To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the future of the Scottish agricultural industry.

My right hon. Friend has not yet had an opportunity to meet the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, but looks forward to doing so.

Is the Minister aware of the massive cash flow crisis facing the hill, upland and livestock sectors? The income from cast ewes has fallen by 50 per cent. in the past year, while income from cattle is down by £50 and the income from sheep has fallen by £5 per head. That is happening at a time of massive input cost increases, high inflation and high interest rates. When will the Minister announce the livestock premium and will it be adequate to meet those problems? Will he ensure an immediate and maximum payment of premiums so that enough cash is available to allow the industry to overcome its major cash flow crisis?

My noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, who is attending the Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels, is well aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we hope to be able to announce the levels of support shortly. The support given to the livestock sector in the hills and uplands of Scotland amounts to £100 million, which is testimony to the importance that the Government attach to those areas of agriculture.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware from his constituency of the crisis among livestock producers in the hill and upland areas. We are nearly at the end of the year and the new rates of hill livestock compensatory allowance come into effect on 1 January. When will we know those new rates? Can my hon. Friend assure me that they will be substantially increased—I hope to the maximum allowed under the European rules?

I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall make an announcement as soon as possible.

Does the junior Minister share the view of his ministerial colleague, Lord Strathclyde, so crudely expressed on Scottish Television last week, that any Scottish farmers in financial difficulties now are there through their own business incompetence? Is not that an insufferably complacent and offensive statement for a Minister to make? Does he share Lord Strathclyde's other remarkable opinion that Scotland does not need a permanent presence in Brussels because those involved would be more interested in junketing and self-publicity than in job creation, or does the Minister accept the rather more intelligent opinion of the Scottish Development Agency on that matter?

I am confident that my noble Friend will do everything possible to support our farmers. The support that the Government have given to those in the uplands areas and to the hill farmers is testimony to the seriousness with which we view the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's review of the poll tax system in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the review of the community charge.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the poll tax in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced the Government's intention to conduct a careful and fundamental review of the community charge arrangements in Scotland, England and Wales.

Unlike the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Scotland has been absolutely consistent on the poll tax. He voted for it no fewer than 35 times on the Floor of the House and in Committee, despite our warnings that that hated tax would be as unworkable as it is unjust. The right hon. Gentleman has since described it as a remarkable success story. Will he now admit that there can be no compromises on the poll tax, whatever minor parties might say, and that it must go as soon as possible? What is more, people in Scotland should be compensated for the fact that they have had to suffer that tax for one year more than the rest of the United Kingdom.

The people of Scotland had the advantage of getting rid of the extremely unfair domestic rating system a year earlier than people south of the border. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has no positive suggestions to make. The community charge has established a greater degree of commitment on the part of residents of local areas, who contribute in far greater numbers to the cost of local services.

May I respond to the Secretary of State's request for positive suggestions by saying that if he wants a fundamental review, the most positive thing he could do would be to scrap the poll tax altogether?

Again, the hon. Gentleman offers no alternative. He does not seem to recognise that local services must be paid for. I thought that he might recommend the so-called roof tax, but then I recalled that only 10 per cent. of the Scottish people support the roof tax and only about 20 per cent. of the Labour party—which designed it—supports it.

The Secretary of State had better be careful about criticising the so-called roof tax because, if the Secretary of State for the Environment is anything to go by, that is what we shall finish up with. I look forward to the day when the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box to propose such a tax in legislation.

I understand that the roof tax was thought up in two minutes; it certainly looks like it. But perhaps we should take the advice of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who said that the roof tax should be confined to the dustbin of experience. With regard to the Scottish National party, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that he is interested in hearing the views of any Opposition party that cares to make a constructive contribution to the debate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever nonsense we hear from the Opposition Benches, the Conservative party got rid of the rates—that was welcomed in Scotland—and we have no intention of returning to them? Does he further agree that one of the advantages of the community charge is that it makes councillors and councils accountable and that, whatever modifications we adopt, that aspect must remain?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about greater accountability. It is an important achievement of which we should not lose sight. More than 30 changes have already been made to the community charge since the original legislation was passed. It is in the nature of such new arrangements that they come under regular review and that improvements can he made.

