<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<opml version='2.0'>
  <head>
    <title>Sitting of 18 March 1997</title>
    <dateCreated>Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000</dateCreated>
    <ownerName>UK Parliament</ownerName>
    <ownerEmail>mail@robertbrook.com</ownerEmail>
    <ownerId>http://www.parliament.uk</ownerId>
    <docs>http://www.opml.org/spec2</docs>
  </head>
  <body>
    <outline id='3198637' text="&lt;i&gt;The House met at half-past Two o'clock&lt;/i&gt;" title='Preamble' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/preamble'></outline>
    <outline id='3198639' text='[MADAM SPEAKER &lt;i&gt;in the Chair&lt;/i&gt;]' title='PRAYERS' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/prayers'></outline>
    <outline id='3198639' text='PRAYERS'>
      <outline id='3198641' text='&lt;i&gt;To be considered on Tuesday 25 March.&lt;/i&gt;' title='BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/bodmin-moor-commons-bill-lords'></outline>
      <outline id='3198642' text='&lt;i&gt;Order for Third Reading read.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;To be read the Third time tomorrow.&lt;/i&gt;' title="KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)" type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/kings-college-london-bill-lords-by-order'></outline>
      <outline id='3198644' text='&lt;i&gt;Order for Second Reading read.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;To be read a Second time on Tuesday 25 March.&lt;/i&gt;' title='LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/lever-park-bill-by-order'></outline>
    </outline>
    <outline id='3198673' text='Oral Answers to Questions'>
      <outline id='3198681' text='HEALTH'>
        <outline id='3198683' text="Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the use of the private sector in primary care provision in the NHS. [19161]&lt;br/&gt;The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): None.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Rooney: Were not the Government's true intentions on primary care, as with so much of the national health service, shown in the original drafting of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill&amp;#x2014;that is, the wholesale privatisation of the service and the extensive involvement of the private sector, to the detriment of patients?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Malone: No. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. I thought that he might have been rising to record the 6.9 per cent. increase in the number of general practitioners since 1978&amp;#x2013;79 in his local health authority, or perhaps to congratulate it on 60 per cent., of the local population being covered by fundholding, but no, he raises yet again another argument that we killed off both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.&lt;br/&gt;Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend ensure that, in the coming general election campaign, three points will be made: first, the precise amount of savings made in the NHS by the use of the private sector; secondly, that every penny of those savings went towards patient care; thirdly, that there would be no chance of such money coming if ever the Labour party was to have a chance to govern?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Malone: I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's points. Of course it is true that the Labour party still has&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;708&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;an ideological point of view about any private sector involvement, no matter how new it may try to appear to the public. That would mean fewer services for patients.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Jowell: Is the Minister aware that, in the past four years, the amount spent by fundholding doctors on getting patients treated in private hospitals has increased from &amp;#x00A3;4 million to &amp;#x00A3;66 million and that, at the same time, 144 trusts have gone into debt? Is that not further evidence of the Government's undermining of the NHS in favour of private health care, and that the Government's failure to safeguard the NHS shows why the people of Britain deserve better?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Malone: Perhaps it is about time the hon. Lady started to think about patients when she talks about health care and the quality of services that are being provided. Put into context, the figure she mentions is about 1.9 per cent. of fundholding budgets. It provides better care for patients and services that patients want. The whole nation will know that the Labour party would deny them those services if it were ever to be returned to office.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend know that Staffordshire social services department is deliberately preventing people from going into residential and nursing care in the private sector, contrary to the principles enunciated in my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Health's excellent White Paper, and that the High Court has recently issued an injunction against that department because of the disgraceful way in which it is handling that function and responsibility?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Malone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. He gets to the heart of who&amp;#x2014;Conservatives or Labour&amp;#x2014; will provide better services for patients. I have no doubt that he will be campaigning vigorously on that point and on the White Paper that my right hon. Friend has recently published on the matter, so that the electorate will have a clear choice. That choice will be in favour of this Government's policies." title='Primary Care Provision' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/primary-care-provision'></outline>
        <outline id='3198686' text='Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of NHS dental charges. [19162]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Malone: All Governments since 1951 have accepted that patients who can afford to should make some contribution towards the cost of their dental care. National health service dental treatment is free to those aged under 18 and extensive exemption and remission arrangements protect vulnerable groups.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Banks: Why does not the Minister tell us that real dental charges have gone up by 245 per cent. since 1979? Those are not just arid statistics, but are based on my experience. I have just paid &amp;#x00A3;350 for a crown. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] That may be funny for Conservative Members. If any of them want some free dental service outside the Chamber afterwards I should be more than happy to give it to them. I am now facing &amp;#x00A3;600 of periodontal work that has to be done privately because it cannot be provided on the national health service. I can afford it because I have a job and I shall have a job after&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0362"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;709&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;1 May, which is more than can be said for some Conservative Members, but what about people on low earnings who cannot afford that? We have a toothless Government who are obviously determined to render the nation toothless as well.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Malone: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what has happened in his constituency between 1991&amp;#x2013;92 and 1995&amp;#x2013;96. Perhaps he is not interested in that, but is interested only in what is happening to him. The proportion of adult courses of treatment provided free in his health authority has risen from 48.5 per cent. in 1991&amp;#x2013;92 to 59.5 per cent. We shall take no lessons from Labour on charging until the shadow Chancellor releases the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) from the shackles that have bound him on health service expenditure, meaning that Labour cannot match the Prime Minister&apos;s pledge for real increases in funding year on year on year on year on year during the next Parliament.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend remind the House and the former guardian of the Greater London council silver who introduced dental charges, and how many general hospitals would have to be closed if dental charges were abolished?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Malone: Dental charges have been supported by Governments since the early 1950s. I cannot tell my hon. Friend how many hospitals would have to be closed, but &amp;#x00A3;381 million would have to be recovered. Labour has recently reneged on what it had said about free eyesight tests. The public know what Labour would do about dental charges if it were ever elected to office.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister be straight with the House and accept that not just in Wales, but throughout the country, there are constituencies with hardly any NHS dental service? The issue has been raised for the past four years. Is it not about time that he came forward with a plan to ensure that British people, on benefit or not, have access to an NHS dentist?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Malone: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been living. He has certainly not been following the affairs of this House recently. In the context of a growing dental service with more dentists and more treatments than ever, we have just given a Third Reading to a primary health care Bill that will address the problems of locating treatment in certain parts of the country. Access schemes have also been set in place, for which I hope health authorities in his constituency have been bidding. We have taken initiatives that have been endorsed by the House. I am glad to be able to point them out to the hon. Gentleman at this late stage.' title='Dental Charges' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/dental-charges'></outline>
        <outline id='3198689' text="Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals' chief nursing officers currently bear the title matron; and if he will make a statement. [19163]&lt;br/&gt;The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): The information requested&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;710&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;is not available centrally. Job titles may have changed, but the principles of professional leadership remain and trusts can use the title matron if they wish.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Greenway: I invite my hon. Friend to consult those who have matrons in their hospitals and others who have known hospitals with matrons. Is he aware that they are very glamorous people? Matron is a better and more meaningful title than any other for a chief nursing officer. Will he bring back the glamorous matron? We want her.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The first glamorous matron who comes to mind is Hattie Jacques; glamour comes in all shapes and forms. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is crucial that we have a management system which provides the most effective health care for patients being treated under the national health service." title='Chief Nursing Officers' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/chief-nursing-officers'></outline>
        <outline id='3198692' text='Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to require all general practitioners to become fundholders. [19164]&lt;br/&gt;The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The general practitioner fundholding scheme is, and will remain, voluntary. With effect from 1 April this year, 58 per cent. of patients will be registered with a fundholding GP.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend says that the scheme will remain voluntary. Does he agree, however, that fundholders are able to offer increased opportunities for treatment at their surgeries rather than at a hospital? I have visited the Barton-Upon-Humber surgery, which is a fundholding practice in my constituency. It is able to deliver patient care, ensuring that patients do not have to go 20 miles down the road to a hospital at Grimsby or Scunthorpe. The practice is able to offer what used to be regarded as cottage hospital treatment. Many treatments are now available from fundholders. Will my right hon. Friend think again about making the scheme available to all patients?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the benefits for patients of the fundholding scheme. He quoted a typical example; there are many others throughout the health service. Over the next few weeks, the question for the Labour party is why it supports the abolition of a scheme that has brought about the benefits to which my hon. Friend referred. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is quite specific. A Labour Government would abolish fundholding. That would neuter Britain&apos;s GPs and be a major step backwards in the provision of health care. The burden is on the hon. Gentleman to explain why he wants the health service to take that gigantic step backwards.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Spearing: Does not the Government&apos;s version of fundholding introduce elements of competition which undermine the principle of universality? Is not that principle founded on an injunction of 2,000 years ago, to bear each other&apos;s burdens? When will the Government put that into practice in the health service in the next millennium?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: It is extraordinary that, when we introduce a scheme that improves care for the patients of&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0363"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;711&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;fundholding doctors and which the majority of Britain&apos;s GPs adopt because they believe that it is in the interests of their patients, Labour&apos;s reaction is to want to abolish the scheme that has made those improvements possible. I simply fail to understand how the Labour party can say that the right way forward for the health service is to abolish a scheme that has brought about the improvements to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) referred.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Mans: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in Lancaster, all doctors have fundholding practices. Does he agree that, if the system were abolished, patient care in north-west Lancashire would be severely affected&amp;#x2014;and would be a lot worse?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In his constituency, in Lancashire, and around the country, fundholding is delivering improved patient care not only to the patients of fundholding GPs, but to every patient of the health service, because it has changed the relationship between primary and secondary care, to the advantage of primary care.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury seems to disagree. He should look at a press release from the British Medical Association published this morning in which the BMA and the representatives of general practice in Britain came together and made it crystal clear that they support the continued existence of a range of options for Britain&apos;s GPs. That is the position of the BMA and of the representatives of Britain&apos;s GPs. The Labour party must explain why it believes it knows better than the majority of Britain&apos;s GPs what is in the interests of their patients.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Simon Hughes: As the system created as a result of the Government&apos;s reforms unfairly allocates money to GPs depending on whether they are fundholders and has produced a two-tier service for patients depending on whether their doctors are fundholders, will the Government modify it, which fundholders would willingly accept, so that, no matter which GP people go to, they have equal access to the health service, or will the Secretary of State go into the election defending a two-tier health service which is a national health lottery for Britain&apos;s patients?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: I am going into the general election campaign defending a system of totally fair funding across all parts of the NHS&amp;#x2014;whether GP fundholders or not. I take it as significant that, on this question about fundholding, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and all his hon. Friends have remained firmly seated. They are not prepared to engage in the argument about fundholding in Britain, because they know that they are on a loser.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is tremendous public support for GP fundholding in my constituency? Will he confirm that the Labour party&apos;s policies are contrary to the health needs of my constituents, and will work against them in the long term?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: Once again, my hon. Friend is right. He highlights the fact that the Labour party adopts only policies that would impose a single bureaucracy across&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;712&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;the entire country. The idea that there may be advantage in different approaches in different localities, reflecting the different choices of GPs and their patients, is utterly foreign to the Labour party. It will never win the argument, and is no longer even prepared to engage in it.' title='General Practitioners' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/general-practitioners'></outline>
