To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nurses in Scotland have left the National Health Service in each of the last 10 years; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the total number employed in each of those years.

The number of nursing staff in the NHS in Scotland increased from 53,000 to 63,250 whole-time equivalent over the last 10 years. Information about nurses leaving the service could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

It is amazing that the Secretary of State does not know how many nurses leave the profession every year. It is estimated that, every year, 30,000 trained nurses leave the profession. Does the Secretary of State think that that is because morale is at rock bottom? Why are thousands of devoted health workers in Scotland taking further action today? Is it because, as his colleague the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland pretends, they are all Militant clones, or because they care a damned sight more about the Health Service than do the Minister and his colleagues?

First, with regard to morale in the Health Service, it is perhaps significant that when the Royal College of Nursing met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health it did not raise the matter of morale among nurses. As the hon. Gentleman knows, many of those who leave the nursing profession leave temporarily or for personal or family reasons. It is surely significant that, under this Government, there has been a major increase in the number of nurses and that the real income of nurses in Scotland has increased by 30 per cent., whereas it fell by 21 per cent. in real terms under the Labour Government.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that today's day of action has nothing to do with soul baring by the nurses? It is a strike by NUPE, which is anxious to keep up its numbers and is unwilling to have competitive tendering. The whole purpose and thrust of the day of action is not to keep viable patients alive but to keep moribund unions alive.

My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. It will be interesting to know the Opposition's view on the damage that is being done to patients in Scotland by the industrial disruption that has been taking place over the past few weeks. For example, we understand that between 11 February and 23 February, in the Glasgow Royal infirmary and in Stobhill hospital, more than 330 operations were either postponed or cancelled as a result of industrial action; in Lanarkshire, more than 100 operations at Law and Strathclyde hospitals were postponed because of a 24-hour walk-out by non-nursing staff; and there were reports that more than 250 operations in Lothian were cancelled because of industrial action. It will be interesting to know whether Her Majesty's Opposition approve of the damage that is being done to patient care by industrial action of the kind that we are seeing.

The Secretary of State will know that nurses, ancillary workers and manufacturing workers are on the cobbles today because of serious concern about the National Health Service in Scotland. What comment would he make to a staff nurse who earns £65 a week less than a policeman earns?

The point that I would make to her is that her income has increased considerably under this Government, whereas it declined under the Labour Government. Those in the National Health Service who say that they are interested in the welfare of patients have a strange way of showing such interest if their actions result in operations being postponed or cancelled and the greatest discomfort to patients. If Opposition Members have the interests of patients at heart they should follow the lead of the Royal College of Nursing, which has never allowed grievances, real or imaginary, to result in harm to patients in Scotland or anywhere else. That is what real interest in the NHS is all about.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what has come through clearly in the dispute is that the real professionals—members of the Royal College of Nursing, who care about patients—attend to their duties, as they are doing today? It is important to recognise that patient care is what matters, and not the care of trade unions, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) said.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a great deal of interest in waiting lists in Scotland over the past few weeks. It is significant that two things have happened with regard to waiting lists: first, that the Government have been able to make available an extra £3.6 million, which has reduced waiting lists; and, secondly, that industrial action by ancillary and other staff, which appears to be supported by Opposition Members, has led to the cancellation of hundreds of operations, which will undoubtedly add to waiting lists in the weeks and months to come.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the industrial action in Scotland today is due directly to his folly and incompetence and that of his ministerial colleagues and their failure to recognise the depth of feeling against the damage caused by the Government? Does he not realise the contribution that low pay makes to ill-health in Scotland? Will he, even at this late stage, change his mind and act to the benefit of Scotland, instead of to its detriment?

The hon. Gentleman should understand the alleged purpose of today's industrial action. The trade unions have told us that it is not about low pay; it is about the Government's policy of competitive tendering. That is a means of ensuring that resources in the National Health Service will, so far as possible, be made available to help patients rather than anyone else.

Will the Secretary of State accept that, for my part, I do not believe that industrial action is appropriate at this stage? If he wants to do something about the morale of nurses and support the work of the Royal College of Nursing, he should consider the problems of recruiting nurses in future because of demographic changes. He could do much to help and raise the morale of nurses if he would tell us the Government's reaction to the Project 2,000 proposals and put extra resources into the clinical regrading and restructuring that is necessary. That would keep nurses in the profession and prevent problems about recruitment in future.