Does the Secretary of State recall that the Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), voted for the poll tax in Scotland a year before he took to the barricades against it in England and Wales? In the light of that, will he extract a promise from him that any legislation to abolish the poll tax or replace it with local income tax will come a year earlier in Scotland than in England and Wales?

That is rather a facile point. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take part in the consultations, he will have the opportunity to put such matters to my right hon. Friend.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be considerable consternation and anger among the people of Scotland today as it becomes obvious that the Secretary of State has no intention, if he can get away with it, of abolishing the poll tax but intends only a dragged-out review with a few minor changes at the end of it? Is he aware that the people of Scotland want immediate relief from the tax by abolition of the 20 per cent. rule, backdating of all rebates to 1 April 1989 and legislation within the next three months to abolish the tax completely?

If the hon. Gentleman and his party care to remove any preconditions, they are welcome to take part in consultations on what should replace the existing arrangements.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his response to the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention.

My views are well known. The organisation that calls itself the Scottish Constitutional Convention and its proposals are a distraction from the real issues that face the Scottish people.

If the Secretary of State believes that the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention are not perfect, will he at least enter into a dialogue with the political parties in Scotland that represent the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people? The Scottish people are persuaded that constitutional change to provide a democratic means of controlling the centralised administration is necessary to achieve the result to which the Government no doubt aspire. Why must we in Scotland, alone in western Europe, remain without proper democratic control over our Government when Spain, formerly the most centralised country in Europe, and France, the next most centralised country, are both moving towards effective provincial government?

If the hon. Gentleman regards those views as important, he has the opportunity to put them forward in a number of places—not least on the Floor of this House, in the mother of parliaments.

Is the Secretary of State aware that

"the organisation that calls itself the Scottish Constitutional Convention"

I have the privilege to be the Secretary of State for Scotland and I thus represent Scotland and its people in the United Kingdom Parliament and in the United Kingdom Cabinet. What would happen to the Secretary of State for Scotland and his position in the Cabinet under the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention? That is one of the fundamental questions that the body did not address.

Now that there are three identifiable positions on the constitutional question in Scottish politics—devolution advocated by the convention parties, no change advocated by the Secretary of State for Scotland and independence in Europe advocated by the Scottish National party, why will not the Secretary of State for Scotland arrange to put the matter to the test and let the Scottish people decide on the three options in a fair referendum?

It is well known that, because the present constitutional arrangements do not work to the SNP's advantage, it seeks to change them. SNP Members may call it independence in Europe; what they actually mean is the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, which would be immensely damaging for the people of Scotland.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland does not need another tier of government—and certainly not one with the bureaucratic and interventionist aims put forward by the convention?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only would the Scottish assembly proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention add an extra tier of government, it would be an extra source of tax-raising designed to imposed an additional burden on the people of Scotland and to make it the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will bring forward proposals to amend the poll tax legislation so that students will no longer have to pay 20 per cent. regardless of their circumstances.

The present arrangements for students will be considered as part of the wider review of the community charge.

It falls to me to welcome the Minister on his reappearance at the Dispatch Box.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. As my right hon. Friend made clear in relation to the review nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out.

I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman in his impersonation of Lazarus. The Scottish Office instructs regional councils to pursue debtors diligently, and that includes students. The Scottish Office has said that the tuition and maintenance elements of a student's income cannot be reclaimed, so what part of a student's income can be reclaimed? Is not it about time that the regional councils were stopped from wasting their time pursuing unrecoverable debts from people of modest incomes and we got rid of the 20 per cent. rule?

Students are under the same obligation to pay as anyone else. On the hon. Gentleman's more general point, there are reports in today's press of the strong and well-merited criticisms by the chief auditor for the eastern area of the procedures undertaken by Labour-controlled Central regional council. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who represents the official Opposition will join the chief auditor in condemning the Labour councillors on Central regional council.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to take full account of the views of the community when considering whether to license the incinerator plant at Renfrew.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her election as Member for Paisley, North.

