Questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland—Question No. 1.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this point so early, but it is relevant to questions 3 and 4. I am a member of the Select Committee which this morning decided not to report to the House. Am I free to refer to this matter, should I be fortunate enough to catch your eye?

Order. That question might have been more appropriate when we reached it, but I shall deal with it now. What happens in a Select Committee, sitting in private, cannot be discussed by the House until the Committee has reported. It is for the Committee to decide what action it should take within the terms of reference given to it by the House. However, questions 3 and 4 are of a wider nature. Provided that the hon. Gentleman does not refer to what went on in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, he will be in order.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for prolonging this discussion, but if a Select Committee decides that it will publish no report, does it mean that the Committee is still barred from reporting? I understood that the point of the ruling was that one did not comment until the report was before the House. As there is to be no report, is the Committee not entitled to report that there is to be no report? There seems to be a danger—I put it no higher—that the House will look a little silly if there is the clack of the market place —the talk of the steamie, if I may put it in Scottish terms—and yet it is barred from discussing the matter.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that whether or not a Select Committee reports to the House, discussion of what took place during the Committee's deliberations is a matter of privacy?

Order. That is exactly what I said, but that is not to say that the questions on the Order Paper cannot be discussed in the House. That is a different matter altogether.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I intervene with great reluctance to ask if you will examine exactly what you said. My view is that if a Select Committee decides to publish evidence, whether or not it reports in final form to the House of Commons, matters that are in the public domain can be referred to in this House.

Order. The Committee has not reported. That is the point. We must get on.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Chairman of the Select Committee which decided today to publish the proceedings but not to issue a report, surely the Committee will look foolish if the press discusses this matter in Scotland but the members of the Committee that was directly responsible for the decision not to report are not allowed to comment. Will you reconsider your decision, Mr. Speaker?

Order. I cannot reconsider it, because this is a matter of fact. It is perfectly possible for the minutes of proceedings to be published, and I understand that that will happen. That may be commented upon.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the House not discuss what the Select Committee has decided to publish? It is well known generally and it will be widely reported in the press. It is also common knowledge in the House.

Order. We do not know what the Committee has decided until it reports its proceedings. Question No. 1, Mr. Gordon Wilson.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of provision of list D accommodation.

There are 18 list D schools providing 922 places, of which 729 are currently occupied.

Does the Minister recall his correspondence with me about the unfortunate case of the girl of 14 who could not be provided with secure accommodation and absconded for a period, though she was subsequently safely returned? Does he realise that there is considerable alarm among the children's hearings and the police about the lack of secure and balanced accommodation? Will he postpone the proposed transfer of list D schools to the regional councils and produce an overall report on the situation to make sure that the system that is to be passed over is a coherent system?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply he would realise that there are about 200 places surplus to need in the list D sytem. Negotiations are under way between the principal local authorities involved and the list D schools, and I am satisfied that the negotiations will come to a conclusion that will allow to continue schools that in the eyes of the regions are necessary for the continuation of the system to continue.

What steps does my hon. Friend propose to take following the decision of the social work services group to cease having a role with the list D schools with effect from 1 April 1986?

That decision was taken by my right hon. Friend and me. The subject has been on the go since 1968 when the then Act envisaged that the Secretary of State would retain his responsibility on a temporary basis only. I thought that it was time to bring that temporary arrangement to an end. Many people agree with me. I believe that once the current negotiations are concluded, the list D school system will be closely related to the local authority social work system, and I believe that that is the correct place for the relationship.

The Minister has said, certainly in correspondence, that the amount of direct grant currently given to list D schools will be wholly made over to the local authorities assuming responsibility for those schools. Will that amount be hypothecated for that purpose? If not, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that by April next year the same number of places will still be available? That is particularly important for local authorities which do not have list D schools in their areas. Will the hon. Gentleman also answer the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) about secure accommodation?