I note the point that the hon. Gentleman made in the latter part of his question. Only a Liberal could analyse today's action on the basis that the Liberals were against industrial action at the present time.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that operations in Scotland are not being cancelled because of a shortage of nurses, but that they will be cancelled as a result of this politically motivated action by public sector unions with their snouts in the trough of taxpayers' money attempting to preserve their own privileges? Will he confirm that, because fewer than half the Scottish Labour Members are present today, the rest are on strike?

My hon. Friend must not draw too many conclusions from that. During the debate on Ravenscraig and the steel industry yesterday, only the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) chose to be present during the opening speeches and for most of the debate.

Is the Secretary of State proud of the fact that he is the only Secretary of State in the history of that great office to provoke the caring nursing profession into strike action? Is it only because he has now lost his own self-respect that he does not resign?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, far from the nursing profession being on strike, the Royal College of Nursing has reported that since the beginning of the present industrial action there has been a large influx of nurses into the Royal College of Nursing from other unions. That has happened on a larger scale in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom.

Is there a Scottish Office Minister among the ministerial group set up by the Prime Minister to review the funding of the National Health Service? If not, why not? Will the Scottish Office be bound by any scheme dreamt up by the right hon. Lady in this important and sensitive area? The Opposition unanimously feel that the day of protest in Scotland today is fully justified—[Interruption.] It has been caused by the obstinacy of the Secretary of State, who insists on a policy of irrelevant privatisation, and by the continuing crisis over the funding of the Health Service. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the Select Committee on Social Services has calculated that a 2 per cent. increase in real terms in the Health Service budget is necessary for it to stand still? In the right hon. and learned Gentleman's commentary on public expenditure, published this month, he says that a 1 per cent. increase is necessary to stand still, yet the figure for the hospital and community service programme shows that that figure is not being reached. Is it true that, having set his own criteria, he has failed to meet them and that that is the reason for the justified discontent in the Health Service?

I am glad that we now have that on record. The hon. Gentleman, with all the authority of the position that he holds in the Labour party, says that he and his colleagues are fully behind the disruption of the NHS. Presumably, they are accepting —[Interruption.] — full responsibility for the operations that are being postponed or cancelled as a result of that disruption. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I hope that in the weeks and months to come we will hear no more sanctimonious claptrap and synthetic concern from him about the length of waiting lists in Scotland and the problems of those who require operations under the NHS.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new hospitals are to be built in Scotland within the next five years.

The current building programme includes 34 major developments providing 4,484 new beds. Of those, two are being commissioned, 11 are under construction and 21 are being planned. By the end of 1992 our continuing programme of hospital building will have enabled a further 15 of those schemes in planning to have been completed. This represents the biggest ever capital investment programme in the history of the National Health Service in Scotland.

Can the Minister tell me what has happened to Oban hospital? Is he aware that people in that area have been waiting for that hospital for well nigh 30 years? Back in the 1950s and 1960s money was promised for that hospital, but it was reallocated. A former Conservative Secretary of State, now Lord Campbell of Croy, promised that money in 1972. Indeed, one of the Minister's predecessors promised that money a year before the general election. We understand that the site for the hospital has not even been bought. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me, so that I can tell the people of Oban, when the hospital is to be built.

Approval was given for the new hospital at Oban in May 1986. It is now up to the Argyll and Clyde health board to progress the scheme to the next stage of planning. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that we have announced our decision to build a new hospital at Campbelltown in her constituency at a cost of £4·2 million. She is right to point out the years that have gone by under successive Governments when neither of those hospitals progressed, but this Government have brought them to fruition.

Will the Minister with so-called responsibility for hospital building in Scotland reflect on his decision, announced today, about hospital building in Fife? The decision is tantamount to government by diktat. Despite four years and more of appraisal by the Fife health board, which came down unanimously in favour of option C, the Minister has sought, by diktat, to reverse that decision. It appears that the Minister believes that he knows best. When the Minister assumed office, would it not have been better if he had sacked all the health boards of Scotland and said that his office had subsumed all responsibility for hospital building? At least that would have been honest.

I am extremely surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He came to see me a matter of weeks ago and asked me to make a quick decision. Now he criticises us for having taken a decision that will result in a substantial improvement in hospital facilities in his constituency and in the rest of Fife.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it does not necessarily make the best sense and use of resources for hospitals if, as in Grampian region, attempts are made to close viable and popular rural hospitals and to centralise? Will he ensure that that aspect is considered in relation to new hospital building?