Now that the Secretary of State is in his new post, when will he stop shuffling the matter round his desk and come back with an answer for not only the people of Renfrew, but the people of Yoker, Govan, Dumbarton and Paisley, who will all be affected by the emissions into the atmosphere from the plant, which is now burning 1·8 tonnes of toxic waste per hour? When will he come back with a decision on that? Will he assure us that planning permission will not be granted under the present terms for which it has been applied?

The answer is as soon as possible. Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate will be dealing with that matter under the general practice of determining such issues by delegated responsibility. The inspectorate will deal with air pollution, while representa tions on planning matters, such as noise and traffic effects, are for the planning authorities—there is a distinction. There are detailed, complex matters to be resolved. I understand that Glasgow district council has said that there are higher-than-expected levels of sulphur dioxide in the Scotstown district of the city. The causes of that are being investigated and will be taken into account before a decision is made. I can confirm that no decision has yet been made and the issues are being seriously considered.

Does the Minister know that I, too, have a constituency concern in this matter? A local whisky plant, J and B, has a blending plant at Renfrew. The company is extremely concerned at the siting of the incinerator plant. Will the Minister look at the comments of the regional chemist, who is worried about breaches of health and safety regulations because of the dioxins and other acidic materials that are being released? Will he listen to hon. Members and their constituents and hold a public inquiry before the matter goes any further?

I am certainly aware of the dioxin emissions. Apparently, traces of dioxins are formed when organic materials are burnt in the presence of chlorine, but I am informed that the rate of production can be minimised. Any registration granted in respect of a chemical incinerator or a comparable activity would include the condition that the required standards should be achieved. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be implemented as soon as possible. Last year, we went into those issues in detail in Committee.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his plans to reform local government and local government finance in Scotland.

The review of the financing of local government to which the Government are committed will be careful and fundamental.

Why are we having this review at all? Is it because the Secretary of State for Scotland has extreme misgivings about the poll tax, because there has been a capitulation by the Labour party or because the people of Scotland have clearly shown that they do not want the tax? Will the Secretary of State come clean and tell the House whether we are having a review relating to devising a stable and just system in which the poll tax, as presently devised, would be excluded? Is the poll tax dead and are we looking for an indecent way to bury it in 1991?

All new systems require regular review as they settle down. The community charge is the biggest change in local government finance for more than a century, so it is entirely reasonable at this stage to take a fundamental look at how the regime is working. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were becoming seriously worried about the fact that the overwhelming bulk of Scottish public opinion believes that non-payers are a bunch of unprincipled freeloaders.

Strathclyde has had to make major cuts in its budget because of the poll tax and because it cannot collect the money. That has repercussions for communities such as mine in which unemployment is severe—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) keeps interrupting. He had a hearing and it would be helpful if others could have one, too. I remember the days when the hon. Gentleman stood as a Labour candidate on a Labour party ticket.

Almost the entire House will sympathise with the direction in which the hon. Gentleman mainly aimed his criticism—two Benches behind him, not at the Government.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. I think that it may be a point of frustration, but continue.

One of the members of your Chairmen's Panel has used a very unparliamentary word—a shipyard term. I am willing to reciprocate and lower the tone to shipyard language. I invite the hon. Gentleman to repeat it.

Order. I am afraid that I know no shipyard language.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the final report of the Scottish Development Agency study into the steel industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

I expect to receive the final report of the Scottish Development Agency study by the end of March, when I would hope to make public as much as possible of that report, subject only to considerations of commercial confidentiality. [Interruption.] I understand that the SDA steering group has now seen some preliminary findings from the consultants and, although I have not yet seen them, I hope that these, too, can be made public on the same basis.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was utterly impossible to hear the Minister's answer because of the antics going on in the Chamber. I could not make out the answer, so I cannot respond. Is it in order to ask the Minister to repeat his answer?

I think, in the circumstances, that it is. I ask the Scottish Nationalists to behave in a parliamentary fashion.

I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman. I expect to receive the final report of the Scottish Development Agency study by the end of March, when I would hope to make public as much of it as possible, subject only to considerations of commercial confidentiality. I understand that the SDA steering group has now seen some preliminary findings from the consultants and, although I have not yet seen them, I hope that these, too, can be made public on the same basis.