The arrangements for secure accommodation will continue as before. The children who end up in secure accommodation do not come only through the children's panel system and, therefore, through the social work department of the region. The broad purpose of the cash settlement has been to avoid giving local authorities extra costs without extra resources. We have agreed the transfer to the local authorities of resources that would have been used by the Government if we had continued to support the schools direct.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the proposal by the Scottish teachers' unions for an independent pay review.

There is no substitute for direct negotiation among the parties involved. Pay cannot be considered in isolation from a proper reappraisal of the duties for which teachers are paid: and Parliament has set up machinery within which these matters ought to be resolved.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the disastrous situation in our schools? Surely he recognises that after 18 months of action, including 12 months of strike action, the teachers are more determined than ever. Without a new Government offer, the forthcoming examinations will be disrupted and teachers are talking seriously about intensifying their action right up to the general election.

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. What is required is for the parties involved to get together and negotiate a settlement, which I believe is possible, given good will. I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman about the disastrous situation in Scottish schools, but it is no use calling on me to take an initiative to resolve the matter. I have already produced two initiatives, both of which were rejected. It is time that someone else had a shot.

May I take the opportunity to remind my right hon. Friend that many professionally committed teachers who are striking for more pay nevertheless accept that it is reasonable to look for more realistic conditions of employment? Will he assure me that in the eventual resolution of the disputes there will be an amendment to the conditions of employment that will prevent the frustration of curriculum development and in-service training?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I accept absolutely that most teachers feel extremely strongly about what they regard as the inadequate way in which they are treated and paid. I have accepted that all along. Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree that the saddest feature is that, in spite of that being recognised, the teachers do not appear to be willing to move. I hope that they will now consider that carefully.

Is the Secretary of State oblivious to the fact that last Thursday's strike affected nearly every school in Scotland and that nearly 1 million Scottish pupils are being continuously affected by the Secretary of State's failure to find a just solution to the dispute? Is the Secretary of State aware that at the rally on Thursday in George square, Glasgow, attended by 10,000 Scottish teachers, some placards proclaimed that some of the teachers had been Tory supporters? Even they are now supporting strike action as a last resort in pursuit of their legitimate demand for an independent pay review.

No one is in any doubt that a large number of pupils and schools were affected by the so-called industrial action last week. It is distressing that parents are becoming more and more concerned. They are writing to us asking why there cannot be some solution which includes ensuring that this sort of nonsense can never happen again, to the detriment of their children.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the role of the employers in the teachers' strike, because in my opinion their voice has been distinctly muted?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's view. The employers made it clear at the beginning that they agreed with the teachers. The employers have always been different from the teachers in that they believe that any review of pay alone would be incomplete. They are equally certain that there must be a reassessment of conditions of service for teachers if any lasting solution is to be found.

Does the Secretary of State realise that by dismissing the teachers' action as "this sort of nonsense" he shows his failure to come to grips with the seriousness of the problem? Since it took him about six months to produce his first negative response to the proposal for an independent pay review — which suggested that he was not opposed to it in principle—will he reconsider now, like his colleagues in the English Department?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that I said that the teachers' case was nonsense. I have never said that. I have always acknowledged that the teachers feel strongly about their case. I said that it was nonsense to treat children in a cavalier manner by harming their exam prospects. That is nonsense, unacceptable and unworthy of the profession.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the problem with the dispute is that the real victims—the schoolchildren—have no votes and no say in the matter? Does he agree that the teachers have conducted the dispute at minimum cost to themselves? Will he therefore consider representations from parents who say that the dispute cannot be allowed to continue? If the employers will not act against the teachers, will my right hon. Friend consider taking powers so that he can?

I agree with my hon. Friend's general comments. I do not have the power to take such action, as I do not employ teachers. They are employed by the employers. I agree that parents will now require as a further outcome of the dispute, not merely a solution that will satisfy the teachers and their fears about remuneration and so on, but a settlement which includes a reasonable guarantee that such disruption of schools can never happen again at no cost to the teachers.

Will the Secretary of State be more forthcoming and admit openly and honestly that he is the employer of the teachers and that he alone is standing between the teachers, the children, the parents and a settlement of the damaging dispute?