As I have said to my right hon. Friend on previous occasions, the proposals which Grampian health board has to consider regarding the rationalisation of maternity services will be subject to consultation. My right hon. and learned Friend and I will consider all arguments that are put forward, including those advanced by my right hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has of the effect on the percentage increase in domestic rates in Scotland in 1988–89 of restricting the non-domestic rates increase to the annual inflation rate.

Non-domestic rates will not be indexed until domestic rates are abolished in 1989–90. Therefore, no such estimates have been made.

The Minister's answer does not surprise me. Roughly translated, it means that he cannot be bothered to work it out. Is the Minister aware that his attitude of studied indifference to the consequence of his policy resembles that of Marie Antoinette, because, in effect, he is saying, "Let them eat cake"—[Interruption.]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his question?

Does the Minister agree that in 1987–88 the average rate increase for Scotland was 13 per cent., and that if a poll tax had been in force and a business rate had been indexed at 4 per cent., the average poll tax increase across Scotland would have been 25 per cent.?

I am anxious to help the hon. Gentleman, although it is a hypothetical and artificial calculation. If the new system were in place and if Strathclyde were to peg expenditure and increase the non-domestic rate by the rate of inflation, it would be able to reduce the community charge by about 5 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have created a scurrilous campaign on the community charge and its effects on the non-domestic rate? Will he point out to the Opposition that the non-domestic rate, tied to a rate of increased inflation, will be of immense advantage to businesses in Scotland, because they can plan ahead knowing the maximum rate increase? That will be a tremendous advantage to the industrial future of Scotland.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the current year non-domestic rates rose by 15 per cent. when inflation was at about 4 per cent. That illustrates the extra burden that the non-domestic sector has had to bear. It is important to keep down non-domestic rates, in order to preserve jobs.

Will the Government impose the uniform business rate system throughout the United Kingdom in 1990, or will it be applied only to Scotland as most people suppose? Is the Minister aware that the present unfair disadvantage to Scottish businesses through the rating system in commercial and financial terms compared with England will be mild compared with the problems posed for Scottish businesses if the UBR is implemented only in Scotland and not throughout the United Kingdom?

The hon. Gentleman has got it the wrong way round. The uniform business rate is coming in south of the border in 1990. Until we are able to harmonise the practice and the law on valuation between England and Wales and Scotland, it will be impossible to contemplate any move towards a national United Kingdom rate. In the meantime, index-linking gives excellent protection to the non-domestic sector.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in a year when the Government are increasing aggregate Exchequer grant by more than 8 per cent. there is no justification for any local authority increasing the rate above the rate of inflation? My hon. Friend said that there were considerable advantages to business men from index-linking. Will he comment on the rumour that the discussions between the Scottish Assessors' Association and the Inland Revenue valuers—[Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Member is saying.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the rumour that the talks between the Scottish Assessors' Association and the Inland Revenue valuers are not progressing without difficulties? Does he agree that it is essential that those talks should be completed before revaluation north and south of the border in 1990?

My hon. Friend is alsolutely right about the 1988–89 RSG settlement. There was an increase of 8·2 per cent., which was well above the rate of inflation. It was based on local authorities' own budgets for 1987–88, inflation and allowances for other factors. The talks between the Scottish Assessors' Association and the Inland Revenue are making progress, but the issues on which they are engaged are complex and it would be a mistake to rush the talks.

Following the question of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), what assessment have the Government made of the damage that will be done to Scottish industry by a uniform business rate operating in England and Wales for several years before it operates in Scotland? When they finally introduce a scheme for Scotland, will it be linked into the United Kingdom scheme, so that there is one United Kingdom scheme and one uniform business rate across the whole United Kingdom, or will it be a separate Scottish UBR?

A separate Scottish UBR is not part of our programme. It is impossible to make firm estimates of the effect of what goes on south of the border until after the 1990 revaluation. It is important that local authorities should control their expenditure because high and growing local authority expenditure has greatly damaged the business sector in the past.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the figures for deaths in Scotland caused by cervical cancer for each year since 1975.

The figure for 1975 was 244 and for 1986 it was 199. I shall arrange for the details to appear in the Official Report.