Seven months after the announcement of the closure of Ravenscraig, the answer that we shall have to wait yet another four months is not just pathetic but criminally complacent. When will the organisation that calls itself the Scottish Office do something about steel? Does the Minister accept that if the hot strip mill is dismantled and removed the Motherwell plant will be impossible to sell? As one of the shop stewards said, it will be like an electric kettle without an element. What concrete steps will the Secretary of State take to prohibit such removal? On Clydesdale, what concrete steps has he taken to ascertain whether there are potential purchasers and to facilitate such purchasers for all or part of the plant? If the Minister cannot give concrete answers to those questions it is obvious that he intends to do as little in his new post as he did in his last.

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not listen more carefully to my answer. He certainly had plenty of opportunity to hear it. Had he done so, he would have heard me say that the preliminary findings had been made available to the SDA working study and that I hoped that they would be made public, subject only to considerations of commercial confidentiality. The information will therefore be available in much less than the three or four months to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government have got themselves into the position that any future for Ravenscraig has to be in the interests of British Steel itself? Will he seek concrete discussions with British Steel, following the interim report, as to what might be in the interests of British Steel in terms of assistance from the Government for the opening of new markets and the introduction of new technology? Is he aware that already a west German flat products producer is being retained in operation to supply markets previously supplied by obsolete east German plant?

In the past 15 months, my right hon. and learned predecessor and I have had four meetings with British Steel and about five exchanges of correspondence. I do not think that anyone could accuse us of not being in touch with British Steel and we shall continue to keep in touch as apopropriate.

Does not the history of the steel industry show that when politicians override the decisions of business men it costs jobs in industry as a whole in the long term? When politicians talk in terms of the need for commercial decisions to be overridden in the national interest, they are usually talking about their own narrow political interests.

My hon. Friend makes an effective point. From 1975 to 1985, no less than £14 billion of taxpayers' money had to be put into British Steel to support it when it was under nationalised control. It is important for this decision to be taken by British Steel as a commercial decision. Our purpose is to ensure that all possible relevant avenues are explored so that we can ensure that the interests of the Scottish economy are upheld.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that it is not enough to list his disappointments and disagreements with Sir Robert Scholey to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and to the press if no action follows? On his own evidence to the Select Committee, there have been expressions of interest about purchasing Ravenscraig as a going concern, but they have been blocked because of British Steel's withholding of vital information. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to allow such interests to be pursued? Is not the withholding of that information a restriction on competition and offensive to the Government and to Scotland? Does it not also reopen the whole question of a possible referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as being a restraint of trade?

We have encouraged British Steel to consider the disposal of those parts of the Scottish industry that are not required for its own purposes and we have encouraged those who have expressed interest in acquiring parts of the industry to approach British Steel with their offers. There are appropriate mechanisms by which competition issues can be pursued.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated growth of passenger and freight ferry traffic at Stranraer and Cairnryan in the next five years; and what proposals he has to improve road and rail transport systems from these ports.

Estimates of future ferry traffic through Stranraer and Cairnryan are commercial matters for the companies concerned. A number of major road schemes have been completed on the A75 Gretna-Stranraer route and further road improvements are planned. Investment in railways is a matter for British Rail.

Larne harbour is now the second largest in the United Kingdom for roll-on/roll-off freight traffic and the third largest for passenger-accompanied vehicles. It is handling more than 1·5 million people and last year traffic grew again by 8 per cent. As all that traffic is going either to Stranraer or Cairnryan, will the Minister spend some time during the Christmas recess considering a new traffic plan for the west of Scotland which will benefit the people who live there and those who travel from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—increasing numbers of people travelling from the Republic are using that route—and give them greater access to the channel tunnel? That plan could be drawn up in consultation with the transport directors of the European Commission.

Some £70 million has already been spent on the A75. We recognise the importance of this, not just for the convenience of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who will reach their destinations more quickly, but for tourism. Construction of improvements between Carrutherstown and Hetland is underway and five further schemes worth nearly £20 million are in preparation. We take seriously the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and will keep in touch with the Northern Ireland Office on this subject.