If I had been the teachers' employer, many matters would have been made much easier in the past few months. One problem has been that employers have not felt able to exert pressure on the teachers to be more reasonable in their demands. Twice I have made major moves in the direction of the teachers, including finding a large sum of money—additional to anything that the employers had offered—to try to resolve the dispute. No similar move has been forthcoming from the teachers. I would of course deplore an all-out strike, but at least that would commit the teachers, as they would then have to suffer some financial penalty instead of putting it all on to the children, as they have been doing up to now.

If the Secretary of State refuses to take the initiative in Scotland, will he try to interest the Prime Minister, who apparently is taking some initiative over the English teachers' strike? Or does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Prime Minister regards Scotland as a far off country of which she knows nothing, remembering that she referred to the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) as the far north?

I can answer the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) by saying that I am involved in all meetings about the teachers' disputes, north and south of the border.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has made any assessment of the annual economic effects on Scottish steel users that would result from the closure of British Steel Corporation, Ravenscraig; and if he will make a statement.

No. There is no proposal to close Ravenscraig.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the maintenance of any excess capacity by the British Steel Corporation imposes additional costs on steel users and taxpayers north and south of the border?

I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes. My right hon. Friends and I decided earlier this year that, in view of the uncertainty of the market for steel, it would be right for the BSC to plan in the sense of keeping all the five major plants going during the next planning period. That strategic decision on the part of the Government has secured the future of Ravenscraig.

Will the Secretary of State dismiss entirely the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), whose show of parochialism is outstanding? Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to make it crystal clear to the chairman of the BSC that Ravenscraig will be retained not just for three years but beyond that?

I have met the chairman of the BSC on numerous occasions about this matter and I have made my views on Ravenscraig clear to him, but neither he nor anyone else can give a guarantee for any plant into the completely unrestricted future. However, the hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as I am that we have secured Ravenscraig for the present planning period.

Is my right hon. friend aware that many people in Scotland believe that the real guarantee of the future of Ravenscraig is the word of the Secretary of State and of the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—and that attempts to link in other factors to the future of Ravenscraig may be damaging to Scottish interests?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. A strange feature of the last few months is that nobody seems to have noticed that the Government insisted that Ravenscraig should remain open during the current planning period.

Is the Secretary of State aware that whatever he has been up to behind the scenes has been extremely damaging to the future of Gartcosh, to Ravenscraig and to the honour and credibility of Conservative Members? Is he further aware that a mass of detailed evidence was submitted to the Select Committee on the future of Gartcosh and the dependence of Ravenscraig upon it and that that Committee ran away from the issues at the behest of Conservative Members? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make a proper examination of all the evidence that was submitted to that Committee?

References to the motives or honour o hon. Members are no substitute for genuine arguments on this issue. My right hon. Friends and I are still awaiting the views of the Select Committee.

Although long-term projections of steel demand and plant capacity are extremely hazardous, does my right hon. Friend agree that the closure of Ravenscraig in the foreseeable future would have a damaging effect on British steel users, on steel exports and on the Trident submarine-building programme?

My hon. Friend is right. He has mentioned some of the factors which led the Government to decide that Ravenscraig should not be closed during the present planning period.

Does the Secretary of State accept that if the rumours that are circulating are true, there will be deep and bitter disappointment that some Scottish representatives are apparently putting party loyalty before personal conviction in their judgment on the future of the Scottish steel industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that on the Opposition Benches there is a unanimous view that Gartcosh should be offered at the very least a guarantee that is equivalent to that which has been given to Ravenscraig, a plant of which it is part? It is the firm belief of the majority of Scots that that should be done, and the right hon. Gentleman will ignore that at his peril. Will he give an assurance that Ministers have not closed their minds to that possibility?

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I can make no comment upon whatever has been decided or not decided by a Select Committee of which I am not a member. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. I have received a large amount of evidence on Gartcosh, and views have been expressed from many sources. I am carefully evaluating the evidence and the various views. I hope that I can add to my considerations any other views that I may receive before any final comment is made.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make an official visit to the Gartcosh steelworks; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans at present to do so.

