. However, investment decisions must be a commercial matter for British Steel. They will be taken on the best competitive advice and information available to British Steel.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep concern in the supply side of the Scottish offshore industry—contractors and others—about the procure-ment directives of the European Commission? What is he doing to ensure that the interests of that very important section of Scottish industry are properly represented?

My right hon. Friend knows that we resisted the implementation of that directive, but it was decided by majority rule. We are keeping in close touch with developments. I well understand my right hon. Friend's concern.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions his Department is having with regard to the implementation of alterations in procedures relating to the poll tax in Scotland.

I keep all aspects of the community charge arrangements under review and I would be prepared to make changes if they were required.

Will the Secretary of State have a little pity for the two dunderheads on the Opposition Benches who cannot give answers about the roof tax—[Interruption.] Let no Labour Member—[Interruption.]

Order. Questions must be addressed through me.

Will the Secretary of State tell us what role he is playing in the Cabinet committee? If he is not playing any role, will he get into the ministerial limousine, shut his colleagues in it, and go and tell the grocer's daughter that the tills are empty, the books are not balancing and the poll tax should be scrapped?

I can understand the hon. Gentleman's repugnance at the proposal of his former colleagues in the Labour party for a roof tax because the hon. Gentleman's views appear to be shared by 85 per cent. of Labour voters in Scotland who, according to the recent opinion poll in The Scotsman, reject the roof tax as a means of raising local government finance. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members should reflect on the fact that the debate in Scotland over the past few weeks has shown that while no system of local government taxation is popular, the roof tax proposed by the Labour party is the most unpopular system yet put forward by any party.

If my right hon. and learned Friend were contemplating any alteration, surely he would not change the position whereby a widow living in her own home pays only one community charge in contrast with Labour's roof tax, under which she might well be paying double. Would not that be intolerable and unfair on elderly folk, particularly pensioners?

My hon. Friend is right. As under the old rating system, so under Labour's roof tax, if an elderly pensioner is unfortunate enough to be bereaved the tax is not changed by one penny, whereas one of the advantages of the community charge or the poll tax is that a widow or widower immediately sees the tax burden reduced by half. How can the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) claim that his roof tax is a fair system of taxation when it penalises pensioners in that way?

At the last Scottish Question Time, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), told us that he believed that the poll tax was working well in Scotland, so why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to join a Cabinet committee set up to change the poll tax? Does more than a year of poll tax agony in Scotland count for so much less with the Government than under a month of poll tax agony in England and Wales?

On the contrary, our experience in Scotland has shown that local authorities are becoming increasingly accountable to their electorate. When I made that point at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities conference I was interested to hear a senior Labour councillor inform me that community charge increases this year were only at the rate of inflation in Scotland because there were local elections this year—it had nothing to do with accountability. That is exactly the point, and that is why the community charge is fairer and more acceptable than the old rating system or the Labour party's roof tax.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that under present procedures Conservative-controlled Eastwood district council has reduced its poll tax by 30 per cent? He may also be aware that a recent opinion poll in Eastwood showed that more than 90 per cent. of Eastwood residents supported the Keep Eastwood out of Glasgow campaign, to which I am parliamentary adviser. Will he urgently consider a change of procedure in relation to those Scottish National party councillors who refuse to pay the poll tax but put in expenses claims? Is not it hypocrisy and an outrage that councillor Gordon Murray of Cumbernauld district council has put in an expenses claim for £20,000—a huge burden on poll tax payers—but refuses to pay his own poll tax?

It is typical of nationalist councillors to encourage the rest of the population to disobey the law while claiming expenses which have to be met by those paying the community charge.

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is interested in opinion polls in Eastwood, will he confirm that a recent opinion poll in Eastwood district showed that whereas last year 70 per cent. of the electorate there were in favour of the poll tax, now only 50 per cent. are in favour of it, and they are those who benefit mostly from the tax? Will the Secretary of State speak for the people of Scotland for a change and make it clear to the special committee that after one year's experience in Scotland it is clear that no tinkering with the poll tax will get rid of its basic unfairness or end the administrative nightmare and that only abolition will do? If he is so concerned about pensioners in Scotland, why does he not use any money that he gets from the committee to get rid of the minimum 20 per cent. payment which hits the poorest in our society, including many pensioners?