        <outline id='3198696' text='Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for use of the private sector in clinical services in the NHS. [19165]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Cunliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of the private finance initiative in respect of clinical services in the NHS. [19173]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: The private finance initiative in the national health service is concerned with the provision of modern and efficient facilities for the delivery of NHS health care. It is not concerned with the transfer of NHS clinical services to the private sector.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Eagle: How can the people of Britain believe the Secretary of State when they look at the PFI contract for the Royal Hallamshire extension in Sheffield, which includes the privatisation of radiology and pathology services? Do not they, like Opposition Members, know that the Tories cannot be trusted on the NHS? All Tories want is to get as much of it into the private sector as possible.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady will no doubt keep repeating the mantra, but she will cut no ice. People know that, over the past 18 years, we have delivered a broader range of high-quality care to all patients who need it. That is the commitment that the Conservative party has delivered, about which the Labour party is content only to talk.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Cunliffe: Does not the Minister understand that, despite the secrecy about clinical services, the creeping privatisation is well known to people in the country? Once again, no reassurance has been given today that a future Conservative Government&amp;#x2014;heaven forbid&amp;#x2014;would not take the opportunity to privatise. Does he not understand that people know that, over the past 18 years, the Government have looted the wealth of those who created it and intend, through the internal market, to loot the health of public services by introducing private services? Will he try at least to give a positive answer instead of the same old corny comments on clinical services that he has given up to now?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman&apos;s slightly convoluted question might be clearer if he sought to explain the Labour party&apos;s policy on the hospital building programme to his constituents and people throughout the country. What the Government have set out is crystal clear. We have launched the PFI, which holds the prospect of long-needed hospital building programmes in Norwich, Dartford, Bishop Auckland, north Durham, Worcester, Calderdale, Bromley, Hereford and Carlisle. Labour&apos;s Front Benchers must explain to the people why they would put all those projects on hold.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even the more socialist countries in the&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0364"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;713&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;European Union allow and encourage independent health care organisations to supplement the statutory authorities&apos; expenditure on health? Statistics on the proportion of gross domestic product spent on health show that we spend the same as other countries in the public sector; the extra that enables them to boast that they spend more than us is made up by independent care organisations, which are rejected by the Opposition.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right about the arithmetic. It is also worth reflecting on the point that British citizens have exactly the same opportunity to obtain private health care insurance as citizens of other countries, but a smaller proportion of the British find it necessary to do so because the national health service commands a confidence that comparable organisations elsewhere do not. The reality is that the British national health service is the world&apos;s most efficient health care system. An endorsement of that principle from the Opposition occasionally would make a welcome change.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Roe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trade union Unison is wholly opposed to the private finance initiative in the NHS? Given the pecuniary relationship between that union and the offices of Labour Front Benchers, what credence does he give to the claim by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that he wants to speed up the PFI in health care?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: The Opposition cannot work out their attitude to the PFI in health care. They say they want to speed it up; they also describe it as the privatisation initiative. We have heard this afternoon the Opposition&apos;s visceral suspicion of any suggestion that private capital and management can reinforce the delivery of NHS objectives. They oppose it before they hear the arguments. That is why the Government and the Conservative party, re-elected in the next Parliament, will deliver improvements in the national health service that the Labour party could never dream of.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Chris Smith: Why does the Secretary of State not have the honesty to admit that the Tory agenda is a piece-by-piece privatisation of the national health service? Will he now confirm what he failed to say a few minutes ago&amp;#x2014;that, at the Royal Hallamshire hospital in Sheffield, radiology and pathology will be put out to the private sector? He and his colleagues have consistently refused to give a guarantee that they will not privatise clinical services. Will he give such a guarantee now? If he will not, and if the Tories are elected again, we will not have a national health service in five years&apos; time.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: That beggars belief. I gave the hon. Gentleman due warning, and he still comes to the Dispatch Box and calls the PFI privatisation. The last time he mentioned the subject, he said that Labour promised to speed up PFI deals. Now he calls it privatisation. The hon. Gentleman must sort out his ideas&amp;#x2014;and he does not have long in which to do so.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Booth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is staggering that two of the first three questions tabled by Opposition Members relate to complaints about the private sector? Does he agree that that says something&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;714&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;about their priorities? The right priorities for the national health service are patient care, standards, and more money, which we will deliver.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right on every count. We have the commitment to deliver a growing health service, which the Labour party will not match. We have the commitment to deliver a properly managed health service, which the Labour party will not match. We also have the commitment to deliver quality of care to patients, which the Labour party regards as a boring detail.' title='Clinical Services' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/clinical-services'></outline>
        <outline id='3198698' text='Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on provision for mental health patients. [19166]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Burns: A range of policy initiatives have been taken that should enable health authorities, in conjunction with other agencies, to provide a comprehensive service for patients with mental health problems.&lt;br/&gt;Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for that response, but does he not accept that there is still work to be done centrally, to gain a better understanding of the needs of the nation and to plan strategy accordingly, and that part of that strategy must include a recognition of the need for more improvement in mental health care for children and adolescents?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. Yes, of course the Government and all in the national health service are determined to enhance and further to improve mental health provision for adults and children. As he will be aware, several initiatives designed further to enhance that care have been taken over the past few years. We are not complacent; we shall continue with that work. As for the treatment of adults with severe mental health problems, last month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published a Green Paper, to explore the options for moving forward to further improvement in the service.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Nigel Evans: About a month ago I went to a mental health seminar in Preston, where I was impressed by an initiative that has been taken up by one of the trusts to the west of my constituency, which I hope will be taken up in my constituency, too&amp;#x2014;a mental health helpline. As my hon. Friend will know, people who need help with mental health problems often need it at unsocial hours, not just between nine and five. Will he congratulate the people who volunteer to give guidance via the helpline, and encourage other trusts to take up such initiatives?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to the attention of the House what sounds like an excellent idea&amp;#x2014;providing support and making available through the helpline counselling, advice and help for those in crisis and their families. I strongly recommend other health authorities and trusts to consider that example, and to see what lessons can be learned so as further to enhance support for the families of those suffering from mental illness.' title='Mental Health Patients' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/mental-health-patients'></outline>
        <outline id='3198700' text="Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Manchester area have been waiting longer than 12 months for hospital admission. [19167]&lt;br/&gt;The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): Provisional figures show that, on 31 December 1996, 384 people resident in the Manchester health authority area had been waiting more than 12 months for admission to hospital.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Eastham: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I was asking about current figures rather than those for last December. May I tell him that, for the North Manchester hospital alone, 180 people have been waiting longer than 12 months for admission? Further compounding the problem, the equivalent of almost two wards in that hospital are bed-blocked because social services cannot accommodate the patients outside the hospital. As a result, 913 consultant episodes concerning patients who need attention have not taken place.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Horam: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about bed-blocking, he should take his complaint to the Manchester local authority, which is in the firing line when it comes to doing something effective about it. Over the past few months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has helped with measures specifically designed to reduce bed blocking, so I am surprised that Manchester has not done a better job.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Equally, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not singing the praises of his native Manchester, which has a good record on waiting times. Over the past few years, there have been periods in which, in Manchester as a whole, nobody waited more than 12 months. As the House should be aware, the national picture shows that we have maintained the progress with waiting times, despite the attention now being turned to emergency care and mental illness. The hon. Gentleman really has nothing to complain about.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Atkins: Will not waiting lists in Manchester, at hospitals such as the Christie, be considerably helped by the building of the &amp;#x00A3;5.8 million cancer unit at the Royal Preston, which will do a great deal to provide facilities for people in Preston? That will avoid their having to go to the Christie in Manchester, thereby improving the situation of patients both in Manchester and in Preston.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Horam: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend made that point. We are hearing a great deal about Lancashire today, and with good reason. Not only is a Caiman cancer unit being developed at Preston and Chorley; there are others at Blackburn and Burnley, Blackpool, Lancaster, and Kendal and Barrow. All represent new initiatives and are part of a clear programme to deal with cancer problems. I am delighted that Lancashire is taking the lead.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Barron: Will the Minister confirm that the Manchester figures are not unique, and that more than 1 million people are on hospital waiting lists nationally? That figure is increasing and it is the highest we have ever had. The health authority in Manchester has a current&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;716&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;deficit of &amp;#x00A3;1.2 million. We assume that that has be found from next year's budget, which will mean even longer waiting lists in Manchester. Is that not further evidence of the mess and turmoil that the Government have created in the national health service, and one of the many reasons why they should not be elected for a fifth term?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Horam: On the contrary, it is an extremely good reason why we should remain in power. Waiting times have improved: the average wait is down from nine months to four months. When Labour was last in power in 1979, one in four people had to wait more than 12 months. That figure is now down to one in 50 people. In 1979, 25 per cent. waited for more than 12 months, whereas, under the Government, the figure is now only 2 per cent." title='Hospital Waiting Lists (Manchester)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/hospital-waiting-lists-manchester'></outline>
        <outline id='3198702' text="Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, Stanmore, to discuss the future major development plans. [19168]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Horam: I shall be having a meeting shortly with the chairman and chief executive of the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital trust, which is working up a business case for the redevelopment of the hospital.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for the thoughtful way in which he has responded to the many submissions on the hospital's future that have been made in recent months and, indeed, years. I shall also be present at that meeting on Tuesday at 4 o'clock. The overwhelming opinion&amp;#x2014;local and wider opinion&amp;#x2014;is in favour of the hospital remaining on the same site. To allow the necessary funding to be made available in the future and to ensure that the excess of old buildings is reduced and that the modern footprint and curtilage is properly paid for, will he ensure that the regional health authority speeds up its authorisation decisions to get that money under way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Horam: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says, and I look forward to that meeting. The business case is at a fairly early stage. I am conscious of the orthopaedic hospital's extraordinary record over many years. About 30 or 40 per cent. of all the orthopaedic surgeons in the country have been trained at the Stanmore hospital at one time or another. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who strongly supports the hospital, is very proud of that record." title='Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/royal-national-orthopaedic-hospital'></outline>