Is the Secretary of State aware that it might do him a whole lot of good to visit Gartcosh, if only because a change of company might be helpful? Is he aware also that if he ever meets the men and women of Gartcosh he will find that they are people who say what they mean and mean what they say? They would never be a party to the disgraceful betrayal which we witnessed in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs this morning, which was a contribution to the pantomime season and a disgrace to Scotland? Will he accept that the men and women of Gartcosh believe that they have a future and that Ravenscraig has a future and that Scottish Members are determined to fight for that future, in the knowledge that they have the overwhelming support of the Scottish people?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the views and feelings of those who live or work in the area around Gartcosh. One of the most distressing features of the controversy over the past few months is that those people have been faced with tremendous uncertainty. I cannot make any comment upon a Select Committee of which I am not a member.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever happens in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, the Committee can make recommendations only? If the members of the Committee, who represent different parties, are unable to make up their minds and agree to a positive resolution, they cannot make recommendations. The decisions that are made for Scotland are made by my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues and they decided, in conjunction with the decision of the Prime Minister, to keep Ravenscraig open for three years. That deliberate policy decision was put into effect. When the time comes for that decision to be reviewed, it will be necessary to make another political decision.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. As he will appreciate, I can make no comment on anything to do with the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

No wonder the Secretary of State is not to pay an official visit to Gartcosh or Ravenscraig. I give the warning that those areas should be the last ones that he should visit. Is he aware that in spite of the determined attempt by myself as Chairman of the Select Committee and Opposition Members to reach a compromise that would not be averse to our principles and would be agreeable to Conservative Members —[Interruption.] Despite my determined attempts as Chairman to achieve a compromise agreement — an agreement which I thought was accepted by the responsible Government Members of the Select Committee—it has been decided that no report will be published. Had the Secretary of State any say in the decision that was reached by the Tory Members of the Select Committee? Did he interfere at the end of the discussions? [Interruption.]

Order. I understand from the Chairman of the Select Committee that the minutes are to be published today. Once that order has been given, it is in order for the minutes to be referred to.

First, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) is not correct. I did not say that I refused to visit Gartcosh or Ravenscraig—I merely said that I had no present plans to visit Gartcosh. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee, he is responsible to the House for the Committee's conduct and he can perhaps answer for that conduct better than anyone else. Thirdly, may I make it perfectly clear, as I should have thought my conduct this afternoon had done, that I have had absolutely nothing to do with anything that the Select Committee has done.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there are those in the House, who are not necessarily on the other side of the House, who hold a genuine view that the future of Ravenscraig may be gravely compromised by the continuance of Gartcosh? Having listened to the evidence, are we not entitled to reach a conclusion that differs from that of the Chairman of the Select Committee?

I very much appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's comments, but that just leaves me in the same position of saying that if, and when, the Select Committee produces any views, I look forward to reading them.

Is not Gartcosh steel, which is of high quality, used in the construction of submarines? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on his failure to persuade his ministerial colleagues to place new submarine orders with Scott Lithgow and/or Yarrow?

The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. No decisions of that sort have yet been taken.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that those hon. Members who worked hard to achieve a compromise in the Select Committee found it most disappointing that a majority voted against it?

I note what my hon. Friend says, but that is a matter for the Chairman of the Select Committee.

Despite the bumbling political ineptitude displayed in the Select Committee this morning, and in view of the Quisling-like behaviour of some members of that Committee, will the Secretary of State take the lead in reviewing the evidence for the retention of Gartcosh——

Order. We never refer to each other in the Chamber as Quislings. The hon. Member should use another word.

If reference to that good Norwegian expression is riot allowed, may I substitute the word treachery?

Order. That is just as bad. Come on.

If I must withdraw the word Quisling, may I substitute the word treacherous? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Order. It is important in these highly charged matters to keep the temperature down. Will the hon. Member use a more acceptable word please?