I, and I think most people, would be more impressed by the 50 per cent. of the people of Eastwood who support the poll tax than by the 10 per cent. of people in Scotland who support Labour's roof tax, which was rejected by the other 90 per cent. With regard to the position of pensioners, at least the Government, unlike the Labour party, do not put forward a system of taxation that we know to be so unfair that the Labour party has to say in advance that pensioners could defer the payment of their roof tax until they died. What better indictment could there be from Labour's own mouth of the iniquities of its proposals and their damaging effect on the elderly in Scotland?

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received concerning the investigation of the suitability of an underground repository for nuclear waste at Dounreay; and if he will make a statement.

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has lodged an appeal against Highland regional council's decision to refuse planning permission for the drilling of two test boreholes at Dounreay nuclear power development establishment.

I recognise that any seismic or geological examination of the proposed site will add considerably to our scientific knowledge, but will the Under-Secretary give a categorical undertaking on behalf of the Government that no such proposal will find favour with the Government without the most searching public inquiry, at which any objectors may be properly and fully publicly financed, so that the case can be considered in depth?

What the hon. Gentleman has said will be taken into account. The Secretary of State expects to announce his decision shortly. All appeal cases of this nature receive extremely careful consideration and the period taken to consider the appeal is no longer than in other comparable cases. My right hon. and learned Friend expects to announce his decision shortly and will take into account what the hon. Gentleman says.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to bring forward any changes to the poll tax legislation in the present Session.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to bring forward any changes to the poll tax legislation in the present Session.

I refer to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas).

As a non-payer of the poll tax and one who is proud to he part of the campaign that will sink it, I want the Secretary of State for Scotland to answer the following question clearly and unambiguously: will the coming changes to the legislation be backdated to cover the full year in which the people of Scotland had to face the full brunt of the unamended poll tax, or will the Secretary of State make a mess of it once again and fail to defend Scotland's interests as he did during the Budget fiasco?

If there were to be any changes to the community charge, of course we would ensure that they were applied in a way that was fair to Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman continues in his attempt to brand himself as a lawbreaker, he should contemplate the effect that the local income tax, which he supports, would have on his constituents. Does he realise that if a local income tax were introduced for the people of Peterhead and Fraserburgh in his constituency, a husband and wife on average earnings would have to pay £764 and a married couple on average earnings would have to pay more than £1,400? Does he think that his constituents welcome his belief in the local income tax when it would be so damaging to the economy of Fraserburgh, Peterhead and the rest of Banff and Buchan?

Is the Secretary of State aware that he continues to give the impression that he has not yet grasped the fundamental objectionable aspect of the poll tax which is that it bears no relation to ability to pay? When he goes to the Cabinet committee that is reviewing the poll tax, will he explain to the woman in Downing street that ability to pay is based upon capacity to earn, that mentally and physically handicapped people, the unemployed, those on income support and single parents have no capacity to earn and that we shall judge his review on the basis of whether those people get the 100 per cent. rebate to which they are entitled under a just system?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that ability to pay is an important consideration for those on low incomes. He knows very well that one in three people in Scotland, or indeed in Britain as a whole, do not pay the full community charge because of the rebate system. He knows that people on income support received an increase equivalent to their community charge contribution. The community charge with rebates is therefore a progressive taxation system for all those on low incomes. Any system of rebates that benefits one third of the population can be described in that way.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that local income tax is not a part of the changes that he is contemplating? That would come as a relief o the provost of Perth and Kinross, who believes that a local income tax is not a part of the Scottish national party's policy and who is advising people to pay the community charge. The other SNP provost in Angus is not paying his community charge and is drawing his expenses as a councillor. Does not that clearly show that the SNP, even in a constituency such as mine, cannot speak with one voice? The SNP has different voices when speaking to different people in different places.