Does the Minister agree that the Government have a deplorable record in dealing with this disease? They have allowed it to manifest itself, and their proposed scheme to provide a smear test for women between the ages of 20 and 65 over a five-year period is absolutely useless. It is time that they showed some compassion for the 2,000 needless deaths in the United Kingdom and the 200 deaths each year in Scotland since they have been in Government. They should support a scheme and spend the additional £20 million needed, bearing in mind the £5 billion that they spent on defeating the miners.

I am sure that Professor Strong and the other professionals who drew up the report on which we set up our screening for cervical cancer will be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's views on the validity of their work. The Government have established a call and recall system for all women between the ages of 20 and 60 in Scotland, and it will be operational by the end of this year. I note the criticism that the hon. Gentleman makes of previous Governments for having taken no initiative in this direction.

Does the Minister agree that a five-year span is inadequate? Is he aware that widespread opinion is that three years is a proper length of time between tests and that, if the Government were less insufferably complacent about spending on the NHS, that could easily be arranged?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing out that the Government opted for five rather than for three years. The reason is that 90 per cent. of deaths caused by cervical cancer are among women who have not been screened. We took the view that it was important to set up an effective call and recall system and to have the software in place, rather than to choose an over-ambitious recall period. We shall examine the length of time in the light of circumstances. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would have the grace to acknowledge that the Government have made considerable progress in this area.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the executive of the Aberdeen and Kincardine branch of the Scottish National Farmers Union to discuss the problems facing farmers in north-east Scotland.

My noble Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the Aberdeen and Kincardine branch on 12 November 1987.

Does the Minister recognise that the state of the agriculture industry in the north-east of Scotland is in particular difficulties and extraordinary circumstances? Does he acknowledge that particularly in the pig-rearing sector, which accounts for half of Scotland, the Government's failure so far to introduce a devaluation of the green pound or an adjustment in monetary compensatory amounts is causing genuine anxiety? What assurance can he give that the Government will press for an early and substantial devaluation?

The Government are well aware of the strong feeling among farmers about the green pound, and we shall certainly take that into account when we consider the extent of any green pound devaluation to be negotiated in the context of the annual Community price-fixing negotiations later this spring. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that the devaluation that the United Kingdom secured under the 1987 price fixing substantially improved our competitive position in relation to our main competitors.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to study the excellent document produced by Dr. Dalton in November 1987, which outlined the critical position of farmers, especially in the north-east of Scotland? How can we take any encouragement from his reply when Scottish Office Ministers do not attend our debates on agriculture, when Opposition Members argue strongly for support for that vital industry, which, in Grampian region, is responsible for 30 per cent. of the region's total output?

I am surprised at the tone of the hon. Lady's question. Surely she is aware of the initiative that was taken by my noble Friend in consultation with the National Farmers Union of Scotland? They have established a short-term joint counselling initiative to offer advice to farmers who are experiencing financial difficulties. The initiative involved not only the Department and the SNFU, but the Scottish agricultural colleges and the Scottish clearing banks. It is now well under way. I am not certain what the hon. Lady meant by her criticism about Ministers attending debates, but perhaps we can settle that later.

On behalf of my relatives, who are all farmers in Scotland, may I ask my hon. Friend to tell the House by how much the Government have increased expenditure on agriculture in Scotland during the past five years?

I shall write to my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to amend forestry policy in regard to the protection of areas of ecological importance, and in particular the flow country of Caithness and Sutherland.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that I made to the House on 25 January, by way of a written answer, covering the protection of areas of ecological importance in the peatland of Caithness and Sutherland.

Does the Secretary of State accept that Britain's conservation bodies, whether public or private, remain deeply concerned about the damaging scale of blanket afforestation in those areas, which seems likely to continue? Does he accept that the local, national and international interest suggests that greater priority should be given to the ecological importance of those areas, rather than to maintaining tax regimes which may assist a few people of celebrated importance?

I advise the hon. Gentleman that the Government attach importance to the ecological significance of the flow country of Caithness, which is precisely why we made the announcement that we did. The policy that we announced was welcomed by the Nature Conservancy Council, but it is significant that it was welcomed also by Highland regional council and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. We seek to achieve two legitimate objectives: to meet the ecological criteria, which we have done on a scientific basis, and, at the same time, to take account of the livelihood of those who live in that part of Scotland and who have a legitimate interest with regard to their livelihood and the work opportunities that are available to them.