Is the Minister aware that this is an issue of great importance for all hon. Members representing constituencies in Ayrshire, as well as for hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland? Is he also aware that in the past few years there has been not an improvement but a deterioration in the transport system, with the removal of the overnight sleeper service from Stranraer to London and deterioration of the roads in Ayrshire? Can the Minister give an assurance that the Maybole and Girvan bypasses will be given priority in his roads programme and that if Strathclyde regional council agrees to remove its postponement of construction of its part of the A77, he will give the necessary finance to enable it to go ahead without any delay?

On the last point, it is difficult for the Scottish Office to build a road if it ends in a field. The A77 is essentially a matter for Strathclyde regional council. The council has taken the decision to delay its part of the scheme; the Scottish Office stands ready to put in hand the work from Glasgow city boundary to Malletsheugh, south of Newton Mearns.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had about constitutional reform; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of a Scottish assembly during the past six months.

In the past six months, 19 written representations have been received about constitutional issues. A minority of them were in favour of a Scottish assembly.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and I welcome him to the Dispatch Box. Does he agree that the representations received from the constitutional convention are flawed in that they do not address the situation affecting the Barnet formula for funding, or the number of Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies, and do not deal with the West Lothian question at all? Can he also—[Interruption.]

Order. The question will take even longer if we have this sort of noise.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the convention is fraudulent and the fact that it has a front man wearing a dog collar does not change the fact that it is fraudulent because it knows that its proposals will never go through the House?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. As usual, he speaks with great sense and knowledge. I agree with him entirely on the issue that he has raised. I can assure him that the Government will pay full attention to the views of all sensible people such as, for example, members of the North Tayside Conservative Association.

First, I congratulate my fellow St. Andrean on his promotion to the Government Front Bench. Does he agree that the majority of Scottish people recognise that the introduction of an assembly with tax-raising powers would result in Scotland having higher taxes than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, would discourage inward investment to Scotland and would result in Scotland being the most over-governed part of the United Kingdom and of the European Community?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I agree entirely with what he said in his supplementary question. Although I do not believe that the people of Scotland generally attach a particularly high priority to constitutional change, my hon. Friend is right to criticise the proposals that have come from the self-elected body to which he refers.

I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman's return to the Government Front Bench. Of the welcomes that he received from the two hon. Members who sit behind him, the hon. Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), one seemed to stick in the throat. The Minister can work that out for himself later.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I do not accept what he said in his supplementary question. I will send him the figures, which show without question that identifiable public expenditure per head in Scotland is far higher than in England and higher than in Wales.

Talking about public attitudes, did the Minister notice that in The Sunday Times—a newspaper which I am sure he reads carefully—there was an article setting out the results of a MORI poll? It showed that the Scottish Constitutional Convention's proposals attracted three times as much support as the hon. Gentleman's preferred option of the status quo and twice as much support as the nationalists' position. The Minister will be aware that he does not represent direct Scottish participation in Brussels. Leaving aside the unfortunate views of Lord Strathclyde, will he clarify the Government's position and explain whether he stands by the recently expressed views of the Secretary of State that there should be direct Government participation in the form of the Scottish Office in Brussels or whether he supports the Treasury view that that is not necessary and should not take place?

The result of the referendum in 1979, which is probably a painful memory for the hon. Gentleman, showed that, when faced with detailed and specific proposals spelling out the disadvantages of an Assembly as well as the claimed benefits, the electorate appreciates that an extra tier of government with extra taxation and all the problems to which my hon. Friends have referred is not the answer for Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the Scottish hospitals opting for self-governing trust status.

An announcement will be made as and when the procedures laid down for trust applications have been completed.

Does the Minister accept that there is growing disquiet about the way in which the possibility of self-governing hospitals is being presented in Scotland? There is no evidence that the hospitals, the health service, the patients, the public or the staff want them, but they are being presented almost as a fait accompli.

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken on two counts. First, he is mistaken in his suggestion that proposals are coming from anyone other than the consultants and the management. For example, the proposals for the Foresterhill hospital in Aberdeen have come from the consultants and the management, but they have not yet decided whether to submit them to the Scottish Office.