In full deference to your views, Mr. Speaker, but not concealing my own, I withdraw that term.

On the question concerning the Select Committee, that is a matter for the Committee's Chairman.

Although it must be right to try to create real new jobs in the Gartcosh area, what purpose can it serve for the Scottish Office to spend £1 million of taxpayers' money poaching 300 jobs from Belper in my constituency to create 300 jobs near Gartcosh?

I am sure that no one would wish to poach jobs from anywhere else. I can only say that it has often been done to us in the opposite direction.

Is the Secretary of State aware of how carefully the people of Lanarkshire have listened to the soft words and assurances from Conservative Members about the future of Ravenscraig? The people also launched the overwhelming bulk of evidence put to the Select Committee showing that there is an inextricable link between Gartcosh and the future of Ravenscraig. Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore realise that a sense of betrayal, dismay and anger will be felt in the west of Scotland today when they realise that the same Conservative Members have sold out on so much of what they said in the past?

I do not know how the hon. Gentleman knows that, because, like me, he is not on the Select Committee.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the years too many decisions about the British Steel Corporation have been taken on political rather than economic grounds? The effect of that has been to divert scarce resources from more to less profitable and efficient uses. That has resulted in the corporation's impoverishment and has made job security more rather than less precarious.

I agree that in the past wrong political decisions have made greater problems for the steel industry than there would otherwise have been. The Government's role is to take the most strategic decisions and to leave the industry's management to run it in the best way that it can.

If the Secretary of State were to go to Gartcosh he might find out from the workers and the management that Gartcosh has many satisfied customers for its products, not least Carron Steelyne in my constituency. In The Engineer magazine it has said that it has no confidence that any other United Kingdom supplier will ensure the quality or delivery times that it received from Gartcosh. It would be put into some difficulty were it to have to find another supplier within the United Kingdom, because it does not have confidence that other parts of BSC will produce what it requires.

I understand that point, but it is a matter for the British Steel Corporation. Its view is that it will be able to meet its customers' demands with the plans that it has.

Will my right hon. Friend note that the Select Committee voted down the Chairman's report because Opposition Members chose to vote it down as the Committee had received no evidence to enable it to come to the conclusion that the Gartcosh, steel mills should remain open? Will he therefore take an opportunity to visit Gartcosh or arrange for representatives of the SDA or elsewhere to visit it, to begin discussions with BSC (Industry) to create genuine and lasting jobs in businesses that have a future in that area, and not be diverted by the antics of Opposition Members?

I note what my hon. Friend says. It is worth mentioning that BSC (Industry) has already said that it is prepared to help in the Gartcosh area.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements the Forestry Commission has made for public consultation on the implementation of the new broadleaf policy in each of its seven conservancies.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 2 December in response to similar questions.

Does the Under-Secretary of State recognise that when the chairman of the Forestry Commission lodged the new policy in October he gave an undertaking that there would be full consultation at local level with interested parties? Is he further aware that two of the conservancies have now embarked upon discussions of the new policy but have not contacted the headquarters or local branches of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England or the Woodland Trust? Will the Secretary of State have a word with the chairman of the Forestry Commission and ensure that the consultation is meaningful and that conservationists' interests are taken into account?

I am sure that the Forestry Commission will read with interest what the hon. Gentleman has said. Considerable consultation has taken place in all the commission's areas with a wide range of voluntary conservation bodies. Tremendous interest has been shown in the broadleaf woodland grant scheme since it came into effect on 1 October.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a great deal of anxiety is felt about the widespread and unimaginative blanket afforestation in Caithness and Sutherland? Is he further aware that that is an area of conservation interest and that there is no guarantee that trees that are planted will reach economic maturity? Should not that policy be reviewed?

I know that there is some controversy about planting, not only in Caithness and Sutherland, but in other parts of the country, but I have no doubt that the people doing the planting have worked out that the economics of it are correct. In addition, I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that the planting of trees and the future of forestry products will provide much-needed jobs in rural areas.