        <outline id='3198704' text='Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the rehabilitation services provided for the elderly. [19169]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Burns: New arrangements for national health service responsibilities for continuing health care, which includes rehabilitation and recovery services, were introduced in April 1996. Since that date, all health authorities have been required to have in place local policies and eligibility criteria for continuing health care.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Squire: Does the Minister agree that the Government have failed elderly patients by closing&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0366"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;717&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;thousands of NHS beds for the elderly and by not, in spite of what he says, providing the convalescent and recuperative care beds required to allow people to stay in hospital until they are strong enough to return to their own homes? Does he also agree that the Government have turned the care of the elderly into a competitive marketplace, and have put price and profit before decency and dignity in old age?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Burns: No, I do not agree with a word of what the hon. Lady has said, because it is totally divorced from the truth. She seems to forget that the continuing care challenge fund has provided &amp;#x00A3;16 million in the current year, and will next year provide &amp;#x00A3;20 million, plus &amp;#x00A3;40 million of matching funds from local and health authorities, including &amp;#x00A3;11 million for rehabilitation and recovery services. The gimmick that the Labour party has announced in the past month on recuperation is ridiculous. It proposes a pilot scheme costing &amp;#x00A3;500,000, which is the amount that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is giving, through the continuing care fund, to the constituency and health authority area of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). That excludes the rest of the country, which will receive the other money.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Congdon: Would not more resources be available for rehabilitation services and care in the community if local councils, especially those controlled by the Labour party, were prepared to make more use of private residential homes, rather than boost bed usage in their own homes? That costs the taxpayer a lot of money, which could be better used to provide care for more elderly people in the community.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is right. It has been shown that, on average, a place per person per week in a local authority-owned home in England costs &amp;#x00A3;40 more than a place in the private sector. It seems odd that the Labour party is so antagonistic towards getting better value for money while providing the highest quality of care for the elderly, so that more money can be saved and ploughed back into care for the elderly.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Coffey: Does the Minister accept that 9,000 NHS beds for elderly people have been lost since 1990&amp;#x2014;beds for nursing care, rehabilitation and convalescence? Are not old people in need of care simply seen as bed blockers by hospitals driven to maximise their business income? How can this Government, who have abandoned health care for old people to the market, be trusted with the NHS for a fifth term of office?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady seems to be divorced from reality. The Government&apos;s policy is being implemented day in, day out&amp;#x2014;despite the smiles of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who should realise that this is not a funny subject. Care for the elderly is at the highest level possible and record amounts of money are being spent. It is time local authorities&amp;#x2014;which are mostly Labour-controlled&amp;#x2014;started to work with health authorities in using the continuity care challenge fund money to undo the problems of bed blocking and finding proper care for the elderly, who deserve it.' title='Rehabilitation Services (Elderly People)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/rehabilitation-services-elderly-people'></outline>
        <outline id='3198705' text='Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to improve patient care in the NHS. [19171]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: Over the next five years, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pledged that we shall increase the real resources available to the national health service year on year on year on year on year. We challenge Labour to match that pledge.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Winterton: The House must warmly welcome the commitment given by the present Conservative Government to increase spending for every year of the next Parliament if they are re-elected. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just the amount of money spent on health care that is important&amp;#x2014;we spend a great deal&amp;#x2014; but the level of service provided? That service has made the United Kingdom national health service the very best in the world. The Opposition have failed to match our pledge on resources, and they would fail to deliver the best service in the world as well.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. It is not simply a pledge year on year on year on year on year through the next Parliament. It is the 18 years since 1979&amp;#x2014;I will not say it 18 times&amp;#x2014;in which the Government have increased the resources available to the NHS year on year. We have delivered a growing NHS, and a wider range of care is available to patients. More patients are being treated and better-quality care is being provided. That is the Government&apos;s record on the NHS and we are pledged to project it through the five years of the next Parliament. The problem that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has with Mr. Charlie Whelan is that the hon. Gentleman is unable to match the pledge that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given for the next five years.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Stevenson: Is the Secretary of State aware that plans for patient care at the North Staffordshire hospital trust have been brought into question by the resignation of the chief executive, Mr. Stuart Gray? The reasons for that resignation are clouded in secrecy. Will the right hon. Gentleman institute an urgent investigation into that departure in the public interest, so that the real reasons can be established?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: Changes in trust management are matters handled in the first instance by the trust&apos;s board. What the hon. Gentleman has to explain to the citizens of north Staffordshire&amp;#x2014;as all Labour Members must explain to their constituents&amp;#x2014;is how Labour can even begin to talk about support for the NHS when it is not prepared to match its words with real commitments. The Conservative party has shown real commitment in action. The last Government to cut the resources available to the national health service was the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. Health resources in 1979 were lower than in 1976. The Labour party must explain its record and explain how it turns its words into action.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the best ways of improving patient care is by increasing the number of general practices that are&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0367"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;719&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;fundholding? What does he make of the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on one day that he would abolish fundholders and on the next, to a different newspaper, that he would not? Which Mr. Smith should we believe&amp;#x2014;or do they both have &lt;i&gt;Sun&lt;/i&gt;-stroke?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dorrell: Unfortunately for Britain&apos;s patients, but fortunately for the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has since made it clear which of those policies he supports: a Labour Government would abolish fundholding. Because Labour is committed to the abolition of a scheme that has delivered real improvements to patients, the question about how to deliver real improvements to the patients of the national health service can have only one answer: re-elect a Conservative Government.' title='Patient Care' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/patient-care'></outline>
      </outline>
      <outline id='3198719' text='PRIME MINISTER'>
        <outline id='3198721' text='Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 March. [19191]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hughes: The Prime Minister yesterday made the uniquely personal decision not only to have a general election on 1 May and to dissolve Parliament on 8 April but that Parliament should be prorogued and sent away this Friday. &lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; Is it not obvious that one of the reasons for that decision and for the unprecedented gap between prorogation and dissolution is that&amp;#x2014; &lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: Order. This is so time-consuming. Come on, Mr. Hughes: spit it out.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hughes&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: Order. There is no point in waiting for silence: the hon. Gentleman will not get silence. Produce your voice, Mr. Hughes.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hughes: One of the reasons for that decision is that the Prime Minister knows that the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on cash for questions will be ready on Monday or Tuesday. That report will therefore not be seen by hon. Members in this Parliament and will be hidden until after the general election.&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: One of the reasons for making the announcement on Monday and arranging for Parliament to be prorogued on Friday was to give the hon. Gentleman time to finish his question. As for Sir Gordon&apos;s report, I have no knowledge when it will be presented.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Cranley Onslow: Following his successful visit this morning to the headquarters of the McLaren formula&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;720&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;1 team in my constituency, does my right hon. Friend agree that what counts is not who is ahead at the first corner, but who has the skill, expertise, stamina and nerve to see the race right through to the winning post?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The purpose of going to see the McLaren team was rather wider than that. I wanted to draw attention to a tremendous British success story, of which there are many. McLaren and the British motor industry have been a huge success. Of the 20-odd cars that lined up at Melbourne for the grand prix won by David Coulthard, 20 would have been built in the United Kingdom.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that a situation where two thirds of health authorities and one third of hospital trusts are in deficit to the tune of &amp;#x00A3;300 million is grave, and potentially disastrous for many parts of the national health service?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I find it odd for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about funding in the health service, since he has declined to increase funding, whereas we have given a commitment to do so. In any event, the figures that he uses are blown out of all proportion. The forecast deficit is a relatively small fraction of the national health service budget and, of course, in less than two weeks&apos; time, funding for the national health service will rise by &amp;#x00A3;1.6 billion, a multiple of the deficit to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Blair: Is the Prime Minister aware that many health authorities have deficits this year that will not be met by real-terms growth next year? To give one example, in north Essex, the deficit is &amp;#x00A3;10 million and the real-terms growth that he is promising is only &amp;#x00A3;9 million. He is not keeping the promise that he says he is making. He may believe that this is a matter of no account whatever, but is he aware that non-emergency surgery is being cancelled up and down the country, that accident and emergency departments are closing, that waiting lists are up and that there are bed and staff shortages in many parts of the national health service? Is that not a real tragedy, and disgraceful handling of the NHS?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: Some time ago, the answer to the question whether the NHS was working was set out by the shadow Foreign Secretary as whether more people were treated, and treated well. Since then, an extra 1 million people are being treated, and treated well, in the NHS. The number of consultants in accident and emergency departments has risen by 40 per cent. over the past few years. The right hon. Gentleman does not mention that. He does not mention the fact that we have committed increased resources over and above inflation to the national health service every year since 1979, and will do so throughout the period of the next Parliament. That is a record that would not have been met by any previous Government, and cannot be met by any other Government, because they would not have delivered the growth in the economy that we have achieved.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Blair: The contrast is between the Prime Minister&apos;s complacency and what people know is happening in the national health service the length and&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0368"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;721&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;breadth of this country. Is it not the case that in, the past six years, there has been an increase in administration costs of more than &amp;#x00A3;1.5 billion a year, with 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses? Is not the truth that the real challenge of the national health service is how to get money out of invoices, contractors, managers, company cars and pen-pushers and into front-line patient care so that we can rebuild the national health service that the Labour party created?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: There are elements of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say with which I would agree. That is why we support compulsory competitive tendering, which he does not support; that is why we cut a whole tier of management that he voted to keep; that is why we have cut management costs by 10 per cent., &amp;#x00A3;340 million, in the past two years. He cannot do that.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;No one is being complacent about the need to improve the health service: that is why we are providing more resources; that is why I mentioned the extra doctors in accident and emergency; that is why 1.5 million more patients are being treated, with more than 10 million more in-patients every year, 3.5 million day cases a year and 14 million out-patients a year. Health service hospitals are now dealing with 75,000 patients every day of the year&amp;#x2014;&amp;#x00A3;730 for every man, woman and child in the country, very nearly double the amount when his party left office. The Labour party may have set up the health service, but we have built it up.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sykes: When my right hon. Friend comes to choose his new Cabinet on 2 May&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; Listen to the page three boys shriek, Madam Speaker. I remember when they were shrieking in Sheffield the week before the last general election. I should like to hear them shriek after this election, every single one of them. What would my right hon. Friend say if all that he had to choose from after the election was a group of failed teachers, a bunch of ex-trade union officials, one television director and a bar steward? That is all that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has to choose from.&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I think that it would be a kindness to protect the right hon. Gentleman from ever having to make such a choice. Who is meant by the bar steward, I cannot imagine.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 March. [19192]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Wareing: How did the Prime Minister have the audacity at the weekend to tell Tory central council that his type of Conservatism aimed to help the struggling classes&amp;#x2014;the have-nots? In 18 years of Tory rule, what did his Tory party ever do for the homeless, the sick and the disabled? The Prime Minister is not only past his sell-by date, he is well beyond his use-by date. It is time he went.&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is unusually animated on this occasion, for reasons that I do not understand. I suggest that he asks the millions of council tenants who would never have become home owners but for&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;722&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;the activities of the Conservative Government or the millions of people who now have savings, shares and pensions that are owned by them rather than held by a Labour Government, as they were in the past, on their behalf. We believe that, in the late 1990s, people should have the right to personal ownership for themselves and their families, and that is what we are building. We apply that to everyone, not just middle-income earners such as the hon. Gentleman.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. French: Did my right hon. Friend see the reports at the weekend that 40,000 people took to the streets of Paris to protest against the rising tide of European unemployment? Can he explain to the House why the same thing has not happened here and what will be the quickest way of making it happen here?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I saw that, and I have also seen the trend in unemployment in many countries across Europe. The Labour party is keen that we should sign up to a 48-hour week, the minimum wage and the social chapter. Perhaps Labour Members should hear what the United States Chamber of Commerce had to say about the 48-hour week. It has just told the Irish Government:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"It is no exaggeration to say"&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;that it would be&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"the single most negative change in the last 20 years."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;We intend to continue to put people back to work, as we have done in spectacular fashion in the past 18 months. Policies such as the social chapter, the minimum wage and the 48-hour week&amp;#x2014;however glib they may sound&amp;#x2014;are a recipe for putting people out of work if they are in work and, if they are out of work, making sure that they stay out of work for a long time ahead. That is the poison pill of the Opposition&apos;s policy.' title='Engagements' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/engagements'></outline>
