With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition on the subject of live hare coursing.

Many of my hon. Friends and I have been concerned over the years to try to ensure that this barbaric sport was legislated against and banned in this country. This petition contains 1,028,365 signatures collected in the space of four months. That shows the concern felt throughout the country, amongst all classes in rural and urban communities, that this barbarism should be abolished.

You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Government have now presented a Bill, which has received its First Reading, to get rid of what the Prime Minister called a barbarous anachronism. This petition, and the work of my hon. Friends and I, who have fought over many years on this matter, supports the Government's decision.

With this new clause it may be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We had a most useful discussion in Committee on the intentions and likely effects of Clause 7 as drafted. However, I do not propose to go through in detail all the points made in Committee.

We agreed that it would be useful to have at hand the means of ensuring that both private and local authority sites were kept up to certain minimum physical standards. Model standards exist at present, but they are advisory and are intended to guide local authorities for two purposes. First, the local authority must have regard to them in issuing to the operator of a privately run site the licence which governs the physical conditions of that site. Secondly, authorities are asked to have regard to these model standards in running their own sites.

These model standards have been deliberately devised as guidelines, leave discretion to the local authority, and will not necessarily work as mandatory minima. Therefore, if we are to think in terms of minimum standards below which site conditions must not fall, we are inevitably drawn towards devising a code separate from the existing model standards. No such code exists at present, but the purpose of the new clause is to give my right hon. Friend the power to prescribe minimum standards for all sites containing permanent residential mobile homes.

The power can be used selectively since it enables my right hon. Friend to differentiate geographically. This would enable action to be taken if evidence in particular areas became available to substantiate allegations at present current about scruffily kept or ill-supervised sites, whether run privately or by a local authority.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) for having discussed with the Association of District Councils, then in Committee, and subsequently with me, the motivation behind his original clause and the difficulties to which it led. I hope that his discussions have persuaded him, and will persuade the House, that the formula now before the House will prove both effective and workable.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for moving the clause. As he said, this matter was discussed in Standing Committee. It is clear that the model standards as written into the Bill as drafted were never designed as model standards. There were problems about seeking to make their enforcement more stringent. The clause meets the case, providing that the Secretary of State gets on with prescribing some minimum standards.

There is no time limit attached. We discussed the possibility of introducing a time limit and we understand the difficulties. The Minister accepts that he will come under pressure, particularly as soon as his review is completed, when he will be better able to consider suitable matters for inclusion in minimum standards. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will be looking for early action on minimum standards.

Clause 7, which will be deleted by Amendment No. 39, covers local authorities. The Under-Secretary said that the new clause will apply to all sites on which there were residential caravans in which people were living as their only or main residence. I assume that the minimum standards would be applied to local authority sites as well.

I greatly welcome what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has very full support in pressing for early publication of the minimum standards. Much of the hostility which do doubt exists in many areas against mobile homes or permanent caravan sites stems from the varying standards of practice which are applied and from some very bad sites which exist. A sensible, reasonable and uniform standard applied throughout the length and breadth of the country will go a long way to removing some of the genuine objections which exist to this type of home.

I am particularly keen that the standards should be all-embracing, because the vast majority of people who occupy mobile homes fall into two categories—those who have been unable to obtain accommodation in any other way and those who wish to have a temporary home, perhaps for two or three years, close to their place of work.

In my constituency we face the possibility of having a large-scale mobile home site created at Crayford Greyhound Racing track. If that mobile home complex is permitted by the local authority, it will be designed to cater for many thousands of workers employed on the construction of the Thames flood barrier. If the Minister has published his minimum standards so that my authority can take them fully into account when considering the planning application for the mobile home site, I believe that Bexley Council will more readily come to the very sensible decision that the site at Crayford is not a desirable place to put these homes because it could not conceivably comply with what, I hope, will be reasonable and sensible minimum standards.

How wide will the minimum standards be? My attention has been drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Basset-law (Mr. Ashton) to a problem which has arisen in his constituency. The East Lindsey area rating authority has decided to rate each van on a site in its area. My hon. Friend tells me that this decision could have a widespread effect on a large number of people who occupy such homes in his constituency. If the rating authority succeeds, as I have no doubt it will, in rating the caravans individually, will the minimum standards cause local authorities to ensure that suitable reductions in site fees are made to remove that part of the existing fee which represents the rating element?

11.15 a.m.

My hon. Friend is very concerned that, if East Lindsey goes ahead with its proposal, it will result in site owners not reducing the site fee but continuing to charge the existing element in the site fee for rating and then applying to each resident the extra burden of individual rating.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not be able to give a detailed reply in this debate, but I hope that he will be able to give an undertaking, which I shall be able to pass on to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, that he will take this matter into consideration and if he cannot deal with it adequately in the model standards he might give consideration to some other method of dealing with it.

For those two basic reasons—one an urgent constituency reason, and the other which I have adduced on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw—I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will press ahead and have comprehensive model standards to deal with the present situation, to bring about a greater acceptance of the sites by local communities, and to bring considerable relief to the residents and justice to the site owners.

I am obliged to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) for the way in which they received the clause.

My reply to the hon. Member for Bridgwater is that the clause will apply to local authority sites.

In reply to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, I would not expect that the standards would necessarily be uniform, I indicated earlier that it might be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to lay down different standards to suit different conditions.

My hon. Friend, who spoke about a project in his constituency and possible difficulties arising, will accept that it might be necessary to lay down special minimum standards for that kind of development.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising the question of rating. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) cannot be here today because of urgent engagements in his constituency. I know that this matter greatly concerns him—he has written to me about it and others of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite. It is a matter which we are studying carefully. We realise that this is something which has happened rather suddenly and which has caused a great deal of concern among those who live on mobile home sites. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford was good enough to say that he did not expect a definitive answer today. I assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and other hon. Members that this is a matter to which we are giving serious and urgent study and I shall be writing to my hon. Friends on the subject.

Before rising to speak I waited for the Under-Secretary to say that the clause would affect local authority sites, of which there are a large number through out the country. A fair number of them were established in the 1950s—in the immediate post-war period when the housing shortage was particularly acute. A number of them are rather out of date in terms of standards and amenities.

I have had experience of one such site in the London Borough of Havering. The authority decided to bring the site up to standard and spent many tens of thousands of pounds on improving the standards. Any basic improvement to a site involves hard standings and other matters necessitating substantial capital expenditure. When the rate support grant negotiations take place at the end of this year, and when the Department is considering its allocations for locally-determined schemes—those are the capital allocations under which authorities meet expenditure of this kind—I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the pressure on authorities this year because of the financial stringency which has been imposed on them.

I hope also that in establishing these new standards, which the whole House welcomes, and which I am sure the local authority associations also will welcome, my hon. Friend will negotiate on the basis that some provision will be made to enable authorities to meet their obligations under the new standards which it is proposed to formulate.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'is intending' and insert

'has notified the owner in writing that he intends'.

This is little more than a drafting amendment. There is a difficulty in the Bill as it stands in establishing effectively that a person really intended to occupy. The amendment is designed to make it a requirement for the potential occupier to notify the owner in writing that he intends to occupy.

Amendment No. 2, which I understand will be taken later, is on the same point. There could be considerable dispute whether a potential occupier had made clear that he wanted to come on to a site and the stage at which he was in the process of being offered an agreement. Providing for notification in writing seems to me to be the most effective way of ensuring that there is a definite moment at which the potential occupier makes clear that he wishes to occupy, and he is covered by the protection afforded in the Bill of being entitled to an agreement.