My hon. Friend is correct. Not only are members of the SNP speaking with different voices, but they have not done their homework. As we pointed out yesterday, a single nursing sister could pay more than £1,100 in local income tax, a junior doctor well over £1,000, a school principal over £1,600 and a social worker over £1,100. It is inevitable that any system of local government finance that excludes almost half the population from an obligation to pay puts a heavy burden on those who have to pay. That is why many people on average or modest earnings would find a local income tax crippling to their standard of living.

What is the Tory alternative to the poll tax? When will the Government be able to give us the figures showing what people will have to pay under the new system?

I am hugely amused by the hon. Gentleman. We all know what the community charge costs and we have explained what local income taxes cost, but the Labour party has remained remarkably coy about what its proposals would cost. Why is the Labour party so reluctant to tell us? Why, in particular, will not the Labour party give the people of Scotland an assurance that, if the Leader of the Opposition would not touch the idea of a roof tax in England with a barge pole, it will not be introduced in Scotland either?

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is something fundamentally undemocratic about well-heeled, freeloading scroungers who are elected to public office in this House and elsewhere seeking to get support for a change in the law and not obeying the law—

Order.

Order. The hon. Member must withdraw the comment about freeloading scroungers in this House.

May I replace it with the word "spongers", Mr. Speaker? Can you advise me what word I should use?

I am asking the hon. Member to withdraw the phrase "freeloading scroungers".

I withdraw the words "freeloading scroungers" and replace them by referring to those who do not pay their dues to society and who expect others to pay their dues for them.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

There is something disreputable about freeloading hon. Members who expect their constituents to pay their lawful taxes but who themselves refuse to do so, thereby imposing an even heavier burden on the rest of the community.

Does the Secretary of State accept that he does not strengthen his case by descending to appalling misrepresentation?

Oh, my God. The Labour party—

As this famous committee has been set up to take the Government out of their present confusion over the poll tax, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that there will be relief for Scottish poll tax payers by this summer? Can he guarantee that, as Scotland was first—

Dunderheids.

Order. The hon. Member must contain himself.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, as Scotland was first burdened by the poll tax, he has the ability to initiate reforms rather than follow lamely behind others, as has happened so far? Given the Prime Minister's admissions about the fatal flaws in the poll tax, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman hold to his unlikely boast earlier this month that this is a tax which works and is here to stay? Before the Secretary of State gets too carried away with the opinion poll to which he has referred several times, will he confirm that 50 per cent. of the sample made it clear that people rejected the poll tax and wanted a property-based assessment, which is the area in which the Labour party is operating? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that if he continues to argue the popularity of the poll tax, he will look more and more like a latter-day King Canute?

The community charge is here to stay. If there are any improvements to the charge, of course they will apply throughout the United Kingdom. It does not surprise me that 30 to 40 per cent. would like to see the rates back. That is exactly the proportion who did not pay a penny of tax under the old rating system. Given his total refusal to give us any details of what the roof tax would cost, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to describe me as a latter-day King Canute, I have to describe him as a latter-day fiddler on the roof.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to meet roads authorities involved in the areas covered by the routes south of Edinburgh road study to discuss the Government's recent announcement on the study's conclusions.

Yes. Scottish Development Department officials will meet the local roads authorities to be involved in the A1 steering group and each relevant authority in respect of the route action plans for the A1 and the A7 south of Hawick, and for various accident remedial programmes.

In meetings held in future to discuss routes south of Edinburgh, will the Government bear in mind the anger and frustration felt in the Borders about the inadequacy of the Government's plans for routes south of the Borders? In relation to the A7 south of Hawick, will the Minister confirm that the only schemes now in prospect are all cash limited to a cost of less than £1 million? If that is all that is in prospect, does the Minister accept that the road will never be brought up to a tolerable standard? Will he give an undertaking that there will be a single dual carriageway built to highway-link design standards along the entire length of the A7 between Hawick and Carlisle within the foreseeable future?