        <outline id='3198722' text='Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to a London NHS hospital to discuss the operation of casualty units. [19193]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: We have made an extensive investment in recent years in London&apos;s accident and emergency services as part of a &amp;#x00A3;400 million capital investment to provide the highest-quality and up-to-date facilities. I hope to have the opportunity to see some of them before too long.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Corbyn: When the Prime Minister finally gets around to visiting a casualty unit in a London hospital, what answer will he give to staff who have seen one in seven of all the acute beds in London lost, 12 of the 46 casualty units closed, huge waiting lists, people waiting on trolleys, loss of morale among staff and the recent resignation of the consultant in charge of the casualty unit at Queen Mary&apos;s University hospital, Roehampton, who left because he could no longer run it within the budget provided and did not feel that he was giving people a decent service? Is that not the reason why nobody trusts him and his Government on the future of the national health service and will accordingly vote him out?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I think that the first advice that I would give them is not to vote Labour, because they are getting more money from this Government than they would from any putative Labour Government. I would tell them that the number of consultants in A and E departments has risen dramatically by 40 per cent. I would tell them that the number of nurses appointed had risen by 21 per cent. I would tell them that more patients are being treated. I would tell them that the hon. Gentleman is living proof that old Labour lives, because, while the Labour Front Benchers are saying that they will not raise taxes, he is saying:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"What &amp;#x2026; many"&amp;#x2014;&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;including the hon. Gentleman&amp;#x2014;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;724&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"have been talking about is the need to raise taxation for the above average income people in order to pay for the rest. I see a moral justification for that and I think it is the right thing to do."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;That may be what he tells the consultants, but it is not what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) tells the consultants.' title='Casualty Units (London)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/casualty-units-london'></outline>
      </outline>
      <outline id='3198723' text='BILL PRESENTED'>
        <outline id='3198724' text='Mr. Chris Davies presented a Bill to amend section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 so as to impose a speed limit of 20 miles per hour in built-up areas: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 141].' title='ROAD TRAFFIC SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/road-traffic-speed-limit-reduction'></outline>
      </outline>
    </outline>
    <outline id='3198725' text="3.31 pm&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will ask the Secretary of State for Transport to come here this afternoon to make an urgent statement about the allegation that Great Eastern Railways administration ordered 20 train drivers to drive over the body of a young woman on the railway track. I hope that the report of that barbarism is not correct, but it should be discussed by the House of Commons.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: I had not heard of that incident, but I am not aware of a Minister coming to make a statement on such an issue today.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Nick Raynsford: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that on 27 February I requested under Standing Order No. 20 an early debate on the future of the Building Research Establishment. On 27 February, 6 March and again on 13 March&amp;#x2014;on three successive occasions at business questions&amp;#x2014;my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) repeated that request. You will be aware that, despite the Leader of the House agreeing to draw the matter to the attention of relevant Ministers, no such debate has taken place and no effort has been made by Ministers to give this House the opportunity to discuss the many crucial issues that arise from the proposed privatisation.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Yesterday, the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, in answer to a written question from the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), announced that his Department had entered into a contract to sell the Building Research Establishment. Is that not a flagrant abuse of ministerial power? Does it not demonstrate a deplorable failure to allow the House a proper opportunity to consider the matter before contracts are entered into? Would it not be right to require the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;726&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Efficiency to come to the House, make a statement and account for his actions in a matter that the House has had no opportunity to consider and debate?&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, I have no authority to require a Minister to come here to make a statement at any time. Those sitting on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks and the build-up to his point of order. No doubt they will take note of them.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that there is a digital terrestrial broadcasting application before the Independent Television Commission. One of the applicants is Mr. Murdoch. I ask for your ruling, Madam Speaker. We know of a private fund that was used to fund the Leader of the Opposition's office, although we have yet to discover who was providing that money. We also know that the Leader of the Opposition went to Australia to see Mr. Murdoch. I wonder whether that type of thing is proper, as we now know that &lt;i&gt;The Sun&lt;/i&gt; newspaper&amp;#x2014;which is owned by Mr. Murdoch&amp;#x2014;has for some reason best known to itself decided to back the Leader of the Opposition. Do we know whether a deal has been done?&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: That was rather ingenious, but it was a long way from a point of order.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Transport Select Committee was due to meet tomorrow to interrogate South West Trains&amp;#x2014;the failed southern franchise. That meeting has now been aborted, without a decision by the Committee. Although we have not had a full business statement, I think that we should be entitled to the protection of the Chair and the House in ensuring that a hearing which is very important to people in 100 southern constituencies is not aborted for political reasons&amp;#x2014;to minimise the Tory party's acute embarrassment on rail privatization.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, that is not a matter for the Speaker; it is entirely at the discretion of the Chairman of the Select Committee." title='Points of Order' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/points-of-order'></outline>
    <outline id='3198726' text='3.35 pm&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tim Devlin: I beg to move,&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the clear marking of a number or name on every dwelling and to make provision for standard sizes for all new letter boxes.&lt;/quote&gt;&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Not so long ago, I found myself in a street in Merseyside. The road name-plate had been removed by some helpful person, and eight out of the 10 houses in that road had no number visible on any part of the property. The two numbers that were on display&amp;#x2014; numbers one and eight&amp;#x2014;were in a cul-de-sac, and the numbers could therefore have been displayed either consecutively or as odds and evens. In the coming weeks, thousands of people delivering millions of items will be able to savour the frustrations that postmen suffer daily. They will learn about the amazing ability of Englishmen in their castles, Scots in their keeps and Welshmen in their valleys to conceal from the outside world exactly where they live.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Personally, I love the individuality and eccentricity of the British character and the humour of calling the canal-side cottage "Riversley house" or the upstairs maisonette "Homlea", "Dunrovin" or even "Dun Inn". I like the ancient names of Rookery Nook, Falcons Crest, Hatters End and Mon Repos. In my constituency, there are names such as Corail de Neige, Shiehallion, Ryedale and Far End cottage. I live next to a house called Stingamires, and, in a street in Stockton-on-Tees, I have seen "Hers n Mine". However, I think that the best name is one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), in Burneston road, called "This&apos;ll Do".&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Some houses have a name as well as a number, but some have only names. Most of my constituency is urban. Moreover, most of the urban growth in Stockton-on-Tees is in my constituency. In many cases, houses have names and numbers, although the name but not the number is prominently on display. Although none of us wants to be treated as a number, if the proper address is a number, it would be better for the convenience of others if it were on display. Many people go looking for individuals at their addresses to ask them questions or to see them for many good reasons, only to find that the house is unmarked. I understand that Michael Levy, who funds the Leader of the Opposition&apos;s blind trust, lives in a house that has no name and no number. I shall leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions from that.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;There is a fantastic variety of letter boxes in the United Kingdom, and&amp;#x2014;as we shall discovering in the next few weeks&amp;#x2014;they come in all shapes and sizes. There is the tiny vertical letter box, in which only very small cards will fit. There is also the famous horizontal flap, which comes in many sizes and varieties, such as the spring-loaded type. Others include those located at the door base, the rear-flap variety, the one with the front sub-flap and&amp;#x2014;perhaps the one that we all hate the most&amp;#x2014;the type with the brushes and the dog behind it, ready to take our fingers off when we try to push some mail through the brushes.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Worst of all, I suppose, are the houses with no bells, no knockers and sometimes even no doors. As we all become increasingly aware of energy efficiency, and as more people succumb to the amazing offers of double glazing&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;728&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;salesmen, the situation seems to go from bad to worse. Every day we find some new type of devilment apparently designed to catch fingers, crunch letters and generally offer cruel and unusual punishment to the deliverer.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Given the amount of junk mail that some people receive, I can readily understand the desire to maim or frustrate the sender, but all too often it is the messenger or postman, not the sender, who pays the price.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Let us find a practical new way of designing doors and property fronts so that deliveries can be made easily and conveniently. I notice that, in France, since the time of Napoleon every separate dwelling has had to have a number clearly on display. In the United States, every house has to have a number and a registered size of post box. Let us therefore mark each house so that not just the Member of Parliament but the emergency services, the doctor, the gas or water company and others can find it in a hurry&amp;#x2014;and so that everyone gets his own junk mail, not someone else&apos;s.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;This Bill will not become law, but it will serve to highlight a problem that we vow to solve at every general election. It would provide that every separate dwelling be clearly marked with a name or number at the principal entrance, and that an adequate or separate delivery opening be provided as well. It would be phased in over five years, so that by the year 2002 the postman&apos;s lot will be a happy one.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Before long the European Union will turn its attention to this amazing diversity and, as with so many other things, it will seek to end that diversity by regulation. The time to act has therefore come. Our legislators are about to spend the next six weeks hunting for numbers and door bells&amp;#x2014;sometimes even for doors&amp;#x2014;and certainly for letter boxes. Let us all consider during this time the size and shape of the letter box to take us into the new millennium. Even though in 50 years&apos; time all our important mail may be electronic, there will still be a market for tangible leaflets, magazines, and papers that can be picked up, pored over, carried about and shown to others. How they will be delivered to a nation in which an ever increasing number of people have double glazing I do not know.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Let us leap in before Europe does and design a great British letter box as distinct as the K3 telephone box, the Brigade of Guards and the policeman&apos;s helmet. The time to act is now, and I place this Bill before the House in a spirit of good will before the general election begins.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;Question put and agreed to&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Devlin: I will, Madam Speaker, this not being a Bill that most Conservatives would wish to sign up to.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tim Devlin.' title='House Numbering and Home Delivery' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/house-numbering-and-home-delivery'></outline>
    <outline id='3198727' text='Mr. Tim Devlin accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the clear marking of a number or name on every dwelling and to make provision for standard sizes for all new letter boxes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 142].' title='HOUSE NUMBERING AND HOME DELIVER' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/house-numbering-and-home-deliver'></outline>