I support the amendment. Although this is a drafting amendment which clarifies the matter, it is nevertheless concerned with a serious point. It is possible for mobile home traders to have mobile homes on various sites throughout the country, the main purpose being the storage of their goods. Even in my own constituency—and one can always best judge these matters on the basis of one's personal experience—a council site has been occupied by a mobile trader, although he has used it for a very short period during the year. During the remainder of the year it has been used for storage purposes in connection with his trade and business. I have reason to believe that he has been using mobile homes on sites throughout the country for temporary accommodation and for trading purposes. That is wrong, and this sensible amendment will go a long way to eradicate that abuse of residential facilities.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 22 at end insert—

'(4) An owner shall not be deemed to have offered to enter into a written agreement under the foregoing provisions of this section unless at the time of the offer he supplies the person to whom the offer is made with a draft of the agreement so offered.'.

I have already alluded to this amendment. This relates to another aspect of the same problem to which reference has been made, in an effort to overcome the difficulty which arises when a site owner tries to play off possible intending occupants. We hope that this situation is covered partly by Amendment No. 1.

There is a time limit within which an intending occupier has to make clear whether he will accept an agreement, and this could be difficult if there were an argument about when the period started. This amendment seeks to make clear that the offer has not been made unless at the time of the offer the site owner supplies the person to whom the offer is made with a draft of the agreement.

This deals with the situation in which a site owner might make a verbal offer and be tempted to keep quiet about the small print which might refer to some unattractive conditions. The potential occupier might find himself up against time and be forced into an agreement when he had not had adequate time in which to study it.

I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 31, leave out three ' and insert five.

With this amendment we may take the following Amendments:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that there was an amendment, No. 3, which was purely technical, renumbering a subsection. Is that not to be called?

As it was merely a drafting correction, it was not necessary for it to be put on the Paper.

Amendment No. 4 is linked with a number of consequential amendments on exactly the same point, fulfilling an agreement arrived at in Committee. Originally the clause stated that an agreement should be for a term of three years and that it should be capable of renewal for a further three years. An amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) proposed a term of five years followed by a renewal period of five years, giving a minimum entitlement of 10 years. We reached a great British compromise providing an initial period of five years and a renewal period of three years.

It might be appropriate to give some of the reasons behind this compromise. This is one of the crucial points in the Bill as to how long the protection afforded by an agreement should last. I have found in my discussions that there is not a very strong feeling on the part of site owners against the long leases being offered provided that the condition of the caravan or mobile home is satisfactory. Our difficulty in considering whether to provide a much longer period of lease is that we are not starting mobile home sites from scratch, when all sites will be occupied by new caravans. We are injecting the Bill into an ongoing situation in which people may well already have been on sites.

These periods are minimum. We hope that in suitable cases much longer leases will be offered, but we feel that an initial period of five years with the right to renew for a further three, subject to qualifications—and this is often misunderstood by some site owners—about the quality and condition of a mobile home, is a suitable balance.

I support the amendment. I do so because we have to recognise the transformation which has taken place in respect of mobile homes. A decade ago many of these homes were formerly touring caravans which were not suitable and, indeed, were not designed as mobile homes for static use, and deterioration was more rapid than is the case with the modern mobile home.

Nowadays people who purchase these homes invest a substantial sum of money into an article which has been carefully designed and expertly constructed not only to provide excellent facilities in a relatively small space but also to withstand the ravages of changes in temperature and inclement weather. Therefore, the purchaser acquires an asset, usually by hire-purchase arrangements, which is designed to last a long time. If he is to be subjected to a short security of tenure it puts at jeopardy what is for most people a substantial investment.

11.30 a.m.

This element of investment by the mobile home owner has been complicated by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apply a 25 per cent. VAT rate to mobile homes. I know that it would be out of order to pursue that on this amendment, but I have no doubt that on future occasions in the House many hon. Members will wish to turn their attention to this matter. I merely adduce the Chancellor's 25 per cent. VAT rate as yet another reason why longer security of tenure, on the lines embodied in the amendment, should be established, because that will increase the investment which the owner has made in his mobile home. There should be a reasonable time for him to recoup his costs.

My understanding is that nobody who is covered by the Bill and has a mobile home as his only or permanent residence will be affected by the higher rate of VAT. As I understand it, the new rate relates to touring caravans owned by people who have another residence or another home. I should not like there to be any anxiety on that score.

I hope that that understanding is correct. I raised the matter this morning in the hope of eliciting just that kind of statement from my hon. Friend the Minister, because there is apprehension among owners and some retailers of mobile homes that that may not be the case. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is able to confirm what the hon. Member for Bridgwater has said, that will be all to the good and will justify my having referred to the 25 per cent. VAT rate. It would be a serious matter if our hopes for a more sensible application of VAT were not fulfilled and one cannot be certain about that until the Finance Bill has completed its passage through the House—and that is all the more reason why we should extend the length of tenure.

I support the amendment, largely on the ground touched on by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in his opening remarks, which seemed to go to the heart of the matter.

Two things are true. First, mobile homes are a permanent and desirable part of the housing scene. Secondly, they are not yet so regarded by large numbers of people living in other kinds of homes, and particularly by large numbers of councillors. It is partly because of the insecurity of tenure that that is so, and I hope that the amendment, which proposes to increase security of tenure, will help to bring about a fundamental change in people's attitudes towards mobile homes.

It will no longer be possible to regard mobile homes as some kind of hangover from the war or places in which transient people live for a month or two. They will no longer be able to be discounted as part of the permanent local scenery. I am sure that these homes should be welcomed as part of the permanent local scenery and I believe that the amendment, following on the original proposals in the Bill, will help to do that.

The owner of the site will not find that he is landed without any redress against an occupier whose behaviour is unreasonable. No amendment has been tabled to the important provision in the Bill which gives the owner the right to terminate the agreement in the event of a breach of it. The owner has a guarantee of reasonable behaviour, and the occupier now has a guarantee of extended security of tenure. The amendment strikes a reasonable balance, and I hope that it will be accepted.

I rise to support the amendment which represents the compromise suggested in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan).

Embedded in the heart of the dilemma of the mobile home owner, which led to the introduction of the Bill in the first place, is the problem that when he purchases a mobile home he purchases a residence, but at some later stage if he wishes to sell it as a vehicle the depreciation is regarded as a kind of vehicular depreciation.

As we know from the brochures issued by reputable sellers of mobile homes these vehicles are guaranteed for considerable periods of time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said, if people purchase new mobile homes which are guaranteed to last for 20 years or more and in that period provide a suitable residence, surely it is right to give a reasonably prolonged expectation of tenure to those people—often elderly—who make a substantial investment in such dwellings.

On balance, I think that we are right to do it this way. Although the lifespan of the vehicle will almost always be longer than eight years, three plus five, as the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) said, is about right in giving the kind of security that we want for the owner and I too, hope that the amendment will be accepted.

The contributions made to the debate today by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) are so apposite and relevant that it is a pity he did not favour us with more contributions in Committee. His intervention on the question of VAT has been extremely valuable, because it has elicited a response from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) which I am happy to confirm and endorse. These dwellings are not liable to VAT in the way that holiday and touring caravans are.