With regard to the relationship between ecological forms of land use and forestry, does the Secretary of State accept that crofting is one of the most environmentally sensitive forms of land use? How can he justify taxpayers' money being given hand over fist to speculators who, frequently, are not resident in the Highlands and Islands, to engage in commercial forestry, whereas crofters are excluded from such access to commercial forestry? When will he progress from expressions of high sympathy for the crofters to doing something about that situation?

The opportunities that are available to crofters are similar to those that are available to, for example, tenant farmers elsewhere in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that his tax question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I very much welcome the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), that we in the Highlands must consider not only ecological protection, but work and jobs. In return for that generosity, given that there are only five Conservative Members of Parliament present who represent Scottish constituencies, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that he might find some way of keeping quiet the raucous invasion from south of the border?

Whether in the Highland region or other rural areas, it is always essential to take into account the legitimate needs of the local community and the wider economic importance of forestry in Scotland. For example, we would not be able to have the major £250 million investment in a papermill at Irvine but for the availability of spruce in Scotland to service the requirements of that factory. We need to achieve a proper balance, and the announcement that we made in January, which has been welcomed by the Nature Conservancy Council, shows that we have achieved what many might have thought impossible — the reconciliation of those two interests in a constructive way.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that 100 per cent. of the Conservative party is here and there is present a miserable percentage of the Liberal party, mixed, and all at odds with each other, anyhow? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his announcement last month was an acceptable compromise in the interests of all concerned, the Nature Conservancy Council, the sites of special scientific interest and the Highlands regional council, and aimed at creating employment? In addition to those important aspects, will my right hon. and learned Friend also bear in mind that, in the general context of the whole of Scotland, the most important issue is the beauty of the land, and we do not want too much blanket afforestation keeping away tourists and others who want to see Scotland as it really is?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Forestry Commission is to be commended on showing much greater sensitivity to those objectives in recent years. For example, it has insisted on broadleaved planting as part of a more general planting. There may still be improvements that can be made, but most objective commentators would accept that the Forestry Commission, and, indeed, those in the private sector involved in planting, have taken far greater account of environmental considerations in recent years than used to be the case.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we, for our part, would strongly support the properly planned expansion of forestry in Scotland, but will he come clean about the position of the Scottish Office on the grotesque development of blanket tax incentives for blanket afforestation? Is he aware that, for once, his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) was right when he told the House of Commons, in an Adjournment debate on 26 January 1987, that a new generation of absentee landlords was exploiting that tax shelter? Will he, just this once, listen to his hon. Friend and acknowledge that those tax incentives should be drastically overhauled before any more damage is done to the Scottish countryside or to the reputation of the forestry industry?

I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman can speak better on behalf of absentee landlords than most of us, but fiscal matters are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we, like the Opposition, wish to see a proper planting programme and the benefits to the Scottish economy that forestry represents, we must ensure that whatever system exists there will be a proper planting programme and a proper availability to the wood pulp and other comparable industries of the raw materials that they require.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of his commentary on Scottish public expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

Copies of the Scottish Commentary were placed in the Library on Wednesday 17 February.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that there are no assumptions in the commentary dealing with the pay increases or other allowances that are expected in the fiscal year 1988–89? Does he accept that that makes it difficult for health boards, for example, to plan next year's finances, particularly when there is no reference to any special allowance for nurses' pay review awards? Will the Secretary of State undertake to use his influence within the Government to ensure that, whatever the review body recommends, once the Government have taken a decision and made an award they will fully fund it, so that the local health boards in Scotland will not have to use their own resources to meet in part the pay review award?

The Government have an excellent record on implementing the recommendations of pay review bodies. Obviously, I cannot anticipate what the pay review body will say. We shall have to consider that at the time on the basis of the criteria normally applied.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that expenditure next year on health in Scotland is to increase by £225 million, or 8.6 per cent., and that that will contribute to the preparation for the replacement of the acute hospital at Ayr?

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Health Service is in fine fettle in Scotland. That might explain why the industrial action today is not about the resources of the Health Services, but is about this controversy over competitive tendering.