Is the Minister satisfied that the current incentives available under the broadleaf policy are sufficient? As consultations are taking place, will the Minister at least try to get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to put pressure on the Treasury to come forward with a more favourable tax regime to provide further encouragement?

There is no evidence of any lack of interest in broadleaf woodlands grant scheme. Indeed, I believe that there has been so much interest that details have had to be reprinted. The Forestry Commission is impressed by the number of people and bodies who have expressed interest. I hope that the result will be an increase in the broadleaf planting in Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with progress on the West Lothian district general hospital.

The first phase of the hospital should be completed in spring 1988. Discussions are continuing between the Scottish Home and health Department and Lothian health board about phase 2.

Will the Minister confirm that he may have created a misleading impression in the House on 19 June when he assured me and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that the hospital would include a paediatric ward, although the Lothian health board had already resolved to put the ward into cold storage? I welcome the pressure that the Minister has applied to the board to give substance to his assurance by restoring the paediatric ward. Does he agree that it would be plain daft if the hospital were unable to cater for the health of the fifth of the population of the new town who are of paediatric age?

The design for phase 1 of the hospital, includes a 26-bed paediatric unit. The board's present plans mean that only those services provided at Bangour general hospital will be available when the first beds are opened at the new hospital. As there is no paediatric unit at Bangour hospital, the paediatric services in phase 1 will not be immediately available. For the reasons that the hon. Member has outlined, I have asked the board to consider opening the paediatric ward at the same time as the other facilities in phase 1 are commissioned.

Will the Minister give the board the money to do that?

Lothian health board is one of the best financed boards, not just in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom. To give it additional money would mean taking that money away from less well financed boards. Lothian health board has enough money within its budget to fund and process the new hospital.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a strong case for Lothian health board to be highly funded because much of the medical teaching throughout Scotland is carried out in the Lothian region?

I have said to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and I am happy to repeat to my hon. Friend, that the total Health Service funding in Lothian in 1983–84 was £350 per head. That is the third highest in Scotland. All of the factors about teaching hospitals and so on are taken into account in the formula on which the allocation to health boards is decided.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the proposed closure of the maternity unit at Stobhill hospital; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received a number of representations about the board's proposals. In the first instance, it is for the Greater Glasgow health board to consult all interested parties. Thereafter, the proposed closure will require the agreement of my right hon. Friend, who, in reaching a decision, will take into account the outcome of the board's consultation exercise.

Will the Minister accept from me that the closure would be unacceptable to Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and that it would mean the break-up not just of a first-class facility serving the northern area of Glasgow but of a highly skilled team whose services we cannot afford to lose?

As the hon. Gentleman says, the Stobhill maternity hospital provides a service to the residents of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. The Greater Glasgow health board would have to discuss with Lanarkshire health board the effect on residents of any proposed closure before submitting any formal application to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one in three of the babies born to people in the Stobhill catchment area is born in a hospital outside the area? Does that not suggest that the local community has not supported the excellent obstetrics unit at the district general hospital?

I cannot confirm the statistics, but it is certainly true that many people in the catchment area do not have their babies in Stobhill maternity unit but go to other maternity units in the city. I am sure that the board will take all those factors into account.

The hon. Gentleman has agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and other hon. Members from the Glasgow area tomorrow. Will he give an assurance that he will allow Stobhill to be discussed at that meeting?

I do not see how I could prevent hon. Members from discussing it if they wished. Indeed, I imagine that it is one of the items that will be discussed at that meeting. It is worth noting that in Glasgow last year there were 524 staffed maternity beds, but average occupancy was only 368 and maximum occupancy on any given day was 440. It seems obvious, therefore, that there is an oversupply of maternity beds in Glasgow.

In view of the proposed closure of the maternity unit and the other cuts that the health board will have to impose as a result of Government policy, how can the Minister justify the boast that the Government have increased and will increase still further, the amount spent on the Health Service in Scotland? Or does the so-called £120 million extra of which the Secretary of State boasted last week mean that the Greater Glasgow health board will not have to implement those cuts?