What was said by my hon. Friend and repeated by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) about the new status of mobile homes is something which ought to go out from this House of Commons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently issued a circular about the need to get more homes more quickly and more cheaply. That was the part of his speech at Brighton on 30th October last year which was widely misunderstood as apparently implying that he wished to see prefabs going up all over the country. That is not so.

My right hon. Friend wishes to see mobile homes achieve a new status as semi-permanent, if not permanent, dwellings which can provide many of the conveniences and comforts which dwellings built in a more orthodox fashion can provide. Indeed, the circular which my right hon. Friend has recently issued asks local authorities to consider the much wider use of mobile homes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford for reinforcing that plea today. There are many ways in which local authorities, among others, can use mobile homes to provide satisfactory dwellings for those who cannot find a decent place in which to live.

I am satisfied that the hon. Member for Bridgwater and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North have embodied in these amendments the compromise which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West. In moving the amendment the hon. Member for Bridgwater referred to it as a great British compromise. It is a compromise which shows the value of Great Britain because, as I say, it was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West who has fought so valiantly for Scottish interests, no other smaller party seeming to care a hang about them. This compromise will be of great value to those who live in mobile homes.

I beg to move Amendment No. 9 in page 3, line 23, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 26 and insert

so extend the term of any agreement entered into in pursuance of that duty that it will expire on a date which is not less than five years from the date on which the agreement commenced'.

This is a drafting amendment which aims to cover the point arising from the proviso in Clause 2 that a tenant must be offered a five-year agreement unless the site owner does not have five years' entitlement to that site.

This difficulty is illustrated by a case in my constituency where the planning permission on a site is to expire in three years' time. It is obviously impossible for the owner to give five-year agreements since he will not be entitled to operate that site for longer than three years. The site owner is appealing against the refusal of the local authority to extend the planning permission. If his appeal is successful it is right that the occupiers should have their right to a five-year agreement reinstated.

The amendment seeks to clarify the point. It is very much in response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who unfortunately has an urgent constituency engagement today and cannot be here. We appreciate his contribution in Committee where, as a lawyer, he helped us to improve some of the wording in the Bill.

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 33, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

'(b) a description of the part of the site to be occupied by the occupier sufficient to enable that part to be precisely identified;'.

It deals with a small point which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) in a slightly different form. I have resisted the arguments up to now on the grounds that such provisions were not necessary. The Bill merely referred originally to

"the description of the part of the site to be occupied".

The site owners felt strongly that such a provision would lay down a very clear specification. The point was always made that this was not needed because it was unnecessary for an owner to want to issue a more accurate description.

However, in an endeavour to make the Bill that much clearer it was felt that the provision would be helpful and I am now seeking to include it in response to representations by the National Federation of Site Operators and the National Caravan Council.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) described this amendment as covering a small point. I believe it is a very substantial point because the working of the Bill—

"the description of the part of the site to he occupied by the occupier"

—leaves the whole matter in such a way that difficulties could arise and, indeed, have arisen on these sort of sites. It is essential to have a clearly-defined area understood both by the site operator and the caravan owner as being that part of the site which is maintained.

For example, it is essential that there is a clearly defined area so as to avoid disputes between the resident and the site owner. It must be in the interests of both parties that they should start off knowing precisely their entitlement and the terms of occupation of the site. A clear definition would avoid disputes between residents. I have known of residents complaining that their neighbours have moved their boundaries slightly in an attempt to extend their garden. Such happenings cause bad feelings among people who are already living in relatively close proximity to each other. Such disputes invariably drag in the site owners to adjudicate. All this could be avoided if the area was clearly defined.

There is also the problem where a resident seeks, within the provisions of the clause, to sell ownership of his caravan and residential qualification to another occupier. It is better that both the vendor and the purchaser should be protected by a clear definition.

It was with some dismay that I was unable to be a regular attender at the Standing Committee where I could have and should have made many of these points. However, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will appreciate from his own close connection with his constituency, hon. Members spent a considerable time dealing with the affairs of their constituents. Wednesday morning happens to be my favourite time for making myself available in Erith and Crayford to meet my constituents to discuss matters such as this so that I may make representations on their behalf. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my explanation of my absence from the Committee and will support the amendment.

I realise that one of the burdens of being a London Member as distinct from being a provincial Member, as I am, is that one has constituency obligations on week days when the House is sitting and even in the mornings. I fully accept why my hon. Friend was not in the Committee. He has, I am sure, always attempted closely to model his service to his constituency on my service to mine.

The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) is clearly a very contrary fellow. At the time when almost all hon. Members are in their constituencies, on a Friday, he is in the House, but when other hon. Members are in the House on a Wednesday he is in his constituency. There is some comfort in that for us. If he had been able to be with us I do not think we would have been here now. That is some comfort for the loss then of the contribution which he is making now.

I hope that I did not appear disinterested in the accurate marking out of sites. That is, of course, an important point, and it has many benefits. My concern was expressed from the legal point of view whether it is necessary for the matter to be specifically laid down. There is no question that good site managers and operators will want to meet this requirement. An indication of their concern is given by the number who have approached me on this matter, somehow under the impression that if the provision was not written into the Bill they would not be able clearly to define their sites. Of course they would in no way be excluded from doing so. However, because the amendment is on balance right, I hope the House will accept it.

I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 8, at end insert

'with the substitution of the words "three years" for the words "five years"'.

I am reluctant to say that this is a drafting amendment in case the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) discovers that it is a major point. However, it is purely consequential. This is the same point about the renewal problem or the curtailing of a person's normal entitlement to five-year and three-year licences. It is based on the provision in the previous clause about the offer of the original agreement for five years.

I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 9, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—

'(d) the annual charge to be made, the intervals at which payment is to be made and provision for reviews of that charge at intervals of twelve months subject to the right of an occupier who has determined the agreement to be repaid by the owner such proportion (if any) of any payment made by him as is attributable to a period after he has ceased to occupy part of the site, any such repayment being apportioned from day to day;'.

With this I understand that it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments:

At last we have a point of substance. This fundamental amendment was the outcome of much discussion in Committee and with representative bodies It concerns the difficult judgment about rents. In the original discussions, the representaive bodies of the site owners felt that at a time of high inflation, when so many costs related to labour and maintenance, there would be considerable difficulties if the rents were reviewed any less frequently than annually. On the other hand, the residents' associations felt that there was an analogy with agricultural rents, since they would be renting the site.

The compromise that we originally designed was to separate the site rent, which was less subject to inflation, from a service and maintenance charge which was most directly affected by inflation, with the site rent reviewed every three years and the maintenance charge annually.

After further consideration it became clear that there were problems involving certain tax aspects of the service charge which might have put an additional burden on the residents, as well as a substantial work load on the site operators. A further complication was that a three-year review for the site rent might put many site owners in a difficult position if they had substantial works to undertake, such as drainage or water facilities. We had to include a loose form of words—something like "except for a material change in circumstances".

Both residents and site owners also represented that the splitting up would mean that many people who had lived on sites for many years—many of them being elderly people—might be confused. On consideration it was felt that the best way to proceed would be to consolidate the charge into a single one again, thus avoiding the tax complications.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agreed that a great number of tenants, many of them elderly, in precisely the same situation, at the moment face this division between the rents they pay and the service charge which is levied annually, and sometimes varied more frequently than that? It does not seem to cause any great distress in their case.