Will the Secretary of State take account of the amount of public expenditure which has been put into the Castlebridge mine, which is in my constituency and forms part of the Longannet complex, whose future is endangered by the foolhardy programme of tendering for importing foreign coal? Does he agree that the flexible attitude adopted by British Coal and by the local mineworkers union in that area suggests that that investment should have a long-term future and should not be endangered by short-term rushes towards privatisation of the South of Scotland Electricity Board?

Naturally, we hope that the difference of view between the SSEB and British Coal will be resolved amicably, but the hon. Gentleman should appreciate the difficulties for all parties involved. There are difficulties for British Coal, for reasons with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar, and for the SSEB, which has an obligation to its consumers, particularly its industrial consumers. The House is anxious that Scottish industry should be as competitive as possible and that Ravenscraig should not be put at a disadvantage. The hon. Gentleman must know that Ravenscraig, which is the largest user of Scottish electricity, clearly has an enormous interest in tariffs in Scotland being as low as possible. The SSEB must also take that factor into account.

Just in case anyone outside the House might be tempted to take seriously the latest manifestation this afternoon of whining and whingeing by Opposition Members from Scotland, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that public expenditure per head in Scotland is, on average, higher than in England? Will he also confirm that spending on the Health Service amounts to £454 per head in Scotland, compared with £365 per head in England?

The level of Health Service expenditure in Scotland is determined by the Secretary of State from within the overall block available to him. It has been the practice of successive Secretaries of State to take into account the particular health requirements of Scotland and to make generous provision for health expenditure. A further £225 million will be available for that purpose next year.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there are few signs of an amicable resolution of the coal dispute and that there is genuinely widespread disappointment at the negative stance taken by the Scottish Office on that matter? As the Secretary of State has a statutory responsibility for electricity supply, is he satisfied that it is in the public interest to substitute foreign imported coal for that produced domestically? If that occurs, what impact will it have on jobs and on stability of supply? Does he recall that, in a widely published speech last Friday to the CBI in Scotland, he listed coal as one of the group of important industries providing vital jobs? Does he not think it important to stop the hands-off negative approach and to do something to protect those jobs?

The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the difficult problems that must be resolved. He has not expressed any view today about the implications for consumers, including industry in Scotland. Last night he spoke eloquently about his devotion to the interests of the steel industry in Scotland. He must know that the most crucial question affecting industry is the cost of the power that it uses. When the Electricity Board and British Coal have certain interests in common, and certain differences of view, it is much more sensible to allow those two boards to come to a conclusion as to what is required than for the Government to interfere in what is ultimately a matter to be determined by those involved in the industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the numbers of applications to buy public sector housing during 1987; and if he will make a statement.

Returns made to my Department show that about 39,000 applications to purchase public sector houses were made during 1987. This continuing high level of applications is making a major and welcome contribution to diversifying ownership of housing in Scotland.

I thank my hon. Friend and welcome those figures. Will he tell the House what is the rate of owner-occupation in Scotland? Is he satisfied with the rate of progress being made in that direction, and does he think that the excessively low level of council house rents in Scotland is perhaps a disincentive to people to consider buying their council houses?

Council house rents have risen considerably, although they are still much lower than those in England. Sales have been running at an extremely high level. Now, 10·3 per cent. of public sector house stock has been sold since 1979 and about 107,000 public sector tenants have purchased their homes. We have now reached the stage where fewer than half of all homes in Scotland a re rented from the public sector. We can justly call that a Scottish success story.

Why do the Government have double standards? Is the Minister aware that a Ministry of Defence worker in my constituency who applied to purchase his house was denied the 49 per cent. discount that he would have received on a council house, and received a discount of only 30 per cent.?

There are certain exclusions. This is a matter primarily for the Ministry of Defence. The same also applies to certain police houses. There are exemptions on certain grounds, but, overall, we are very much in favour of the right to buy and we wish to extend it wherever possible.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures that he has given on the sale of council houses last year and before show clearly that the Opposition, who fought the 1980 Bill tooth and nail, do not care, in the same way as they do not care about patient care? Does my hon. Friend further agree that our policies will continue to produce the results?

It will always be remembered that the Bill that we introduced was called the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill. That was to the credit of my right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve education facilities in Strathclyde; and if he will make a statement.

The provision and improvement of education facilities in Strathclyde is primarily a matter for the regional council, taking account of available resources and, where, appropriate, the wishes of parents.