    <outline id='3198728' text='Orders of the Day'>
      <outline id='3198729' text='&lt;i&gt;As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered&lt;/i&gt;' title='Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [Lords]' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/transfer-of-crofting-estates-scotland'></outline>
      <outline id='3198730' text='BURDENS ON CROFTING PROPERTY TO BE DISPOSED OF&lt;br/&gt;&apos;.&amp;#x2014;Before any disposal under section 1(1) above, the Secretary of State shall publish in respect of each such crofting property a list of those burdens that shall remain with the Secretary of State after such disposal.&apos;.&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Mr. McFall.]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;Brought up, and read the First time&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;br/&gt;3.43 pm&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It is gratifying to see that the same applies to the Government&apos;s 10-minute rule Bills as applies to their manifesto: not many Members of Parliament want to sign up to it.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State would publish, in respect of each crofting property to be transferred, a list of burdens that would remain with the Secretary of State after disposal.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We have had a good debate, both in Scotland and in Committee, on various issues associated with the Bill. At this stage, little differentiates us from the Government in terms of the principle of the Bill, but there remains a difference in approach, especially with regard to properties transferred to crofters. Crofters feel that they could be burdened by responsibilities that may not be evident at the time of the transfer. With that in mind, we wish to push the Minister on crofting property burdens.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We are also aware that publicly owned crofts cost the public purse some &amp;#x00A3;205,000 a year to maintain. A cynical view is that the Government are disposing of those crofts to save the Treasury money, so individuals may find themselves in a vulnerable position at a later date. Personally, I do not take that view, but it is important to place such issues on the face of the Bill so that crofters feel that they can take the Government at their word and can undertake the transfer of responsibilities with a clear conscience, without feeling that they may be burdened financially.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I have mentioned to the Minister in the past the type of burdens for which crofters would feel responsible&amp;#x2014;for example, a flood or landslip. Although a crofting trust has been established in all good will on the basis of viability at that time, it could find itself faced with an intolerable burden that would drive it out of viability. No one wants that to happen. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want the crofters to take responsibility, and personal choice is extremely important in that respect.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It would be helpful if the matter could be debated a little more and if the Minister could give further reassurance about the Secretary of State&apos;s responsibility now and in the future.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robert Maclennan: I rise briefly to support the new clause. Considerable concern has been expressed, principally by the Scottish&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;730&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Crofters Union, about the burdens that are currently discharged in respect of the infrastructural underpinning of crofting estates owned by the Secretary of State, which may, both inadvertently and in some cases even deliberately, adhere to the trust if it acquires the property.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Any transaction should be transparent, and the crofting community should be fully aware of it before embarking on such a development. The new clause seems to achieve that purpose admirably.&lt;br/&gt;The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): It is a sign of the times that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) cannot even speak on a Bill that has all-party support without an hon. Member from his leader&apos;s office sitting by his side reminding him what to say.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The new clause is unnecessary. Both I and my noble Friend in another place have made it clear that the Secretary of State would transfer those maintenance and repair responsibilities that go with the normal management of a crofting property transferred to a crofting trust. As I said in Committee, there would be no question of transferring responsibility for what have been termed "community assets". We explained that the best way to identify those assets that provide a broader community benefit is in individual discussion between crofting trusts and the Secretary of State. Once agreement was reached, we would be happy to make known publicly those burdens for which responsibility would remain with the Secretary of State for Scotland. We see no benefit in publishing such a list before agreement had been reached with the crofting trust, as that might give the trust the impression that my noble Friend&apos;s Department had already made its final decision on what it would and would not transfer.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The purpose of discussions would be to ensure that both parties were content. If a trust was not content with the burdens that the Department proposed to transfer, there would be no obligation on it to agree to the transfer of property&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Charles Kennedy: I apologise to the Minister for missing his opening remarks. Will he confirm that, in the event of a trust proposal being considered, the crofting trust advisory service would call in consultants to provide an independent assessment of the pros and cons? Presumably, therefore, there could be a degree of reassurance that potential burdens would be part of the analysis that the consultants would carry out.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: That assurance was given to the Committee, but I recognise that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of it. I reiterate the other reassurances that the Government have given: there is no intention to transfer the responsibility for community assets to crofting trusts, nor is there any intention to burden trusts in such a way as to jeopardise their financial viability. I have made it clear that the Secretary of State would be content to publish details of the burdens that will remain the responsibility of the Scottish Office after agreement had been reached with the relevant trust.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0373"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;731&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;In the light of that undertaking and the assurances that my noble Friend and I have given elsewhere, I invite the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to withdraw the motion.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn&lt;/i&gt;.' title='New clause 1' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/new-clause-1'></outline>
    </outline>
    <outline id='3198731' text='Clause 1'>
      <outline id='3198732' text='Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 27, leave out &apos;may&apos; and insert &apos;shall&apos;.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Amendment No. 1 ensures that all the mineral, sporting and other rights will be transferred with the property. As mentioned previously, the Scottish Office runs the crofts at a net annual loss of more than &amp;#x00A3;200,000. It is considered that those rights offer many crofts the only potential route to profitability. Without the transfer of those rights, the transfer of many crofts would not be viable.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I am aware that the Government want flexibility in that regard, but reassurance is required by the crofters, and we want it to be given in the Bill. The amendment goes some way towards assisting that process.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Bill is still less than clear on the approach that the Secretary of State would take on the financial basis of transfer. There still exists a lack of clarity with respect to the land itself and, more importantly, with respect to the sporting, mineral and other rights. There is an apparent lack of balance with regard to the rights that the Secretary of State may transfer, and the burdens that would automatically transfer with the land. We seek to reassure those who would take part in the scheme that their crofts and trusts will be viable.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Maclennan: One of the least satisfactory aspects of crofting tenure in the highlands is the separation of sporting rights, mineral rights and certain other normal rights of ownership from the landholding enjoyed by crofters, which for many years has deprived them of the greatest potential of the land for earning a living.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The difficulty has been compounded by the absence of an authoritative register showing where such rights lie in respect of all crofting territory. That is particularly surprising in respect of crofts owned by the Secretary of State. The position seems to vary considerably. In respect of some, there are pre-emptive rights which might re-arise in the event of the Secretary of State deciding to dispose of property.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Most crofters, I believe, would regard it as desirable for the trust to have the full rights of ownership, including those valuable rights. That was certainly the consideration in the minds of the Assynt crofters when they acquired the North Assynt estate. The sporting rights are a considerable part of that asset, offering perhaps the greatest prospect of development in that estate, which has a considerable number of trout lochs.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It is slightly odd that the Secretary of State did not make it clearer when drafting the Bill that it was his intention to dispose of those rights to such crofting trusts. If he says that he cannot give that assurance because the rights may belong elsewhere, I would have to accept that,&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;732&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;but, in respect of interests that the Secretary of State holds, there is no good reason why he should retain sporting, mineral or any other rights if he proposes to dispose of a crofting estate. I hope that the Secretary of State&apos;s representative in the House this afternoon may say that it is the firm intention of the present Secretary of State to dispose of mineral, sporting and other rights where they are in the Secretary of State&apos;s ownership, but it would be of interest also to know how the Secretary of State would propose to deal with those cases where such rights may be held elsewhere.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Brian Wilson: I will make a brief contribution.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;This is an essential amendment in relation to the viability of crofting estates that will be transferred under the Bill. Frankly, I am much less interested in the Bill than in the precedent that it sets for future legislation, which will allow the same right of purchase on a communal basis of privately owned crofting estates. However, the whole history of crofting and estates and the weakness of crofting legislation is that it permits the divorce of crofting communities from the assets that should sustain those communities and make them viable.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In many parts of the highlands and islands of Scotland, we have an absurdity and the reinforcement of a historic wrong, where crofting communities were driven to the edges of the land, living on small areas of land, but were cut off from the vast acreages that lay behind and by that land. Although they have grazing rights on that land, they do not hold sporting or mineral rights and they do not have the ownership of the rivers that flow through that land.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;That is nonsense. It has always meant that the communities, which were given security of tenure under the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, were never given the potential wealth that went with that tenure, so people have been allowed to remain on the land on a marginal basis, but have never had the opportunity to develop the full economic potential of their communities.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;All that will happen here is that, unless the main assets of these communities are transferred with the estates, that marginality will be perpetuated. It would be absurd and no one would take it seriously in any other context if the Government, in all their munificence, who have been trying&amp;#x2014;let us be honest about this; there is nothing generous about the Bill&amp;#x2014;to get these estates off their hands since the early 1980s, after Mr. Edward du Cann&apos;s Public Accounts Committee reported on the DAFS&amp;#x2014;Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland&amp;#x2014;estates, did not accept the amendment. Nothing would be achieved if the estates transferred without their primary assets.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Therefore, the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is essential, even as a gesture of good will on the part of the Minister, but, as I have said, this is only the appetiser. It has got the subject up and running. The problem for the Secretary of State and the Minister is the assertion that communities have the right to own their own land on a communal basis if, by historical accident, the land happens to be owned by the Secretary of State. However, the equivalent community next door has no such right to own its own land and manage its own affairs if another form of historical accident has visited on it the most vicious and&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0374"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;733&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;rapacious landowner in the highlands and islands. That anomaly cannot and will not be sustained, but let us get the precedent right.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;These are the dying days of this Parliament. I have no idea to what extent the Bill will be used. If it is used, crofting communities that buy their land must have the right to own all the assets of that land. We should end once and for all the ludicrous separation between the right of tenure and the ownership by others of all economically worthwhile aspects of the land.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;4 pm&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;On many occasions, the Secretary of State, as crofting landlord, has been prepared to sell to the highest bidder the sporting rights on a crofting estate. That has not been a sign of good will towards crofting communities. If the Bill goes through in its present form, there will be nothing to stop the Secretary of State continuing to let off the salmon fishing and shooting rights and to sub-let the mineral rights to parties other than the communities that have nominally taken over the estates. If that anomaly is not ended by the Bill, it will be done by a future Bill covering not only publicly owned crofting estates, but privately owned ones.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, the Bill gives the Government the flexibility to address the circumstances of each proposal for a trust on a case-by-case basis. Surely that is right. Ownership of sporting rights runs with the land, although it may be let to other parties. Sporting rights will therefore be transferred automatically.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Bill would not prevent the Secretary of State from transferring mineral rights at the outset or in future. We would welcome trusts wishing to acquire mineral rights. When a trust wished to acquire the rights, the public interest would normally require that a valuation be agreed and a charge negotiated.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Secretary of State holds mineral rights over 27 of his 53 crofting estates. The total annual income from those rights is currently in the region of only &amp;#x00A3;17,000. In many cases, therefore, the appropriate charge for the freehold transfer of mineral rights would be modest.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Our presumption is that mineral rights would, when possible, be included in a transfer of assets to a new crofting trust. If a prospective trust is not initially able or willing to assume the relevant mineral rights, we propose that it should be able to benefit from the income while the Scottish Office retains the mineral rights. Such an arrangement offers flexibility to address each case and the aspirations of each crofting trust. Whatever arrangements are agreed must be fair to the trust and the public purse, from where the money to acquire the estates and support them over the past decades came.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;With that assurance, I ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton to withdraw the amendment.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;Amendment, by leave, withdrawn&lt;/i&gt;.' title='DISPOSAL OF CROFTING PROPERTY' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/18/disposal-of-crofting-property'></outline>