I have no widespread evidence of that. The evidence that I have had, from the residents as well as the owners, is that this would be a departure, and that it was more common to have rents in a single charge. I am not aware of a substantial practice of splitting the charge in this way.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of the most difficult mobile home cases with which I have had to deal among residents in Peterborough have arisen because site owners tend to lump together far too many components in the charges? I have in mind the sort of blanket "development charge" that I have discussed with the hon. Member on other occasions. After a great deal of inquiry and effort I have been able to get a break-down for my site residents, but they did not have this information and it led to a good deal of unnecessary ill-feeling and misunderstanding on their part.

I accept that. At present, rents can be changed at any time, whereas the major step forward in the Bill is to make them renewable no more frequently than annually. There are arguments for extending protection even further, but one knows how often well-meaning intentions in housing and rent matters can backfire. This is another classic risk situation. If we sought to give much longer protection, it might work directly against the interests of the residents.

If the Bill required a site owner to fix rents for three years ahead, how would he calculate his costs in the face of inflation? Would he expect 30 per cent. next year? I am not making a party point, but hon. Members can see that this would be a difficult problem. The Economist says that the rate of inflation at the moment is 25 per cent., with "gusts" of up to 40 per cent. over the next three months. In that situation, if rents were held for too long, site owners would prudently try to cover themselves and estimate too high. When the period ended, residents might then face a substantial "hike". If we stick to annual reviews, one hopes that the site owners will feel more confident about estimating costs and the rise will be less substantial at the end of that period.

The amendment incorporates a couple of other points which have been discussed previously. It was felt that the description "annual charge" might lead people to think that that was what they had to pay yearly. The amendment therefore specifies the intervals at which payment is to be made. It also covers the right of repayment to an occupier of such payments as he may have made for a period after he has ceased to occupy the site.

12 noon

As I have said, I believe that we are coming to a point of substance. I recognise—I think the House will agree with me—that we have discussed these problems frankly. I know that we would all like to see a much longer period of stability and security of knowledge of what a rent will be, but we must recognise the economic situation that exists. Of course, council rents can be increased annually. I do not think that any council would agree to be bound by a two-year or three-year rent review. Indeed, there are accounts of the Secretary of State recognising this problem. I am not making a party political point; all I am saying is that we must recognise the acute financial difficulties that now face local authorities.

It seems unrealistic—especially in a Private Member's Bill—to seek to do something which flies in the face of the present inflationary situation. If we do so we shall save a short victory. We could introduce such a measure, but in all our discussions it has been our concern to strike a balance. We must realise that there is no compulsion on site owners to continue to operate sites. Equally, there is no way in which we can entirely protect residents against the effects of inflation. We must seek to strike a balance that ensures continuity, and greater stability than now exists. The amendment would give a measure of order to a difficult situation, although the period is not as long as one would wish, because of the economic situation.

In speaking to Amendment No. 12 and Amendment No. 31, which stands in my name, I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) only inasmuch as he has said, with his customary moderation, that this is a point of substance that divides the House. I must tell him at the outset that it is the intention of my hon. Friends and myself to divide the House on this matter if he is not prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 12. All of us wish to see the Bill move forward, and the consequences of taking that course do not need to be overstated.

I am one of those who believe that Clause 3(d) emerged from the Committee—after a prolonged debate, in which I thought my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was extremely flexible and forthcoming—in far better shape than we had been able to envisage earlier. We kept the extremely ingenious principle of the division between rental and service charges. We had written in a very substantial safeguard for the site owner. The safeguard provided that the site owner could apply for a review within the three-year period if he could show that there were measurable improvements not just for the mobile home owner with whom he was negotiating but for the owners in general.

It is true to say that the three-year period which we provided for rent review is no stranger to housing legislation. I remind the hon. Member for Bridgwater that the Conservative Government's Housing Finance Act bound local authorities to a three-year period. Happily, that measure has been aborted, but that was the principle that was built into it.

With respect, with annual increases.

With annual increases up to the three-year period, yes. But we are not debating the question whether we should have annual increases for three years to bring site rents up to a realistic figure; we are saying that there shall now be, as of right, a minimum and maximum period of one year. I believe that it would be better for the House to retain Clause 3(d), but I wish to help the House to proceed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make some concession of substance to those who have made representations to him on this matter. Indeed, I would be prepared, in Amendment No. 31, to see the period for review reduced, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has reduced the period so markedly that I feel a major point of principle now divides us. We put in a three-year period for review and he has reduced it to a period of one year.

I must apologise to the House for the short time we have had to consider the Bill since it returned from Committee. Only yesterday was it possible to examine the drafting of the Bill. It was therefore necessary to table starred amendments—bearing in mind all the consequential procedures that would follow if Amendment No. 12 were carried—without, perhaps, the necessary felicity in drafting.

I must go in detail through the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. In advancing the amendment he has said that we must take into account the pace of inflation. It is precisely the pace of inflation that leads my hon. Friends and myself to say that there should be rather more pegging than he has envisaged. It is precisely this extraordinary acceleration and leapfrogging of expectations about inflation in the present quite unprecedented situation that makes it necessary to have more pegging than the hon. Gentleman has envisaged or for which he has made provision. If that is not so, why have, in any form of contractural relationship in an inflationary situation, the degree of pegging that is proposed? For example, why not abandon all forms of price tendering in the building trade? Why not say that all forms of contract should be infinitely flexible? If we reduce the period from three years to two years it may be that as the pace of inflation accelerates there will be an irresistible demand for a review every six months.

There are two theories on the psychology of inflation. There is the hon. Gentleman's theory that, in a sense, inflation has to be accepted and that it is necessary to take the pessimistic view that it is getting worse. That theory provides that inflation expectations will get worse and the prospects will become more gloomy, and allowance should be made in the light of those expectations, otherwise the site; owners will themselves, given a two- or three-year review, make the most pessimistic prognostications. Alternatively, there is the optimistic view—

I have heard some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues make the point that he has just put forward. I do not think that we can make the Bill a major plank against inflationary expectations. That would seem to introduce a major concept into what is really a modest measure, which will affect a limited number of people. What the hon. Gentleman has said about my appearing to take the most pessimistic view is exactly the opposite to reality. It is my concern that people will take the most pessimistic view. The hon. Gentleman must put himself into the position of a site owner who has to pay all his expenses, such as electricity bills and all the other matters that everyone else faces, and yet fix a rent for a two- or three-year period.

What advice would the hon. Gentleman give if a constituent came to him and asked "What will happen in the next two years? What should I do so as fairly to cover the costs of my site, so that I do not have to go out of business because I go bust?" What advice would the hon. Gentleman give when faced with that question? I apologise for the length of my intervention, but I believe that this is an important point. It is against the background that I have outlined that a site owner has to calculate what to add on—and it may be necessary to add on quite a lot—to take account of inflationary expectations which fuel the problem in exactly the way the hon. Gentleman suggests. If we cut the period to a reasonable level people will not have to build in inflationary expectations.

If encouraged they do. I shall deal with the points raised in the intervention of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in the reverse order, because, as his intervention was rather lengthy, if I do not deal with them in that order the second and more important will go out of my mind.

The hon. Member asked me what I would do if a site owner asked me rhetorical questions. I would take my stand on paragraphs (a) and (e) of Clause 3—if they are retained. I should be able to tell a site owner that, with the flexibility of the service charges, some of the expenses to which the hon. Gentleman referred would be met on the annual basis. That was the whole point of the device of exquisite purity in the first draft Bill, and it survived the Standing Committee. It was that we should divide the triennial rent review and the annual service charge. Some of the expenses to which he has referred would be covered within the review of the service charges annually or perhaps more frequently.