The Greater Glasgow health board will receive its share of the additional money made available by my right hon. Friend to the hospital-based Health Service—an increase of about 6·8 per cent. from this year to next. Greater Glasgow is the second best funded health board in Scotland. Under the SHARE formula adopted by the Labour Government, the bulk of the additional money will go to the least funded boards. Nevertheless, Greater Glasgow will receive its share and I believe that with that increase it will be able to continue to provide excellent services for patients.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to announce the amount of aid to be granted to the farming industry in Scotland following the current year's bad weather.

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 28 November.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I hope he will not take it unkindly if I say that it is too little and too late. Farmers in Scotland lost £150 million due to the severe weather crisis, and they were looking for rather more help. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to meet the president of the Scottish National Farmers Union to discuss the continuing crisis? Will he deplore the most unhelpful remarks about Government aid made by the representative for North-East Scotland at the European Assembly?

I note my hon. Friend's comments I appreciate that, in view of the very difficult conditions, farmers in Scotland would have liked the maximum amount that could be found. I believe, however, that £16·9 million is a pretty good response and shows how seriously we take the difficulties. I am grateful to the farmers for having received this reasonably well. I frequently meet the president of the Scottish NFU, and he knows that he can always see me if he wishes.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the agriculture community in Scotland feel that the Government have betrayed them? Is he further aware that it is a matter not just of financial aid but of services? As Lord Gray wrote to me stating that the service provided by the Lasswade laboratory in my constituency is essential and that consideration was being given to the matter, would it not be in the interests of the agriculture community if a decision were taken about that facility, which is so important to that community as well as to the staff there?

I quite appreciate that the agriculture community considers that important, but I cannot agree that farmers in general in Scotland appear to have been let down by the Government. We have provided vast sums of extra money to help them with many difficult problems, and I know that that is greatly appreciated. As for the laboratory at Lasswade, discussions about possible locations for the establishment of a unit to ensure that essential services are maintained in Scotland are continuing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers in north Tayside appreciate the help that has been given, as they realise that they were not alone in suffering from bad weather? They have made their recognition of the fact that others suffered clear in comments to the press.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with his assessment. Farmers know that they can count on a firm response from the Government when they ask for help. This settlement shows that.

Is the Secretary of State aware that those of us who represent parts of Scotland that were particularly badly hit by the severe weather find that our farmers agree with the president of the Scottish National Farmers Union, who described the Government's announcement as "a severe disappointment"? In the interests of open government, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he and his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food assessed that about £26 million was needed, but that they lost their battle with the Treasury?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. My colleagues and I worked hard to get the best possible package for farmers. The general view in rural areas is that it was a pretty good effort.

Will my right hon. Friend accept one word of criticism? It is that the package appears to have been designed to help most those who need it least and to help least those who need it most. Why was it not possible to include in his package help for hay farmers and others, especially tenant hay farmers, who receive no public funding and who were virtually wiped out during the summer?

I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend's general assessment. What help there is goes to those who need it most. I am sympathetic to the case that he has mentioned and to those who concentrate on hay production in his constituency, but we had to consider first the livestock producers, who were likely to find that they had animals to feed but no hay with which to feed them during the winter. They had to be the top priority. I am sorry that it was not possible to help everybody who suffered as a result of difficult weather conditions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this long-delayed package falls miles short of the expectations that were raised by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the Conservative party conference? What does the right hon. Gentleman say to Scottish livestock producers and poultry farmers who now face the prospect of unfair competition from Irish farmers, who had the benefit of a much more generous aid package, including cheap grain from European stores?

It is not at all clear that that form of aid will help those whom it is intended to help. As for general assistance, the hon. Gentleman can always say that he would rather have had more money. I ask him to think whether he would have got anything like as much from any other Government. I doubt very much whether he would.

I welcome the assistance that has been given, but will the Secretary of State explain why there was less assistance for crofters than for farmers? Is this part of the Government's philosophy—giving more to those who have more?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his general welcome, but the one thing on which most people would agree is that crofters are treated extremely generously by public funds.