    </outline>
    <outline id='3198733' text='Clause 2'>
      <outline id='3198734' text='Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 15, leave out &apos;persons&apos; and insert &apos;the community&apos;.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Minister is aware of the debate that we had on this is Committee, when the terms "persons" and "community" featured heavily. He said in Committee that the Crofters Commission would take account of local community development when preparing advice to the Secretary of State on the general interests of the crofting community, which it is required to consider, or any other matter that it thinks relevant. On that basis, he suggested that the amendment tabled in Committee was unnecessary.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In addition, the Minister suggested that the term "local community" was uncertain, and could include more than just the residents and the property to be disposed of. That is the point of the amendment.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The wider community interests require to be recognised for simple reasons. As others have stated, those concerned with policy innovation in the highlands and islands know that support, confidence and agreement do not come easily. It is therefore important that the Bill contains a trigger mechanism which will ensure that a transfer takes place only where there is demonstrable local support for it.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Our view is that the Bill is too narrowly drawn and that the interests of the wider community are not taken into sufficient consideration. Indeed, the Scottish Crofters Union expressed its concern to me yesterday and this morning. It points to the fact that a strict legal interpretation suggests that people living on certain areas of land may not reside on original crofting property. In legal terms, a body will acquire the land-owning interest over a piece of property. That interest carries with it certain burdens, such as march fencing, as well as certain rights to sanction development of a non-agricultural nature or forestry, and the right to resume land for a reasonable purpose such as development. Other rights, such as sporting and mineral rights over the property, may also be transferred.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The wider community interest needs to be taken into consideration. If, for example, development takes place, the environmental interests and local economic interests should be high up the agenda. Those interests are protected by local planning authorities and statutory bodies, and those bodies have a set of procedures that aim to gather the views of parties affected by possible decisions. Any individual or township can have an input in the consultative process.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Scottish Crofters Union recognises that the danger is that rights in land for people who are not resident in the property could undermine crofting development yet, by the same token, it considers it perfectly reasonable that the wider community should be considered when non-crofting developments are being contemplated. At present, it is more common for the wider community interest to be dealt with through wider legislative mechanisms. If, for example, development takes place, planning legislation provides for the wider community&apos;s input, as do elements of the criminal law, such as laws dealing with nuisance.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0375"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;735&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;The principle, with which the Scottish Crofters Union agrees, is that the wider community should have greater involvement in any wider development initiatives. It believes that that can best be dealt with through the articles and memoranda of association of any body acquiring property. It is in the interests of that wider involvement that we ask the Minister to focus his attention on the point. Support from communities is essential if the Bill is to achieve its worthy aims.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Maclennan: I too have heard from Dr. Fraser Macleod, the director of the Scottish Crofters Union, in terms similar to those described by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). In our discussion in Committee about the appropriateness or otherwise of the words&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"the interests of persons residing on such property"&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;I was anxious to focus on the apparent restrictions of the use of the word "persons". I preferred the use of the words "the people". It seemed possible that "persons" could be a small number, not necessarily the majority of those who constituted the crofting community. Although I had no doubt that that was not the intention of the legislation, I had and still have concerns that the use of the word "persons" does not sufficiently embrace the interests of all those residing on the crofting estate.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I believe that the words "the community" suggested by the hon. Member for Dumbarton in place of the word "persons" attempts to meet my point and another point, which is the one on which the Scottish Crofters Union has focused&amp;#x2014;the desirability of the crofting trust having in mind in its establishment the promotion of the interests not just of crofters resident on the land being transferred but of their neighbours in the development of the crofting land.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I take the point made by the Scottish Crofters Union that, strictly legally defined, crofting communities are those associated with crofting land. I remain concerned about the use of the word "persons" for the reasons that I have given, but understand why the Scottish Crofters Union takes the view that to speak of wider community interests would potentially impose on crofters a duty to take into account considerations of those who are not, stricto senso, of that crofting community, and might impose on them burdens such as the construction of fences or other burdens that should not adhere to them as a result of acquiring the land.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The underlying purpose of clause 2 to ensure that the transfer of land from the Secretary of State to the trust considers the wider interests of all those living in the area remains unsatisfactorily spelled out. The Scottish Crofters Union is clear that that is a purpose of the clause, and I am clear that it ought to be a purpose, but it is not spelled out, and I regret that.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Lest there be any question of inadvertently imposing new burdens on crofters through "the community" being in place of "persons" in the Bill, I however incline to the view that my original wording was to be preferred. At this stage, I think that we shall have to wait and see how the provision works in practice. As there is some ambiguity in what is meant by "persons", there is however a great deal of virtue in the Minister putting firmly on the record his judgment of the intention. If the courts are called on to adjudge the matter, the words will be weighed with considerable care.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: We believe that the amendment may risk jeopardising the ability of some&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;736&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;crofters to establish crofting trusts. I know that that is not what the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) would wish.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Any requirement that a crofting trust represent a community may be interpreted to require that a community be shown to exist on the relevant property. Decisions of the Scottish land court have found that scattered crofts can be deemed not to form a community. It is therefore possible that crofters in the eastern highlands, where there are no common grazings and crofts are often some distance apart, may be frustrated in attempts to establish trusts if they cannot demonstrate that a community exists on their scattered holdings. The amendment could therefore remove from some crofters the ability to establish a trust, which is contrary to the Bill&apos;s principle.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Where a community can be shown to exist, our advice is that the terms "the community" and "persons" have no legal difference, and that in this context, the amendment is unnecessary. I invite the hon. Member for Dumbarton to withdraw the amendment.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. McFall: Although the Scottish Crofters Union does not hold the same view as the Minister on the point, I recognise the validity of his statement. The issue of the wider context still divides us a little, but in the light of his assurance and his very reasonable response&amp;#x2014;perhaps for the first time, which is very important at the end of this Parliament&amp;#x2014;I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;Amendment, by leave, withdrawn&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;Order for Third Reading read&lt;/i&gt;.&amp;#x2014;[&lt;i&gt;Queen&apos;s consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified&lt;/i&gt;.]&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;Motion made, and Question proposed&lt;/i&gt;, That the Bill be now read the Third time&amp;#x2014;[&lt;i&gt;Mr. Raymond S. Robertson&lt;/i&gt;.]&lt;br/&gt;4.14 pm&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Maclennan: The importance of the Bill is not to be measured by its length or the fact that it is reaching its concluding stages at a time when the eyes of the public are diverted from the House to the political battle elsewhere. This is a significant little Bill. It was conceived in haste by the Secretary of State, notwithstanding the history&amp;#x2014;to which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred&amp;#x2014;of the report by the Public Accounts Committee, when it was chaired by Mr. Edward du Cann.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The evidence for my belief that the Bill was conceived in haste is that the Secretary of State seemed to be unaware of the extent of the obligations contained in the Bill. The earlier debates on the Bill showed much uncertainty about whether the Government were prepared to contemplate the transfer of the sporting and mineral rights with the crofting rights. Today, we have heard a helpful defining statement from the Government on that issue, which marks a development in their thinking.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Bill has also been given a considerable fillip by the success of the Assynt Crofters Trust, which took a private initiative to acquire the north Assynt estate near Lochinver in my constituency in the early years of this Parliament. That initiative showed how crofters, coming together in a community to acquire the ownership of an estate, could help to benefit their own interests and those of the wider community, economically and socially. That precedent may start a landslide in due course.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0376"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;737&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;The benefits of common acquisition by crofters of a sporting estate have been seen in north Assynt and further north in Sutherland, where the Talmine estate is being similarly transferred to the crofters on the initiative of the proprietor. That estate is in the neighbourhood of Melness, one of the remaining Gaelic communities in Sutherland, and the transfer is a welcome development. Other inquiries and initiatives have followed the north Assynt acquisition, and the Bill will play a useful part in changing attitudes and improving the prospects of crofters in the highlands.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It is clear that many holdings have better prospects of viable development if they are managed by the crofters, in their interest. Most crofters believe that the Secretary of State has been a good landlord, but the appurtenances of ownership in today&apos;s world&amp;#x2014;with the possibility of raising further finances on the security of an estate, or coming together to develop assets that cannot be developed in isolation&amp;#x2014;offer real advantages in certain areas.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In discussions earlier in our proceedings on the Bill, I have been at pains to ensure, most importantly, that transfers of ownership from the Secretary of State would take place only when there was an absolutely clear view within the community that they would be in the interests of the crofters. There should be no question of this becoming simply a way of disembarrassing the Secretary of State of a loss-making concern. The Minister has made it clear that that is not the Government&apos;s intention.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It is also important that, when the Crofters Commission, under clause 2, carries out tests of opinion so as to advise the Secretary of State whether it is in the interests of the crofting community that the transaction should take place, the tests should be completely transparent, deliberate, open and well considered by all affected.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It is satisfactory that the Crofters Commission has said that that would be its intention, although it has not yet defined what it would regard as a significant majority, or said whether it would wish to establish opinion by means of a secret ballot, and whether absentee crofters should be consulted. All those are significant matters that could affect the judgment whether the Crofters Commission has properly discharged its function of determining the will of the people affected.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I would be happier if those details had been given before the Bill reached its concluding phases in the House. It seems to me that a secret ballot is a desirable mode of determining the view of the community. I distrust opinions expressed at a single public meeting, with hands either raised or not raised. There is no doubt that, in many communities, there are people who have a dominant influence on opinion, and that others with as much right to be heard may feel less able to be forthright in expressing their views.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I do not think that a decision of such importance should be arrived at without the kind of deliberative approach that I have recommended from the beginning. Such a step would bring the process of transfer into disrepute, which would not be in accordance with the wishes either of the Secretary of State or of Parliament.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;A great trust is being given to the Crofters Commission&amp;#x2014;to act as the principal adviser. In the past, the commission has had a quasi-judicial role, often&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;738&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;considering the interests of particular individuals and determining matters such as what to do about a particular crofter&apos;s rights in a common grazing, but I do not believe that any equivalent power has been given to it before.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Although the commission&apos;s role will be only advisory, it could turn out to be the critical role. It is hard to believe that its advice would be rejected by the Secretary of State. I therefore go firmly on the record as saying that I hope that the Crofters Commission will weigh its decisions in such matters with great care, and in no case rush to judgment.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I do not believe that the Bill need be the prelude to a rapid transfer of title. The initiative ought to come from the communities themselves. As the burdens of ownership are not to be ignored, they will approach the matter with great caution.