The hon. Gentleman's first and more general question was why the Bill should be the cornerstone of the anti-inflation policy of our times. That is not what I was saying. Every journey of 1,000 miles must begin with a single step. Every measure that one takes to combat the present rate of inflation has to acknowledge a general good.

Precisely the same argument that I am having with the hon. Gentleman about these expectations I have frequently with trades union leaders in my constituency. They say that surely next year's rate of inflation will be 35 per cent., if it is now 23 per cent., or whatever and that therefore they are justified, whatever the attacks upon them by those who defend the social contract, in building into their demands an additional claim on that basis. From time to time they say that they are surely justified in breaking agreements that they have made annually or, in some cases, bi-annually with their employers before the rate of inflation reaches that level. They are suffering from inflation in the same way as a site owner will in a different context. They have every right to put that view.

Those of us who are trying to slow down the pace of inflation and peg it back must see some stabilising factors built in. We believe that—admittedly in only a small area and for a few thousand people —such a stabilising factor is built in by having the biennial rent review suggested in my Amendment No. 39. It is a concession to the pressure that the site owners have been putting upon the hon. Member. It is midway between the figure that the hon. Member has plucked out of the air —in one year—and the figure that was in the original Bill and that all the sponsors of the Bill agreed—three years. The pace of inflation may have got worse in the few weeks or months since the sponsors met to discuss the Bill, but it has not worsened to such a degree that we should now bring the figure down from three years to one year.

I seek clarification. The hon. Gentleman seems to be developing his argument on the assumption that it would be possible to make annual adjustments to the service charge. I am not sure that it would be possible if the Bill were left in the condition that he likes, that is, if Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 were included but paragraph (e) were retained in its present form. Paragraph (e) provides that one of the points to be covered by the agreement is the annual amount to be paid by the occupier. There is no suggestion that once that agreement had been signed the annual amount could vary. Is the hon. Gentleman not developing his argument on a false premise about the consequences?

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. I was running paragraphs (d) and (e) together, but the application for reviews within the statutory period is in paragraph (d), not (e). However, it is true that annual revision of the service charge is possible under the Bill and therefore under paragraph (e) the site owner who was hypothetically prayed in aid by the hon. Member would be able to say, about a certain proportion of the costs that have just been mentioned, that they should be revised and reviewed annually under paragraph (e), if it stands. As a consequence of passing Amendment No. 12, paragraph (e) would fall.

Many of us believe that such a division of charges should be kept in the Bill, and that it is a good and useful device. Indeed, it has suitably encouraging analogies, within the area of private rented accommodation, that make us wish to see the division retained.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) made a very fair point in his intervention, when he said that we should consider how much there should be a distinction of the components of the various charges on these sites. It is extremely useful for the mobile home owner, whose interests I unashamedly plead in the debate, to know precisely what are the components of the charges being levied upon him. The amalgamation of all these charges into one flat-rate figure, annually reviewable, takes that away from him. He no longer knows whether a major increase is justifiable. We laboured hard in Committee, in collaboration with the hon. Member who declared that he spoke for the site owners' federation, to get precisely the same right of extraordinary review upon application built into paragraph (b). That, plus all the other distinctions that remain, after Standing Committee, would be removed from Clause 3 by Amendment No. 12.

I hope that the House will follow the burden of my argument. I have had to develop it at some length. I hope that the House will vote against the amendments.

The hon. Gentleman realises that he is making a major proportion of the fees—I use a generalised word—paid by people on sites liable for the first time to VAT. Does he realise the implication—that he is putting up site rents for everybody by nearly 8 per cent.? He must take that into account, because that will be the impact. One of the effects of consolidating the charge will be to avoid that continuing charge. I did not go into this in detail, but we should appreciate the implications.

The hon. Gentleman said that I had gone from three years to one year. That is not true. I have gone from three years and one year to one year.

For most mobile home owners the amount of the site rent will be the more substantial part of their payments. The reduction of the period from three years to one year in respect of what is paragraph (d) is much the larger part. Therefore, there is a substantial reduction.

My evidence is that anything up to 75 per cent. could be service charge. One must also recognise that many site operators have a certain discretion about what they allocate to the service charge. The House must recognise that those who wish to exploit this situation will be able to do so to a certain extent, and their actions will be extremely difficult to challenge. It will be in their interests to do so, because there is an annual review on that part that they could swing to the maximum, and that is liable to VAT.

Yes, I am prepared to accept that the hon. Gentleman has had representations to this effect. It would have to be a lavishly-equipped site, with all the mobile homes drawn up in front of a drive-in cinema and with a bowling alley round the back, as well as many other advantages, to justify a 75 per cent. service charge. On balance, I would adhere to my view.

I accept that VAT at 8 per cent. would be levied on the latter part of the divided sum if we retain the clause in its present form. That point has been strongly put to me since the Committee proceedings. It is a matter that we should have considered in Committee. Because of the speed with which the Bill has come back to the House on Report, it has not been possible for me or any other hon. Members to produce better amendments to take account of that. We are having to start with Amendment No. 12.

It might be of assistance to the House in discussing these amendments if I were to attempt to clarify the VAT position which the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has mentioned. Our understanding—and we have consulted Her Majesty's Customs and Excise about this, since it is responsible for levying VAT—is that if the charges were split

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. May I ask whether he is making a speech or intervening?

I am intervening in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) since I thought it might be of assistance of the House if I were to clarify the situation. We understand that the annual charge under Clause 3(d), for the use of the pitch, would certainly be exempt from VAT, whereas the cost levied by site operators for the provision of services could be liable, and, if so, would be taxable at the standard rate or at the zero rate, depending on the services concerned. The straight, combined charge as proposed by the hon. Member for Bridgwater would simply mean that the rent would continue to be exempt but that if any element were found to be attributable to the owner's provision of services the separation of these charges should not in theory change a site operator's VAT liability. Clause 3(d) and (e) would make for the identification of the taxable element and would, therefore, make easier the application of the tax. I hope that I have clarified the situation, since it is important that we should know the exact position.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which has genuinely lightened our darkness, on the Labour side of the House, at any rate. I regard what he has said as being marginally in support of the case that I have been making. It is a pity that we did not have longer in Committee to debate and develop the point. We are now having to act as brokers for these rival points across the Floor when much more unites us than divides us.

Does my hon. Friend agree that during the passage of the Finance Bill there will be adequate opportunity to debate this VAT issue, which is of vital importance? If it proves to be a substantial point I am sure that the opportunity can be taken to deal with it on that occasion, although from what the Minister has said it does not seem as if that will be necessary.

I agree with my hon. Friend. If the subdivision to which the Minister has referred were to come about I would be pressing strongly, as I am sure other hon. Members would, for the application of VAT, at the zero rate, to the service charges on site homes. It is only a momentary fracture of our unity, but I have to say that I propose to divide the House against Amendment No. 12 unless the hon. Member withdraws it.

This is a substantial point. I pay tribute to the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has tackled the problem, even though I do not agree with him. Throughout our discussions we have tried to strike a balance. We are perhaps in danger of getting the balance a little askew. At the moment there is nothing to prevent a site owner from increasing the rent and service charge monthly. There is no protection for the occupant. The protection proposed in the amendments, the fixed charge subject to annual review, is a substantial advance.