I should not go as far as the hon. Gentleman in regard to a dual carriageway, because that depends on the amount of traffic usage. In the light of the importance of the A7 to the local economy south of Hawick, we intend to commission the regional councils to develop a programme of improvement. The hon. Gentleman's points will be examined. A bypass for Langholm is already in the trunk road programme. The necessary preparatory work and statutory procedures are planned to be complete by the mid-1990s. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumries (Sir H. Monro) supports that. I should also mention that improvements to the A7 south of Hawick will continue to be made to achieve specific local objectives. They will include accident remedial programmes and smaller improvement schemes where appropriate. So action will be taken.

If all roads lead to Westminster, is not it clear that along those routes, regarding the poll tax, we shall see slogans such as "don't pay, don't collect"? It is not the official leadership who turned the "stop it" campaign into a "pay it" campaign who matter; it is the anti-poll tax movement, Committee 100 and others, who rightly said that this is a civil law which should he resisted as a matter of right. Obviously—

Order. The hon. Member's question is a bit wide of roads.

So people power is important; again it has forced the Prime Minister to think again on her hated tax.

Order.

I always knew that the hon. Gentleman had remarkable ingenuity, but I did not think that he would wish the road tax to be increased to pay the community charge.

May I thank my hon. Friend for his announcement about the road south of Hawick? May I impress upon him the fact that because of the amount of traffic, both from the Borders woollen trade into the north of England and from the tourist industry in the south of Scotland, it is very important that the road is upgraded and particularly that the accident black spots are removed as soon as possible?

We shall certainly keep those points very much in mind, which is why we are commissioning the regional councils to develop a programme of improvements. I hope that that will help.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect on patient care of the proposals by Greater Glasgow health board for the reorganisation of its laboratory services with a view to their privatisation.

There are no plans to privatise laboratory services in Glasgow.

I noticed that the Minister avoided the part of the question relating to patient care, but is he aware that 23 midwives who will graduate from Glasgow's Eastern college of nursing next month have been told by Greater Glasgow health board that, despite demand for their skills, there is no money to employ them, so they face the dole? What advice can the Minister give to those midwives and to the women of Glasgow who want their services?

We have enormously expanded the number of places for midwives and nurses in the Health Service. As the training provided by health boards does not guarantee a job with that particular board, my advice to those midwives is to apply for the jobs that are advertised throughout the Health Service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating health boards on having increased the number of midwives and nurses in our Health Service to record levels and on paying them more in real terms than they have ever been paid in the history of the Health Service.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on wearing the blue rose of Eastwood following his highly successful visit to my constituency? On the point about laboratory services at the Victoria infirmary, can my hon. Friend comment on my alternative proposals, which involve retaining the laboratory services at the Victoria, concentrating National Health Service geriatric provision in the core of the hospital at Mearnskirk and involving the private sector in extending the facilities at Mearnskirk? Is my hon. Friend aware that so far those proposals have received what I would describe as a reasonably fair wind from many people involved?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seem to recollect your telling the House that it would be most welcome if questions were brief and if answers from Ministers were brief, too. You do not seem to be holding to that directive today, Mr. Speaker.

I am keeping a careful watch on it, but interventions such as that do not help us to get on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has made a constructive suggestion about Greater Glasgow health board's proposals for change to improve patient care within its area—that the Mearnskirk site should be used to improve geriatric provision in the city of Glasgow. That is a constructive proposal and I have asked the health board to consider it seriously. I know that its initial reaction is that it would like to study that proposal closely. I am sure that it will be taken into account along with all the other representations that have followed as part of the consultation process.

Mr. Sam Galbraith.

Hear, hear.

Is the Minister aware that the Leukaemia Research Fund had intended to site a new research unit at Glasgow royal infirmary but that, as a result of the proposed reorganisation of the laboratories in Glasgow, it is no longer planning to do so? Will the Minister therefore please look into the matter to ensure that that world-leading unit comes to Glasgow and to Scotland?

I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman back to the House. I was not aware of the proposal that he mentioned, about having a leukaemia unit at that hospital. I should be very surprised if, as a result of the proposals for the reorganisation of the laboratory services, it were not possible to develop services for patients in Glasgow, because those proposals will save more than £3 million, which will be available for additional patient care, including helping patients who are suffering from leukaemia. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he seeks and shall look into that matter and write to him, stating the position.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to assess the popularity or otherwise of the poll tax.