The Minister and the Prime Minister intervened in the proposed closure of Paisley grammar school. I do not begrudge that school remaining open, but the hon. Gentleman must know that in my constituency, Colston, Rosemount, St. Bede's and St. Rock's are all supported wholeheartedly by the parents, who want to keep them open. Why is the Minister making flesh of some schools and fowl of others? Why is he not prepared to intervene to help out those schools?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned schools in his constituency. He will know that St. Bede's is a denominational school, and the case may come to my right hon. and learned Friend for his consideration. I have already answered a question by the hon. Gentleman on that subject. As for non-denominational schools, where travelling distances are not excessive, and where the schools operate at less than 80 per cent. capacity, it is entirely a matter for Strathclyde regional council, with which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman had some influence.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the volume of correspondence that I am receiving from parents in Strathclyde, who want the Government to give them the chance to consider whether to opt out of the Strathclyde regional council system? Why is my hon. Friend so reluctant to move on the matter? Is he further aware that all parents, pupils and ratepayers in Strathclyde have a right to reasonable decision-making? Is it not a disgrace and an outrage that today Strathclyde regional council will be adjourned because Labour members are too indolent to attend, as they wish to wave NUPE banners rather than do the job for which they were elected?

The events of today and recent months, and the conduct of their elected representatives, will give the people of Strathclyde something to think about. With regard to opting out, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said that we will consider any arguments that are put forward in Committee on the Bill, but my hon. Friend will recognise that we have no history of school boards or parental involvement in schools in Scotland—

It is time that my hon. Friend had some.

I say to my hon. Friend, who intervenes from a sedentory position, that the forthcoming Bill will give Scotland an opportunity to make progress on that matter.

Has the Minister read the devastating document issued by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments condemning his squalid set of regulations? It said that the regulations were illegal in the sense that they did not comply with the Act, and that they were defective in the sense that they could not be corrected or understood. Should he not apologise for his part in the squalid conspiracy that led to the sequence of events, withdraw the regulations and have an early debate on the behaviour of himself in going over the head of the Secretary of State, in alliance with the Prime Minister, and his intervention in the proper, legal behaviour of Strathclyde regional council?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be an opportunity to debate the regulations. His account of the criticism of the regulations is somewhat exaggerated. The House will have a proper opportunity to consider the matter. The validity of the regulations is not in doubt. I imagine that the people of Paisley must be astonished to be represented by a Member of Parliament who has campaigned so hard to prevent one of the most successful schools in his area having an opportunity, should Strathclyde decide to close it, to have the decision reviewed by the Secretary of State.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the schizophrenia of Opposition Members? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) asked for Government intervention, and the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) objects to Government intervention. Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that Strathclyde regional council has the worst record in education of any of the Scottish regional councils? Is he happy that one pupil in four leaves Strathclyde schools without any qualification, a record basically equivalent to that of ILEA? Does he believe that the same treatment would be suitable for Strathclyde as is being accorded to ILEA?

My hon. Friend is right to point to the problems in Strathclyde. I understand that management consultants have been called in to help sort them out. As to the paradox that he identifies, it is a paradox that Labour Members are in favour of no Government intervention to save popular schools from closure, but call for Government intervention to keep open schools which are half empty and which parents do not support.

Is it not the case that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has revealed that the Government's instrument concerning school closures is ambiguous, badly drafted and in breach of the rules and protocols of the House? Does he not accept that the heavy-handed diktat which he has applied in this case has created a shambles? Is it not time to call a halt and to withdraw the regulations so that the confusion which surrounds the matter can be clarified?

The criticism of the regulations was that we had not observed the 21-day rule. We did not observe it for the reason which we explained, which was that the region should know the position. As to the regulations being unclear about who decides, it is clear from the context of the main regulations and the parent Act that it is up to the local authority to decide whether it must refer a case to the Secretary of State. I am sure that the people of Scotland will note that the hon. Gentleman, the official spokesman for the Labour party on education in Scotland, does not want the parents of Strathclyde to have the opportunity, should Strathclyde decide to proceed with closure, to have that decision reviewed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly inadequate nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment. [Interruption.]