We have also tried to provide a secure and reasonable basis on which sites can continue. The danger of proceeding along the lines suggested in good faith by the hon. Member is that at a time of rampant inflation site owners might well despair of ever being able to make sense of their finances. There are site owners—some of us have met them—who are wondering whether it is worth while continuing. They have had their fears aroused by this Bill although I think that, on the whole, we have managed to assuage those fears.

This situation arises as a result of the inflationary position. I was not entirely happy about the explanation given by the hon. Member in reply to my intervention. If the Bill were left in the form he proposes the rent and service charge would be separate. Under his proposal the owner would have the right to require a review of the charge less than two years after the last occasion when the charge was fixed only if he has incurred substantial capital expenditure on the site which benefits the occupant.

This matter was discussed in Committee, and it seems a reasonable arrangement. But there is no similar provision in subsection (e) for a review of the annual amount if inflation races ahead so that the expenses of the owner increase to a point which he did not foresee when the annual amount was specified at the beginning of the agreement. The hon. Gentleman's scheme of things would leave the site owner at the mercy of a rate of inflation which it is impossible to predict.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that in an inflationary situation such as we have at present there has to be some attempt to stem the tide by inserting pegging clauses of this kind into most agreements? That may be painful to some but it is necessary. Otherwise we are conceding at the outset that the battle against inflation is lost.

But we must keep the show on the road. The difficulty about the hon. Gentleman's approach is that it would remove any reasonable confidence among site owners that they could remain in business.

I come to the point about VAT on which the Minister has given his views. It is not realistic to suppose that we shall be able to sort this out in the debate on the Finance Bill, but it seems a little hopeful to assume that we shall command the time or the patience needed to argue this point out in the kind of terms we are discussing now.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my experience is that if, on a minor point—and this is such a point, in the context of the Finance Bill —the Chancellor can have demonstrated to him that here is a serious administrative problem which could be overcome without any conflict with a major issue in the Bill, he will take serious cognisance of any representations?

I gain confidence from the confidence of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). I hope that he will be right. However, one cannot feel sure about it. I would be much happier if this matter could be buttoned up in the pleasant atmosphere prevailing this morning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has raised a real difficulty. Having listened to the Under-Secretary, I hope that if there were a single charge, as my hon. Friend proposes, and it were called basically a rent, this matter would not arise. There is a danger that if we adopted the scheme of things suggested by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) we might find that in respect of the service charges provided for under subsection (e), VAT would be attracted at the normal rate of 8 per cent. We should not be blessed by the occupiers, whose interests we are primarily trying to protect, if they suddenly found themselves paying a form of tax which they have not hitherto paid, simply as a result of our endeavours to protect them.

This problem often arises in this kind of legislation. People who try hard to protect a certain section of the population sometimes find that through their well-meaning efforts they have introduced a disadvantage which did not previously exist. This will be a problem if we divide the two forms—the rent and the charge.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has said, we all hope that this is an exceptional period of inflation. If we were still jogging along with a rate of inflation in single figures, no Conservative Members or anyone concerned with the progress of the Bill would hesitate to accept the point advanced by the hon. Member for Derby, North and his amendments. However, we are in a completely uncharted situation and there is a danger that unless site owners feel that they have some kind of protection under the law from inflation and that they have the power to protect themselves, they will take the view that the game is not worth the candle. They will chuck in their hands and these sites will disappear. That danger cannot be dismissed.

It may be impossible to make a suggestion which would meet the fears expressed by the hon. Member and echoed by his hon. Friends while at the same time preserving the point which my hon. Friend was right in advancing. Throughout the Second Reading debate and in Committee the Under-Secretary told us about the comprehensive inquiry that his right hon. Friend the Minister has asked him to conduct. Obviously, in that inquiry there will be a review of the working of the Act. The hon. Gentleman has been very understanding and sympathetic about the working of the Act and about the progress of the Bill but tucked away in the back of his mind has been the thought that if mistakes are made in the Bill they can be picked up later in the comprehensive inquiry and the legislation which will flow from that inquiry. He has been very frank about that.

We hope that by the time the hon. Gentleman has completed that inquiry and come forward with comprehensive legislation, the rate of inflation will have abated and a more normal situation will prevail. There will then be an opportunity for the Minister to correct this legislation. If we were in a state of "normal" inflation it would be perfectly possible for the Minister, when proposing his comprehensive Bill, to amend the provisions of this Bill to take account of a changed situation, in which inflation was less feverish and, therefore, the need to protect the position of site owners was less compelling. I am sure that Conservative Members wholly accept that in those circumstances it would be reasonable for the Minister, when he has his next opportunity—we hope it will not be too long delayed—to amend the Bill in the light of experience.

The acceptance of the suggestion that this point might be covered in future comprehensive legislation might help to allay some of the fears of Labour Members and enable us to make progress on the Bill, because if we get bogged down on this point, the progress of the Bill and its success today may well be at risk.

I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), that we should not get bogged down in this series of amendments, with the result that the Bill is lost. That is an excellent argument for the hon. Gentleman's trying to persuade his hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) to accept the modest compromise amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).

What surprised me when I was trying to catch up on the proceedings on this amendment in Committee was that the discussions on this part of Clause 3 were spread over two sittings. No amendment was made to it, but there was a general consensus that it should go forward—although, to be fair, the hon. Member for Bridgwater indicated that on Report he might want to pursue the point about the three-year period. At that time neither he nor any other hon. Member brought forward any point in relation to the application of value added tax to the annual charge. It is a little late in the proceedings to introduce, almost out of the blue, a major issue involving the application of a tax of this nature.

I was relieved when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North to try to clarify the position. The Under-Secretary will not be surprised to learn that I did not fully grasp the impact of what he said, and I hope that he will have an opportunity, while we are discussing this amendment, to spell it out with greater clarity, because what is blindingly apparent to him may not be clear in the minds of people outside. It would be useful if he could give us some clarification when he makes his main speech.

It was not my intention to intervene in this debate. It may be of assistance if I attempt to clarify more succinctly what I said when I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).

The situation is that the charges are split. The liability for VAT on the service charge would be obvious. Whether it was at a zero rate or another rate would be a different matter. If the charges were consolidated, it would not mean that the service charge was relieved of VAT. What it would mean is that it might be more difficult to distinguish where the impact of VAT should fall.

I am grateful to the Minister. That makes the situation clearer—that the service component of the charge could be subject to VAT whether or not it is part of an inclusive charge. Therefore, the point the hon. Gentleman made about VAT is not quite as valid as we thought because there is a fear of liability whichever way the matter goes.

This is not a new situation. We are not introducing a new rental arrangement. At present, as I understand it, no VAT is charged. That is the point. It is not a question of saying "Oh, yes, that would be equally liable." The Minister has said—although putting the position clearly—that there may be a slight grey area here, but I have no evidence that any VAT is being charged at present. Clearly, it would become more liable to be charged in the new situation.

The hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North that in pressing his amendment my hon. Friend may have been doing a disservice to the owners of mobile homes. The hon. Gentleman may have done a far worse disservice to them by making it so clear to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise that there is a fruitful area to which it might turn its attention. I only hope that Customs and Excise will forbear the joy of reading his words and thus at least give these people the chance to continue in the happy situation which they enjoyed before the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We shall leave the VAT side, because that can be fairly well dealt with if common sense prevails.

The present time was described by the hon. Member for Bridgwater as a time of high inflation and by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon as an excep- tional period of inflation. That is true for both the site owner and the mobile home owner. Our job in Parliament is to try to stem the gravely serious rate of inflation, which we can do in this modest Bill, and to ensure, if there is to be a burden, that the balance is fairly shared between the parties concerned.