Is the Minister aware that on 8 December a meeting was held in Kilmarnock city centre at which a poll was taken—it was a proper poll, as advised by MORI—on the opt-out proposals? Some 1,700 people voted, of whom 95·2 per cent. said that they would prefer the hospitals in their areas to remain within the ambit of the Ayrshire and Arran health boards. Only 3·7 per cent. were in favour of opting out, and there were two spoilt papers, representing 0·9 per cent. of the vote. Will the hon. Gentleman take that result into consideration if there are any applications from hospitals in Ayrshire to opt out?

I would not take seriously a poll conducted on a proposal that has not yet been made, when people were not aware of the details. If the hon. Gentleman is accurate with regard to the questions asked, I should be even more cynical about the results. Hospitals which apply for self-governing status will not be opting out of the NHS. They will remain part of the NHS and they will remain under contract to the health boards. They will remain subject to scrutiny of their performance by the health boards.

Whatever the merits or demerits of hospitals opting for their own management within the NHS under trust status, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the position is very different in areas of high population, where there are a number of separate hospitals, compared with an area such as Aberdeen where there is a highly integrated hospital service based on the Foresterhill site? Does my hon. Friend agree that that creates different circumstances and may I have his undertaking that that aspect will be taken into account if proposals are put forward?

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Foresterhill is an example of a hospital which was created and brought into being by the community. It was initiated through the efforts of the community. Self-governing hospitals are about recreating the possibility for communities to be involved in the management and organisation of their hospitals. I am not surprised that Foresterhill has shown great interest in the opportunities that the Government are making available.

The Minister's response exacerbates our worries, both about consultation and about links with the local community. The reality is that opted-out, self-governing hospitals will be run from the centre—the Scottish Office will decide the priorities and processes by diktat.

The hon. Gentleman may go on saying that self-governing hospitals will be run by the Scottish Office, but that simply is not true. They will be independent trusts operating under contract with the health boards and subject to the Secretary of State's direction only if they fail to meet particular standards of patient care. The hon. Gentleman knows full well the position on consultation. Any proposals for self-governing status will be subject to consultation; trade unions, churches, the community and anyone else who wishes to comment will have an opportunity to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants that Scotland has received from the European regional development fund since its inception.

As at the end of November 1990, the total commitments secured for Scotland from the European regional development fund for the years 1975 to 1990 stood at £953 million.

Can my hon. Friend say how that compares with other EC countries?

I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point, because Scotland's share compares extremely favourably with that of other members of the Community. For example, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) knows, EC statistics show that Scotland has secured more than six times as much regional fund commitment as Denmark. That shows how well the present arrangements are serving Scotland.

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. Will he take the earliest opportunity to visit Lame harbour in my constituency, where European regional development fund grants have helped in the provision of terminal facilities and have enabled us to cope with 322,000 commercial vehicles and 300,000 passenger-accompanied vehicles annually? That large number of ro-ro vehicles is using the Larne-Stranraer corridor. Will he seek further grant aid to provide matching facilities for passengers and freight transport on the Scottish mainland?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and what he says is interesting. I must admit that I am not fully acquainted with all the details that he has given, but I will acquaint myself with them and be in touch.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen of the Scottish new towns development corporations to discuss the timetable for wind-up; and if he will make a statement.

I last met the chairmen of the Scottish new towns on 14 December 1990. The timetable for wind-up remains as stated in the Government's White Paper, "The Scottish New Towns: The Way Ahead".

Is the Secretary of State aware that what the 42,000 tenants of the new towns want for Christmas is the right to choose the district council at the time of wind-up? Will he take that into consideration and give them that choice when the time comes?

The choice of many new town tenants in recent years has been to move from tenancy home ownership and that may well continue. What is important is not to foreclose on any options at present. We have not ruled out the possibility of transfer to the district council at a later date, but we think that the matter should be decided nearer the end of wind-up rather than now.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received in the last 12 months about the future of Pittenweem harbour.

Two people have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about Pittenweem harbour.