Order. It is perfectly in order for the hon. Gentleman to do that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to implement in Scotland the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council on conditions at horse markets and sales; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's response to the council's report on the welfare of livestock at markets, announced in October last year, accepted that legislation should be introduced to cover horse markets and other sales. Proposals for a new order and code of practice to apply throughout Great Britain are now being prepared.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the standards for cattle markets and sales are much higher than those for horses and ponies? As the Farm Animal Welfare Council has pointed out, those applying to horses and ponies are very unsatisfactory. Would my hon. Friend and Scotland like to set an example and make the proposed voluntary code statutory, so that horses and ponies receive better treatment?

I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter: indeed, he has a constituency interest. Our preference in general is to legislate only where there is a clear need for statutory safeguards. Guidance to those using and operating markets is, we feel, more a matter for codes of practice. However, the detailed proposals will be issued for consultation in the summer, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's arguments will be taken into consideration.

Was there not a lot of horse trading going on when Guinness took over Distillers, which was an illegal and corrupt act—

Order. That is the wrong sort of horse.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responses he has had from health boards to his draft circular on the privatisation of hospital services; and how many were in favour.

A letter of 11 December from the Scottish Home and Health Department set out the steps which boards are to take to test the cost-effectiveness of their support services by putting them out to tender. All boards have agreed to implement these instructions.

The Secretary of State will know that in Scotland today 50,000 people—not only Health Service workers, but workers from the manufacturing sector, miners and dockers — are demonstrating against the Government's cynical refusal either to fund the nurses' pay award properly or to fund technological changes in hospitals—[Interruption.

Order, please.

Those workers are on the streets because of the Government's cynical determination to ignore Select Committees of the House when they try to assist the Secretary of State, and the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) last night implying that patient care was suffering due to the lack of emergency cover because of the current stoppages. The Government are determined not to fund the Health Service properly, either through salaries or through facilities required by technological change.

I noted the hon. Gentleman's comment that those taking part in industrial action included people with no direct connection with the National Health Service. He might like to know—[Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members must allow the Secretary of State to answer the question.

The hon. Gentleman might like to know that I understand that there was also a demonstration outside the offices of the Scottish TUC, with a placard reading "Stop the strikes and not the operations". He may also have noted the rather quaint advertisement that appeared in The Scotsman yesterday from Edinburgh district council, which, under the slogan, "Improving services and creating jobs", informed the public that it would be a waste of time telephoning the council today because no one would be there to answer the telephones.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm again, in the hope that it may penetrate the deaf ears opposite, that any savings made through contracts going out — and indeed, any savings in efficiency — can be devoted by the health board to patient care in its area? Does not the Opposition's attitude show a callous disregard for the real concerns of patients? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make that clear to the public in Scotland and to others outside the House, even though, inside the House, the Opposition will not acknowledge it?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. NUPE and COHSE have shot themselves in the foot by the industrial action that they are promoting. It will be in the best interests of those in the in-house services in NHS hospitals if they believe that they are providing the best service at the least cost to the NHS. They will then have nothing to fear from competitive tendering. As long as Opposition Members help to forment industrial disputes in the NHS, they will have themselves to blame for the problems faced by the service.

What statutory powers does the Minister have to instruct members of health boards to put out contracts to privatise hospital services?

Health boards, whether under this Government or any previous Government, are agents of Government, and it has always been the practice of health boards that they carry out the policy of the Government of the day.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that efficient workers have nothing to fear from competitive tendering? If the unions are as upset as they seem to be, must there not be an awful lot of inefficiency around?

My hon. Friend is correct. As has been said on numerous occasions, every penny saved by competitive tendering goes directly towards reducing waiting lists and helping patients in the NHS. If the Labour party is opposed to competitive tendering, clearly it is opposed to concentrating help, wherever possible, on patient care.

Is it not the case that the Secretary of State has no one to blame for today's events other than himself and his Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? These events have been brought about by his endeavours to thrust upon the health boards in Scotland his alien doctrines. Is it not also the case that what he is proposing has no support among the people in Scotland, and that public opinion stands four square behind those who are taking action to protect the NHS which he and his hon. Friends seem hell-bent on destroying?

As competitive tendering in England has already resulted in the transfer of over £100 million to patient care in the NHS, why the hon. Gentleman should oppose comparable benefits for patients in Scotland he has yet to explain. The House and the people of Scotland will have heard the hon. Member say that the Labour party stands four square with those whose actions today are resulting in the postponement and cancellation of much-needed operations. They will pay attention to the comments of the Opposition in future.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

No, I will take it after the private notice question.