We should take into account not only the views adduced by the hon. Member for Bridgwater on behalf of site owners but those adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North on behalf of mobile home owners. Amendment No. 31, which substitutes a two-year review period for a three-year one, is a far better-balanced approach and is fairer to both parties than is the hon. Member for Bridgwater's more one-sided attempt to give a greater degree of protection to one party.

The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon rightly expressed the fears held by site operators that their position would be eroded so that the game was no longer worth the candle. He said that they might well cease to operate existing sites, and certainly would have no incentive to expand sites or to start new ones. It would be a tragedy if that happened. Despite all the adverse and often justifiable criticism levelled at site owners, they provide a facility which is in great demand and which meets a national need.

In the light of the excellent arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North and the clarity which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State brought to the VAT considerations, if we could prevail upon the hon. Member for Bridgwater to ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 12 we might be able to support unanimously the compromise Amendment No. 31, which substitutes a two-year period for a three-year period. By doing that we shall see that justice is done to all parties. If the hon. Member for Bridgwater will respond to that appeal, the Bill can go forward to a jointly enthusiastic Third Reading.

The accusation made at the start by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) he compounded yet further. It is difficult to talk about this tax liability, and there was a chance that it might not have attracted too much attention if he had not referred to it further. Unfortunately, although I referred to it obliquely at the start, I was obliged to clarify it, because I felt that it might not have been fully appreciated. Sitting as he does behind the right ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Gentleman has great confidence in his ability to influence the Chancellor's actions. I hope he is right in that, should any problems arise.

I am in a difficult position, because several of our colleagues are, understandably, not able to be here. If I press the amendment, the opposition of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whit-head) could cause the Bill to fall. I accept that there has been only a short period of time between our proceedings in Committee and on Report, but the reasons for that I think are appreciated by hon. Members.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford should suggest that I represent site owners and that his hon. Friend for Derby, North represents residents. That has never been the position on either side.

I am sorry if I gave that impression. I think what I said was that the hon. Gentleman rightly reflected the fears of site owners and that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) represented another point of view. What we should do is join together and try to accept a balanced approach.

With respect, the hon. Gentleman emphasises the point which I suggested he made previously. He may not be aware that Amendment No. 12 has the support of the National Mobile Home Residents' Association. I have discussed it with the association, and the association feels, on balance, that that is the right way to go. In their desire to be helpful to one particular section, hon. Members may find that that section is being disadvantaged.

My concern is to find a balance. The compromise we have is one that prevents the best outcome for all parties. I am in a procedural difficulty because all hon. Members feel that the merits and benefits that exist elsewhere in the Bill must not be lost. There is the possibility of further informal discussion and. perhaps. discussion with representative bodies in which I hope other hon. Members will be able to take part. The other place may be able to consider these matters after we have considered them informally. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'proper reinstatement' and insert

'reinstatement either in the same position or in a position which is reasonably equivalent to that from which it has been moved'.

This amendment seeks to cover a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) that "proper reinstatement" might in certain circumstances be taken to mean that the mobile home had to he replaced on exactly the same site from which it had been moved. We seek to give added emphasis to the requirement in the Bill that these matters should he more accurately defined. There could be circumstances where, because of substantial site works necessary for a road realignment, or matters outside a site owner's control, it was impossible to guarantee exact replacement on the same pitch from which the mobile home had been moved. It was felt that the amendment would clairfy the situation.

I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 5, line 11, at end insert

'and all sums due to the owner under the agreement have been paid'.

The addition of the words set out in the amendment seek to clarify the provision as to the right of resale, and I hope that they will prove acceptable to the House.

I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 5, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

The purpose of the amendment is to lay a small additional obligation on the site owner under Clause 3(k) by seeking to insert the word "shall", which will give the provision more imperative overtones than does the word "may". In short, we seek to "beef up" the agreements which will be prescribed in the clause. Almost all the other provisions in respect of agreements between site owners and mobile home owners are carefully laid out in Clause 2(2). However, there is in paragraph (k) of this clause an area of flexibility which perhaps might favour the unscrupulous site owner who did not wish to have his proper obligations under-written in the lease he offered. We believe that the amount of discount should be prescribed in the lease.

There was discussion in Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), in my unavoidable absence, moved an amendment in my name which would have prescribed a discount in the various resale procedures amounting to 15 per cent. That amendment was withdrawn, on the ground that it was impracticable to put a flat discount figure in the Bill.

Later in the Bill there is provision to give power to the Secretary of State to prescribe what may or may not be fair discount provisions. If this amendment were made it would lay on the site owner the duty to include within the provisions of the lease a prescribed discount—in other words, a figure of discount which would be binding on both. It is imperative that the mobile home owner should know precisely what form of arrangement is to obtain in matters of resale.

When most people undertake the substantial investment of buying a mobile home and go to live on a site, the last things in their minds are the provisions relating to the resale situation. All of us, at some stage in our working lives, are wished a long and happy retirement. Behind that bland phrase is the assumption that we shall continue to carry on ad infinitum, but few people, particularly the elderly give much thought to what will happen to the mobile home if one married partner dies and if, in those conditions of distress, the other has to enter into resale arrangements.

For those reasons, we wish to protect such people by specifying some form of agreed maximum discount. We knew that that part of the agreement would be buried in small print, and therefore we felt that we should provide a rather stiffer obligation on the site owner to lay down in the original agreement the prescribed form of discount.

I am a little puzzled by the purpose of the amendment. I follow the general point and I agree that this is one of the most important parts of the Bill. It is at the point of resale of mobile homes that much of the abuse, difficulty and distress now arises. However, I am not sure that the amendment strengthens the Bill. In the Bill as it stands a discount may be prescribed. In circumstances where a discount is not prescribed in the agreement, the earlier part of the clause operates—namely, that the occupier has first to offer the mobile home to the owner at a fair market price.

In circumstances in which there is no reference to a discount in the agreement, it is clear from the Bill that the fair market price provision operates and the situation is less fair to the owner and more favourable to the occupier than it would otherwise be. Therefore, it is in the interests of the site owner that the discount should be written into the agreement, and I am sure that he will find it necessary to do so. The amendment appears to provide for a course which no doubt the site owner will wish to take in any case.

The Bill provides that if no discount is written into an agreement, the fair market price prevails. That situation is more favourable to the site owner, and I am not sure that such protection is required in the circumstances.

I support the amendment because it will be necessary for standard forms of agreement between site owners and residents to contain a reference to a discount. A blank space will be left on the form and it will be open to the parties to the agreement to write in "O" or a figure. The amendment provides that this will appear on the form.

I am surprised that this point was missed in our earlier discussions, because the National Caravan Council and National Federation of Site Operators issued a statement saying that where there is to be a sale on the pitch, either by the caravan owner, with the park owner having the right to approve the purchaser, or through the agency of the park owner, in either case a commission is to be paid to the park owner at a rate of "X" per cent., which is to be stated in the agreement when it is originally entered into.

I would have thought that that was in the minds of the site owners from an early date in the discussions which led to the preparation of the Bill. The point seems to have been missed. I am glad that the matter has been raised again. I hope that the amendment will be adopted.

I confirm that the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) is accurate.