Public opinion appears to be divided over support for the various forms of local taxation.

Is the Secretary of State the only person in Scotland who fails to realise that the poll tax is as popular as the bubonic plague and that it is adding insult to injury for the Prime Minister and her lackeys to imply that the Scots are a nation of scroungers because—in, I believe, the right hon. Lady's own words—Scottish poll tax payers are being subsidised by the "marvellously tolerant English"? Now that even the Prime Minister is having second thoughts about the poll tax, will the Government accept the voters' verdict in tomorrow's elections, when the people of Scotland will have a wonderful opportunity to hammer another nail into the poll tax coffin?

I should be fascinated to know what the hon. Gentleman thinks of his own party's proposals, if he thinks that the poll tax is unpopular. He knows perfectly well that the roof tax commands less support in Scotland than any other system of local taxation. On the level of support for Scottish community charge payers, the hon. Gentleman knows that what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said is factually correct, that Scottish local authorities raise on average 20 per cent. of the revenue that they require from Scottish community charge payers, whereas English local authorities raise an average of 30 per cent., which is one reason why English community charges are significantly higher than those in Scotland. I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to welcome that on behalf of his constituents who are having to pay that charge, which the hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid.

Will not the Secretary of State acknowlege that Scotland is witnessing the unedifying spectacle of the Government and the Labour party together offering the two most unpopular methods of raising taxation for local government? They are making up Mickey Mouse figures to try to discredit local income tax, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows to be fair. Its administrative costs are half those of collecting the poll tax, and it will release funds to be invested in local services. If income tax is a fine method of financing central Government, why not extend it to provide the same buoyancy and accountability in local councils?

On the central principle, government is financed by both income tax and value added tax, which ensures that all adults pay towards the costs of government. One of the fundamental deficiencies of local income tax is that almost half the electorate would not pay a penny towards the cost of local government. As part of his support for local income tax, has the hon. Gentleman pointed out to his constituents in Gordon that a person on only average earnings would pay a local income tax of £732, so a husband and wife on average earnings in his constituency would pay over £1,400? I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not draw attention to those figures when campaigning for a local income tax in the Grampian region.

In the light of the popularity, real or imagined, of the community charge in Scotland, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the community charge will be introduced shortly into Northern Ireland?

That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that I have fought the case of Northern Ireland students and the community charge for some time. May I assure the Secretary of State that, despite the news that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has brought from east Belfast, that the poll tax would be popular, it is not popular among the parents of students studying in Scotland who, under the seamless robe of government, are paying the full taxation in Northern Ireland for local government? Will he bear that in mind as he examines changes?

It is worth remembering that under the old rating system or under the Labour party's roof tax, a student renting a flat would pay the full rates and would not have any automatic deduction. Under the community charge, for the first time, all students have an automatic deduction of 80 per cent. from their bills. That is very much to the advantage of students as a whole.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for which hospitals he has had expressions of interest regarding self-governing trusts; and from whom the request has come in each case.

Expressions of interest have been obtained from four hospitals in Ayr, Forfar and Aberdeen.

Will the Minister confirm that, in spite of the fact that Ayrshire consultants have voted 9:1 against opting out, the minority could still put forward a scheme, his placemen on the health board could agree to that scheme and then, on their advice, he could transfer the ownership of the new south Ayrshire hospital, built at public expense, to a small clique of his own supporters in Ayrshire, against the wishes of the majority of the medical and other staff and against the wishes of the majority of the Ayrshire people? Is not that the biggest steal since the great train robbery?

The hon. Gentleman's description of self-governing status is a travesty. If the proposals for the hospitals in Ayr are taken forward, they will give consultants and staff an opportunity to take part in making decisions at local level. The most important point is that self-governing hospitals will remain part of the National Health Service. They will not be transferred out of it. The hon. Gentleman may believe that decisions are best taken above the heads of people in the Health Service. He is entitled to his opinion, but many people in the Health Service will not take that view when they consider the opportunity.