Does the Minister understand the great uncertainty being created in the fishing industry in my constituency as a result of the absence of concrete proposals for the improvement of Pittenweem harbour, particularly with regard to safety and the hygiene requirements that will be imposed after 1992? Will the Secretary of State take a direct interest in the matter and ensure an early resolution of the problem so that the fishing industry in my constituency will have a proper opportunity to continue to provide the service that it provides for the community at large?

My right hon. Friend's predecessor as Secretary of State visited Pittenweem in November and met representatives of the fishing industry and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State also plans a visit in the near future. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the proposed scheme is ambitious and costly, and the regional council has been asked to review it with a view to presenting rather more viable plans.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications or expressions of interest have been made for hospitals and other national health service units to change to self-governing status.

There have been four expressions of interest in NHS trust status.

How can the Minister possibly justify the proposals of the Royal Scottish National hospital management team, most of whom have no first-hand experience of patient care, especially when those proposals have been resoundingly rejected by 96 per cent. of the staff and by virtually all the patients' relatives who have written to or contacted me to express their concern about the threat to mentally handicapped patients? They surely deserve the security and continuity of funding which can best be guaranteed by keeping the hospital fully integrated with the national health service under the existing arrangements.

I do not know how it is possible for people to reject proposals that have yet to be forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to seek to cause anxiety about the quality of care for mentally handicapped people in his constituency and to misrepresent the proposals as coming only from management. They have come from management and also from all the consultants concerned, because they believe that by going for NHS trust status they will be able to improve the quality of care. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I would want to study the proposals in detail before reaching a conclusion on whether they are the right ones.

The Minister seemed to indicate in his reply to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that there was a recommendation from staff at the Foresterhill site —one of the four hospitals to which he referred—that that hospital should adopt the course of opting out. The Minister is well aware that the widespread opposition in Aberdeen includes medical staff in the hospital, but it is widely believed that they have changed their opinion because of the carrot dangled by the Scottish Office of extra money or special funding arrangements to meet shortfalls and the pressing need for capital. Will the Minister confirm what special financial or other arrangements have been offered to hospitals opting out?

No special arrangements have been offered to anyone, other than those set out in our White Paper and in our working documents on NHS trust status. As more and more people in the health service identify the benefits that will come from being involved in decision making at a local level and from resources being allocated according to their priorities—as opposed to priorities set by the people above them, at health board or Scottish Office level—they are increasingly considering trust status as a way of enabling them to continue the very professional and capable job that they do. I urge the hon. Gentleman to study carefully the proposals presented by Foresterhill. I understand that two parallel proposals have been developed, one involving continued direct management by the health board and the other involving self-governing status. I am sure that they will be evaluated on the basis of which will provide the best deal for patients in Aberdeen, and that is right and proper.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance he will give to councils in Scotland that wish to build more houses for rent.

Provisional capital allocations of £415 million for local authority investment in council housing in 1991–92 were announced earlier this month. Authorities wishing to use those resources to build council houses are free to do so.

When right hon. and hon. Members leave the House today, we shall return to nice, comfortable homes, plenty of money and probably a good Christmas turkey, but will the Minister acknowledge that many thousands of homeless people are suffering the consequences of the Government's disastrous housing policy in respect of rented accommodation? When will the Minister stand up and be counted and ensure that the homeless can get a place to stay or a decent home at an affordable rent? It is up to you, Minister, to give them some hope.

First, some confirmation of the problem was given by the director of housing of Glasgow district council, who is quoted in today's Glasgow Herald as saying that some

"9,000 council homes are empty in Glasgow district".

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the review of the operation of the poll tax in Scotland to be completed.

The timetable for the review of the community charge is under consideration.

Did the Minister read the report in Monday's Financial Times, which said that the Government's own civil servants favour a return to the old rating system, with a staged transfer of education from local to central Government? Is that report accurate and, if so, will the Minister support its application in Scotland?

I do not comment on newspaper reports —[Interruption.]—necessarily. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Eastwood well remembers rating revaluation in Scotland.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Later.

It arises out of questions.

That may be so, but I will take points of order arising out of questions, or any other points of order, after the statement.