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I conclude by expressing satisfaction that one of the last matters to come before this Parliament is the consideration of how best to assist the development of these estates, for they lie at the heart of the highland community. Their well-being remains key to the future of parts of our loved country, which is close to the hearts of all who represent it.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Wilson: The best that can be said of the Bill is that it is harmless. That cannot be said of much of the legislation that goes through the House, so I regard it as something of an achievement. A few small victories have been won in the Government&apos;s lifetime against the onward march of privatisation. It is a cause of satisfaction to some of us that two such measures have been in the highlands and islands context. Caledonian MacBrayne remains firmly in the public sector, in spite of three efforts by the Tories to flog it off, as do the highlands and islands estates of the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I well remember that the initial ploy was to privatisation the estates, to sell them on the open market, and to leave it to the fate of that market to decide who ended up owning the estates that were held in trust by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That was repelled. The current Secretary of State returned with other proposals, which are embodied in the Bill.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The crucial element of the Bill is the lack of compulsion. The estates will be sold only if the people who live on them want them to be sold, and they can be sold only to the local community. Those two advances are vast, and they transform the nature of the legislation compared with the original concept in the 1980s. The first comfort is that there is no compulsion, and the second is that there will be no Tories to carry through the legislation. Even in its much muted form, this legislation would be dangerous in the wrong hands. It would be possible for the element of pressure, if not the element of compulsion, to return.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The general rule of thumb for land legislation in the highlands and islands is summed up in the old saying, "The law favours the landlords, because the landlords made the law." That has literally been true for most of Parliament&apos;s history, particularly in the other place. However, during one period in its history, that was not the dominant theme. From the 1880s to the 1920s, Governments of all persuasions were compelled to listen to the voices of the people instead of to the voices of the landlords, because of the pressure for land and the pressure from people who were without land.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0377"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;739&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;When we hear rubbish such as that spouted by the Secretary of State in Stornoway a couple of weeks ago about the sacred rights of property, it is worth noting that the crofting system is probably the biggest incursion into the rights of private property for which the House has ever legislated. To an enormous extent, crofting law removed the rights of private landowners, removed the market-led approach to the ownership of land in the highlands, and certainly removed the right of landowners to act capriciously towards tenants whom they had previously evicted at free will and subjected to various other indignities.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The crofting laws changed all that, and did so in response to the pressures from the people who lived on the land. Crofting laws were by no means perfect, for some of the reasons to which I alluded earlier&amp;#x2014;for instance, they left sporting and mineral rights outside the rights of communities, and large areas of the highlands and islands are not subject to them.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We are dealing with estates owned by the Secretary of State on behalf of the nation and, in debating a Bill dealing specifically with these lands, it would be amiss not to recognise that the only reason the lands are in common ownership today is that landless ex-service men&amp;#x2014;many of whom were returning from the first world war&amp;#x2014;were prepared to struggle, to fight and to demand the right to remain on the land, and were not prepared to be driven off to the four winds at the whim of any landlord. It is because they took that stand that the state was obliged to intervene to acquire land in areas where there was great congestion and great demand, but where land was in the ownership of people whose sole interest was to clear as many people as possible from it and to use it for private economic and sporting interests.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It is because ordinary people in the communities stood up to be counted, often physically resisting the forces of landlordism, that the state was obliged to intervene and to bring the estates into public ownership. That is why we have Scottish Office-owned estates to discuss today&amp;#x2014;because, in the early part of this century, men and women alike were prepared to go to gaol, to physically resist and to say that the rights of common people were greater than the rights of any landowner or Government.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I salute today the people whose struggles created the publicly owned estates in the highlands and islands, and allowed succeeding generations to live on those lands. The only reason there are healthy and lively communities in the crofting areas of Scotland today is that that struggle was engaged in and those rights secured.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;One of the problems was that the crofting laws did not cover the whole of the highlands and islands. One score that I would like to see settled while I am still in this House is the omission of the island of Arran from the crofting laws. It is a particular irony that today we have two Ministers on the Front Bench&amp;#x2014;one by the name of Robertson, and the other by the name of Douglas-Hamilton.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;When the crofting laws were introduced in 1886, they included the county of Bute, which at that time included the island of Arran. The only reason why Arran was taken out of the protection of the crofting laws was that there was a Tory Member of Parliament for Bute at that time named Robertson and a landowner&amp;#x2014;who needs no introduction to the Minister of State&amp;#x2014;called the Duke of&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;740&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Hamilton. Each of them used his lobbying power in this Chamber and in another place to get Arran excluded from the crofting laws.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The result of that successful piece of vested interest was that, instead of coming within the crofting system&amp;#x2014;in which case, it would be a different community today&amp;#x2014;Arran was excluded. Right down to the present day, Arran is run on a feudal basis by some of the most unpleasant and interventionist landlords in Scotland, who constantly use the powers open to them to extract money and to implement feudal power against the people who live on the island.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;What a wonderful thing it would be if at least those who are renting on the island of Arran under the smallholders legislation were to be given the status of crofters and the protection of crofting tenancy. The same argument applies in parts of the constituency of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), where people are rented under the legislation. They are crofters in all but name, but they do not have the protection of the crofting laws. That is one of the elements that will be contained in real crofting reform legislation in the future.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;This is only the start. The Secretary of State thought he could pull a publicity stunt by saying that he was addressing the highland land question. What an unlikely thing for a Tory to do&amp;#x2014;giving crofters the right to buy their own land.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The legislation does not begin to nibble at the highland land question, because it deals only with the publicly owned estates, while the abuses in the highlands and islands take place in the privately owned estates. Once the principle is established that communities can buy their land on a communal basis from the landowner&amp;#x2014;presumably at 15 times the rental value&amp;#x2014;no legitimate argument separates publicly owned from privately owned crofting land.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The challenge is to introduce genuine crofting reform legislation as soon as possible, to bring all crofting land under a pan-highlands and islands crofting trust, to extend the area under crofting tenure, to give people the wonderful protection that was created under the Crofters Holdings Act 1886 and to give them all the resources of their own community. That is the way in which to transform the social and economic base of the remoter parts of the highlands and islands.&lt;br/&gt;4.36 pm&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have been looking at the &lt;i&gt;Hansard&lt;/i&gt; report of Second Reading, which took place at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Montrose on 17 February. Here we are today, on 18 March, which goes to show that, where there is a will, and a legislative opportunity, a way can be found to address matters relating to crofting and the crofting counties. Perhaps this sets a useful benchmark for the future in terms of the additional legislation of which many of us would be in favour. The generally supportive spirit in which the legislation has progressed has been notable and welcome.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Bill itself, however, remains permissive rather than prescriptive, and while that may be the best way in which to structure the legislation, it leaves a lot unsaid, albeit deliberately so. We have had various clarifications&amp;#x2014;we had a few more this afternoon in response to questioning by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)&amp;#x2014;about intent and the meaning of words, but such intent and interpretation do not appear in the Bill.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0378"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;741&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;I strongly underscore my hon. Friend&apos;s point, that it will be absolutely crucial, for the practical implementation of the Bill, when individual applications appear before the putative crofting trust, whatever shape that may take, that the quality of analysis carried out by the Crofters Commission, and the transparency of the advice given to the Secretary of State of the day, should carry the confidence of the local communities.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;My hon. Friend referred to one obvious shortfall being the lack of detail on what constitutes a majority, and how it is to be weighed and recorded. A straight numerical majority, even if one could agree on what constitutes the electorate&amp;#x2014;does one count the absentee crofters, for example?&amp;#x2014;would not be a basis on which a crofting trust application could proceed. A 51 to 49 per cent. division of opinion would be absolutely disastrous, and in those circumstances I would be flabbergasted if the commission were to recommend approval.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Equally, in considering the division of opinion in any crofting trust community, it would be right to take into account the age profile of those for and against, because of the longer-term implications. One would also have to take cognisance of the fact that in the longer term, once trust status has been achieved, considerations may arise from the bit-by-bit disposal by the trust itself of some parts of the trust lands.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Assynt has been somewhat of a trail-blazer in that respect: it has disposed of some extremely small marginal bits that have not affected the nature or critical mass of its trust; but suppose some future trust got into financial difficulties because of some of the burdens that it had inherited, and started to realise commercially some of its property&amp;#x2014;assuming that that was allowable under the deeds drawn up when trust status was achieved&amp;#x2014;on the open market. Those factors could have far-reaching long-term effects.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In approving this permissive legislation, we are right to place it on record that the devil will be in the detail. It will be important for Members who represent highlands and islands constituencies and the crofting counties generally, as well as the commission, to keep a close eye on applications. We must remember the Scottish Crofters Union&apos;s original submission to the Government&apos;s consultation paper, which said that the one thing of which we can all be certain is that there is no simple or single solution. It is right that the legislation should be permissive in recognising that reality, but hon. Members must lay down markers for the future.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;This legislative event is significant and must be seen in tandem with the discussions and decisions at the last meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention in Stornoway. The Secretary of State has agreed to set up a working group to consider the wider issues of land reform in the highlands.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;An important decision in the other place was reached as a result of a test case over feudal rights and pre-emption rights, involving representatives of the then district councils of Moray and of Ross and Cromarty. One of those events has already had a significant legal impact, which will in due course affect the Bill. The other, depending on future meetings of the convention, could have a significant impact on future legislation.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;742&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Now that the issue is up and running legislatively, and in terms of the national debate and of political and parliamentary discussion, I hope that there will be windows of opportunity for further legislation. However, such legislation would be more likely to receive an earlier and more open window, as well as a more sensitive and informed discussion, if it were conducted in a legislative body in Edinburgh rather than in Westminster. The matter would be an early candidate for legislative priority if, after the general election, we achieve a Scottish Parliament. I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but we have much further to go.&lt;br/&gt;4.41 pm&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I will be brief. I spoke on this subject in the Scottish Grand Committee in Montrose, but I did not serve on the Standing Committee, because of other commitments.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Benches are hardly packed; some might ask where the passion is. I assure hon. Members that nothing arouses greater passions in the highlands and islands of Scotland than land use and ownership. Many hon. Members could recite words from folk songs and poems about the people who were condemned by the black-faced ram and the factor&apos;s fire-raiser. After the highland clearances, there had to be radical reforms to enable people to come back to the highlands and islands. Those are the historical roots of the issue.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I welcome the Bill generally, but, like the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), I think that it is permissive, and that we have to look beyond that. From examining the legislation and reading the comments made both in Committee and elsewhere, it seems that many legal niceties will emerge. It will be like the planning permission arguments that hon. Members often experience, where some people want one attitude to be taken, but others feel that it is wrong. It is a minefield.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;When I wrote to the Minister of State, he replied that he did not think that it was a lost opportunity. I think it is, because we could have addressed the argument about the feudal system in the highlands and islands. As has been said, the former councils of Moray and of Ross and Cromarty did much work in trying to resolve some of the difficulties, and a concession was eventually made. Beyond that, the issue of feudal superiority will still apply to many people.