Does my hon. Friend realise that those of us who are not hung up on the doctrine that we are given by the Opposition welcome the fact that at long last there is an interest in developing properly Health Service and hospital facilities in Forfar? Is he aware that general practitioners in Forfar are fully behind the programme?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The proposals for Forfar have come from not the health board or management but local doctors and general practitioners who see the opportunities that self-governing status will provide.

How many?

The hon. Gentleman asks how many. All the GPs in Forfar who are involved have put forward those proposals because they see the opportunity for improving patient care. Opposition Members who care more about dogma than about patient interests may care to reflect on that.

Does the Minister accept that I am more concerned with the dogma of democracy? Will he give an undertaking to the House, as he seemed to on the previous occasion when he was questioned on the matter, that many more people will be consulted about opting out than he first thought? If that consultation is widespread, will he stand by the majority verdict of consultants and others working in the Health Service who believe that health services should stay within the NHS and want nothing to do with opting out? Will he stick by the majority verdict?

The only advice that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is that he read the proposals. He uses the term opting out. No hospital will opt out of the NHS. If the hon. Gentleman reads our well-documented proposals on consultation, he will see that there are two stages. The first is expression of interest—the stage that has been reached in Ayr. After that there is the development of proposals or a business plan, if that term is preferred. At that stage there will be full consultation. The procedures that will be followed will ensure that everyone can take account of the proposals and form a judgment on the interests of patient care. That is the way in which the Health Service should be run. It is the appropriate way and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would endorse it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of local government expenditure will be raised from the community charge payer, the uniform business rate payer, and Government grant; and what were the Government's original estimates if councils had kept to Government spending guidelines.

On the basis of local authorities' budget estimates, 22 per cent. of their expenditure in 1990–91 will be met by community charge payers compared to a Government assumption of 20 per cent., 23·4 per cent. by business rate payers compared to 24 per cent. and 54·6 per cent. from Government grant compared to 56 per cent. Local authority community charge payers should have to contribute on average only 20 per cent. They are contributing 22 per cent. on account of extra local authority spending.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the first year of the community charge in Scotland many local authorities made greater provision for bad debts and many other expenses that might have been incurred and increased the community charge accordingly? Is he aware that in the second year they have brought down their expenditure more in line with Government guidelines? Does he further agree that the non-payment campaign in Scotland is the one thing that ensures that community charge payers will have too pay to much this year?

Obviously someone will have to pay the community charge eventually. The effect of non-payment campaigns will be almost certainly to increase the community charge substantially for other charge payers. My hon. Friend is correct that this year there has been considerably more economy. Some 21 local authorities have either reduced their charges or held them at the same level while another 13 have kept their increases below the rate of inflation. Accordingly, there is increasing evidence that in the second year of the new system in Scotland local accountability is taking effect. In contrast to that, the proportion of the budget of Edinburgh district council that is raised from the community charge is over 40 per cent.—probably the highest in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools in Scotland have taken steps towards opting out of local authority control.

Parents at one school have presented a formal written request calling for a ballot to be held on self-governing status.

After all the parliamentary time spent on the opting-out legislation, all the civil servants' time spent on it and all the people's money spent on it, how does the Minister have the nerve to get up to say that one single school has asked to opt out of the system? Is not that ample evidence of an unrepresentative Government imposing unwanted legislation on an unwilling population? Why does not the Minister take his courage in his hands by joining the rest of the people in Scotland tomorrow and, through the ballot box, telling the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stirling (M r. Forsyth), to get lost and to take his dangerous and daft opting-out legislation with him?

The longest journey begins with a single step and I have no doubt that many other schools will be interested in following the example of the one school that has so far applied to be considered. South of the border, where the opting-out provisions have been in place longer, some 36 applications have now been approved and the number of applications for admission to those schools has risen in many cases by as much as 50 per cent.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of questions.

It does not necessarily have to arise out of questions and I shall take it after the applications under Standing Order No. 20.