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Whoever is in power after the general election, we should take account of what was said at the Highlands and Islands Convention in Stornoway. Neither Front-Bench spokesman was present at the convention, but several hon. Members who are here were. Dr. Jim Hunter, who is much respected, has offered to put together a paper on land use and ownership that should be considered in future legislation. It is not enough to deal with the matter piece by piece; we need a radical approach to crofting, land use and land ownership in Scotland.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The land register that was set up has not reached its conclusion. It was supposed to have done that by this year. It will be another 10 years before we have a full land register in Scotland. In what will probably be my last speech in this Parliament, I have to say that the land issue must be addressed much more seriously by all the political parties. I am proud that my party established a land commission under Professor MacInnes of Aberdeen university, who acted in a neutral capacity and took much&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0379"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;743&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;evidence from around the country. That is a helpful contribution to the debate. Without land, we can do nothing. We need land and people to build a more secure society; the two go together.&lt;br/&gt;4.45 pm&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Although the issues have had a good airing at the Grand Committee in Montrose, on Second Reading, in Committee and tonight, it is only right that I should respond to some of the points that have been raised.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) talked of the success of the crofting trusts at Assynt and Borve. Their success, with that of Annishadder, has demonstrated that the time is right to offer tenants on the Secretary of State&apos;s estate the opportunity to benefit from land ownership.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The response to the Government&apos;s consultation paper last year showed that there was considerable potential interest. The Crofting Trusts Advisory Service has commissioned three pilot studies into the feasibility of three possible local trusts. It is too early to say whether that will translate into specific proposals, but there is a growing body of opinion that that is the way forward. We need to be in a position to respond.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The hon. Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson) said that the legislation might not be used. Perhaps he was thinking of the case of Skye and Raasay, when crofters responded to an earlier initiative in 1990 by deciding that they would prefer to remain tenants of the Secretary of State rather than setting up a crofting trust. He will agree that times have changed, and that there is more interest in the trust option. The setting up of trusts at Assynt and Borve, and at Annishadder in Skye, demonstrates that it is a feasible option for crofting communities.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) wondered whether the Secretary of State&apos;s crofting tenants should have a right to buy their estates as a whole. Individual crofters already have a statutory right to buy their crofts. To give crofters a right to buy an estate as a whole would be feasible only if the Bill defined precisely which crofters would enjoy the right, and the sort of body that would have to be formed to take over ownership.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Government believe that it is preferable for the Bill to allow flexibility, so that different approaches can be tried in different areas. The Bill must allow the Secretary of State the right to refuse proposals from crofting trusts, in order to safeguard crofters&apos; interests&amp;#x2014;for example, if proposals are judged not to be properly representative of crofting interests.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye also asked for trusts to be allowed to sell off their land and assets. That will be a matter for the trust. Trusts will no doubt consider carefully the effect of selling or leasing land. The loss of land will need to be weighed against the possible benefits, such as providing a source of money with which to undertake development projects in the interests of the local community.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Moreover, crofting legislation provides protection for the crofting interest, as the land remains in crofting tenure unless the landowner, in this case the trust itself, successfully applies to the Scottish land court to have it resumed. In considering applications for resumption,&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;744&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;the court must be persuaded that the resumption is required for some reasonable purpose in relation to the good of a particular croft estate as a whole or of the public interest.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Some Opposition Members asked why the Bill was not being extended to cover privately owned estates.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like to raise one point before the Minister moves on. In the example that he cited, the land court and resumption would come into play. It is clear that he sees the potential for longer term difficulties.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Suppose that a crofting trust, through no fault of its own, or perhaps through bad management or a change in personnel between its formation and several years or decades down the track, finds itself facing financial difficulty or perhaps ruin. Things will be very much in the lap of the gods, or at least the judicial gods of the Scottish Land Court. The outcome will depend on whether the court judged such straitjacket financial circumstances as sufficient reason for granting a resumption order.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Let us hope that it would not come to that. No Secretary of State would grant trust status to something that might not be viable. We are taking a slight gamble on some of the applications that will be made in the next few years, because the circumstances could look markedly different a few years down the track.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but, as he says, it is difficult to legislate for something that may or may not happen. It is unlikely that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would allow any trust to go forward that had not proved itself financially viable not only in the short and medium term but in the long term. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by that.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Bill extends to privately owned estates. Its purpose is to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to dispose of his estates. There is no legal impediment to prevent any private landowner from selling his large crofting trusts if he wishes to do so. It would be wrong for the Government to seek to compel landowners to sell.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;There is also the question of land under the control of the Forestry Commission. There is no legal barrier to prevent the commission from disposing of land acquired under the Forestry Acts to a crofting or community trust. Where the land is in crofting tenure and has not been planted, the Government will positively encourage the Forestry Commission to look sympathetically at disposing of the land to a suitable crofting trust.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In the case of existing or newly planted woodland, a number of options could be considered under the Forestry Commission&apos;s recent disposal programme and its recently announced extension to the sponsorship arrangements for preferred sales to communities for social and economic development.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland spoke about the mechanism for ensuring that transfer took place only where there was demonstrable local support. I assume that the hon. Gentleman had it in mind that there should be a ballot, and that a transfer should take place only if there was more than a specified percentage of support.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It is clearly right that there should be substantial support for any crofting trust proposal before it goes ahead. It would be a mistake to write any specific figure&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0380"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;745&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;into the Bill. Should the figure be a simple majority, say, two thirds, or should 90 per cent. or 99 per cent support be required? Who should vote&amp;#x2014;those with crofting rights, or all adults? Then there is the problem of absentees. Should crofters who live in Canada or Glasgow, or whose employment takes them away from the croft for most of the year, have a vote? Should the percentage be calculated as a proportion of those who vote or of the electorate as a whole?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Before agreeing to transfer any estate to a crofting trust, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must consult the Crofters Commission, which in turn must have regard both to the general interests of the crofting community in the district and to the views of the crofters. That will ensure that these matters are addressed, but it gives more flexibility to take account of local circumstances.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;As my noble Friend the Earl of Lindsay made clear in another place, we have no set views on whether a minimum or maximum size of trust will have to be prescribed. A trust must clearly involve more than one croft holding, and, ideally, at least 10 holdings might be desirable, but we will consider each proposal on its merits. Similarly, we have no upper limit in mind. In our view, trusts are particularly suited to local communities, but a trust for larger areas, such as Skye or the Western Isles, could certainly be considered.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Bill does not prescribe the size or structure of a crofting trust. It is important, as I and my noble Friend have stressed, that any proposal meets the needs of local communities. The Bill offers sufficient flexibility to deal with a variety of local solutions. It would be open to communities to propose trusts which consisted of a whole estate, part of an estate or an aggregation of several estates. The Secretary of State would listen to representations from any crofter on an estate, any part of which was the subject of a proposal to establish a crofting trust.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;As for whether all crofters will have to become members of the trust, if, after consultation with the Crofters Commission and due consideration, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides to transfer an estate to a crofting trust, all the land owned by him in that estate will become the property of the trust. However, it will always be possible for an individual crofter to use his statutory right to buy his own croft land from the trust. In addition, depending on the precise type of body established, it might be for individual crofters themselves to decide whether they wish to become members of the trust, although they should all have the opportunity to join.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;As for whether trusts will need to be based on townships with common grazings, the idea of common ownership through a trust certainly makes most sense where there are one or more townships with common grazings, and most of the land in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State&apos;s estate would fall into that category. However, we will not rule out a trust based on a series of separate crofts without any township common land if that is what the local crofters want.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;On Second Reading, the question of a pan-highlands and islands trust was raised. It is intended that a pan-highlands and islands trust will be a possibility under the provisions of the Bill. Whether such a trust would&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;746&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;make sense in practice will depend very much on the nature of the proposal and the extent to which it enjoys sufficient support from the crofters themselves.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The primary purpose of our initiative is to give ownership and control of the crofting estates to the crofters who live on them, and we would have to be satisfied that any pan-highland and islands trust achieved that objective. We would not be interested in a pan-highlands and islands trust if it meant imposing a remote bureaucracy on reluctant crofters.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;My noble Friend the Earl of Lindsay met the crofting land trust steering group on 7 February to discuss the consultants&apos; report. The meeting was useful, but it would be premature for the Government to offer a view on the feasibility of a crofting land trust. We are talking here about a report by the consultants to those bodies which commissioned the work, and there is no actual proposal as yet.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Hon. Members asked why the Government should not interfere with the rights of pre-emption, which have been raised throughout our proceedings. If the Government took no action, the transfer of land to a proposed trust could be delayed while the question of any rights of pre-emption was sorted out, or even frustrated, if the inheritors to title decided to exercise their right.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;That would create uncertainty, and would be contrary to Government policy, so the Bill abolishes any rights of pre-emption that might exist over the land in the public interest. However, to be fair to the persons who may enjoy such rights, the Government will consider claims for compensation, and the Bill provides a right of appeal to the Scottish Land Court.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Where a particular individual can demonstrate that he or she has a legitimate right of pre-emption, stemming either from the 1919 Act or from the title deeds for the land in question, it is only right and proper for the Government to consider compensation. In considering the amount that might be appropriate, the Government will take account of the circumstances of the case.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Our understanding is that such rights as do exist are simply a right to have first refusal to buy, usually at market value, and it may be that, in the context of crofting land, such a right would have little value. At the end of the day, however, if the person is dissatisfied, it will be for the Scottish Land Court to decide whether a right exists, and the level of compensation that should be paid.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Tracing persons who have a statutory right of pre-emption can be a very lengthy and expensive process, and it will often be simply impossible. That is why the Bill puts a duty on the Government to publicise the transfer, so that any persons who consider that they have a right of pre-emption can lodge a claim for compensation. However, the Government are prepared to give an assurance that they will, in practice, notify any persons whom they think, on the basis of the information available, have a right of pre-emption.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Bill allows four months for a claim to be lodged. Since all that will be required at this stage is the simple initial notification of a claim, four months would seem to be adequate. Any subsequent discussions between the Government and the parties concerned&amp;#x2014;for example, to obtain more information in support of their claim&amp;#x2014;would not be affected by this four-month period.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Bill places a duty on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to advertise the disposal in such a manner as appears to him appropriate. Flexibility is&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0381"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;747&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;necessary, as the precise arrangement for advertisements will need to be according to the nature of the estate. For example, rather different arrangements may be necessary when a whole estate is purchased than when part of an estate that is still in the same family ownership is involved. Each case will have to be looked at separately in order to identify the best means of advertising for the estate in question.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Unfortunately, there are