The House knows that I am an exponent of consensus politics. I there fore refrain from making any remarks with a flavour of asperity in them. I am obliged to my Civil Service advisers for a sharper comment on the amendment than I would dream of making. They have advised me that the amendment would achieve nothing and that there is no point in it.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) will accept the argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon, which is to the point. Both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) seem to take the view that this amendment would strengthen the duty of the site owner to include the rate of discount or commission in the agreement offered. It would not achieve that effect. Since this is a provision to protect the site owner, who will be the person offering the terms of the agreement, we can expect him to specify a rate or rates in the draft agreement. If he fails to do so, he is entitled to neither discount nor commission on resale. This amendment is therefore unnecessary and there is no point in including it in the Bill.

I know that my hon. Friend is flushed with power and realises that he is the master of all he surveys, and of the fate of this Bill. I therefore hope that he will not over-use the power which, in his hands, is generally safe, and will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I do not agree that the amendment has no point. It does have a point, which is that a rate of commission would be required. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) made the point that a nil rate of commission could be specified. However, I do not think that that is correct in the circumstances.

This is the point. The site owner is entitled to commission and the rate should be prescribed in the amendment, although I accept that that is not the universal practice.

Will the hon. Gentleman inform us of situations in which no commission is charged upon resale?

I have received representations and communications from people to the effect that sometimes they do not need to pay commission on resale, although it appears that in general they do. I am perhaps becoming rather involved. There is no objection to the principle. However, if commission is payable it must be stated in the agreement. We believe that the wording of the Bill achieves that. The word "shall" means that commission will have to be provided for in every agreement. We would obviously not want that situation.

The Minister has softened the righteous wrath of the civil servants who, in their careful and antiseptic prose, are telling the Minister's hon. Friend that he is an idiot. That is often the burden of Civil Service advice.

It was said that I would be strengthening the position of the site owner, and that, just as much as each man kills the thing he loves, I would destroy the point I endeavour to make. That would be true if it could be shown that the site owner did not in some circumstances charge a commission, or if there were no cause for concern about the level of commission paid in the past.

In view of the assurances given, and mindful of the need for the Bill to make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 5, line 18, leave out paragraph (iii) and insert:

(iii) notwithstanding that such offer has not been accepted by the owner within fourteen days, the occupier shall not sell the mobile home at a price which is lower than that so offered without re-offering the mobile home to the owner at that price for acceptance within forty-eight hours; and'

This amendment has the same purpose as that tabled by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) in Committee, but which he withdrew on the assurance I gave that a technically better amendment would he substituted.

This is a technical amendment. It is designed to clarify the conditions on which the occupier can sell his mobile home on site. If the owner declines to exercise his option to buy in the first instance at a fair market price from the occupier, the occupier shall be allowed to sell it to someone else at that price or at a higher price. If, however, he proposes to sell at a lower price than that originally offered to the site owner, that is if this lower price shows that the original price was above market price, he must re-offer to the owner at this new price. The owner then has 48 hours in which to accept such a re-offer. If he refuses, the occupier is then free to sell at that new price, or higher, to a third party. This process repeats itself in that each time the occupier proposes to lower his price further than that at which the mobile home was last offered to the owner, he is obliged to give the owner a further chance to purchase. And on each occasion the owner has 48 hours in which to accept. All transactions between the occupier and either the owner or a third party will allow the owner the discount or commission to be set out in the agreement between the owner and the occupier concerned.

I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 5, line 30, leave out 'prescribed' and insert 'provided for'.

This is a small technical alteration. It is suggested that the word "prescribed" can carry a ministerial connotation. It is used in connection with ministerial orders at another place in the Bill. It was suggested that it would be more suitable to use the words "provided for".

I do not think that this is a major point of substance.

I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 5, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

'(1) If—

(a) the owner of a protected site on which a mobile home is, or is to be stationed—

(i) fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the provisions of section 1 of this Act; or

(ii) having in compliance with the said provisions offered to the occupier of the mobile home an agreement on terms and conditions which have been accepted by the occupier, fails without reasonable excuse to enter into a written agreement with the occupier to give effect to the terms and conditions so agreed within the period of one month following the date of such acceptance; or

(b) the occupier of a mobile home to whom an agreement has been offered by an owner of a protected site in pursuance of a duty under section 1 of this Act fails without reasonable excuse to signify within the period of three months following the date on which the agreement is so offered whether or not the terms and conditions contained in it are acceptable to him;

the occupier of the mobile home may, in a case falling within paragraph (a) above, apply to the court for the grant of an agreement which complies with section 3 of this Act or which contains the terms and conditions so agreed, as the case may be, and the owner of the protected site may, in a case falling within paragraph (b) above, apply to the court for the grant of an agreement which complies with section 3 of this Act'.

With this amendment we shall take Amendment No. 37, in page 6, line 1, Clause 4, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

'(4) On an application under subsection (1) above the court shall make an order for the grant of an agreement which—

(a) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of that subsection, complies with section 3 of this Act and contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable or. as the case may be, contains the terms or conditions so agreed or, where the court is not satisfied that terms and conditions have been agreed between the parties, complies with section 3 of this Act and contains such other terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable; or

(b) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, complies with section 3 of this Act'.

:This redrafting will achieve objectives shared by all hon. Members.

At the moment there is no provision with which to cover a situation in which an owner offered an agreement to an occupier and then did nothing more about it. Clause 4(1)(b) deals with the position and gives certain rights to an owner against a recalcitrant occupier. There was nothing to prevent an occupier from taking a long time to decide whether to accept an agreement. The matter was open-ended. He could keep the agreement on offer, have it in his pending tray and never decide whether to accept it. This was obviously not satisfactory. Subsection (1)(b) clarifies that point. Those are the two significant points of substance dealing with the way in which application can be made to the court.

With this amendment we are to discuss Amendment (a) to the amendment, in line 3, leave out 'does not' and insert:

'did not at the time of the application'.

Amendment No. 27 is designed to cover a situation which the operator has entered into an agreement with an occupier but finds that the occupier is not living in his mobile home as his only or main residence. In Committee we discussed various aspects of this problem.

Somebody might try to convert a temporary residence into a permanent residence. Alternatively, somebody whose permanent residence it was might go to live somewhere else and try to retain the benefits which under the Bill are intended exclusively for those whose permanent or only residence it is. The amendment provides power for the court to rescind an agreement if the occupier does not occupy a mobile home as his only or main residence. The objective was discussed in Committee and was thought to be fair.

I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

'(5) On an application under subsection (2) or subsection (5) above the court shall determine the matter in dispute and shall make such order as is necessary to give effect to its determination.'

This is a further clarification of the court procedure, which was not thought to be satisfactory because it did not make clear to what extent the parties would be bound by the court's judgement. It is believed that this is a clarification of the legal position.

I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 6, line 17, at end add—

I beg to move as an amendment to the proposed amendment, Amendment (a), in line 3, leave out 'does not' and insert:

'did not at the time of the application'.

I intervene in an interrogatory sense, so to speak, and to say that I tabled my amendment because it seemed to me at the time, having had so little opportunity to scrutinise the amendments to the draft Bill, that I might have missed the point. If I did, I am sure that the Minister might have been well advised.

I wanted to make it absolutely clear that the position of a resident was protected in a situation where he might have changed his status vis-à-vis, the mobile home site in the course of the proceedings brought under any such application.

I simply want to write into Amendment No. 27, which otherwise I wholeheartedly support, the clear stipulation that it applies to the precise status of the mobile home owner at the time of the application being made. We have had constituency cases of people who in practice have had two homes. They have had a house some where in the country but, because of their job or because they are on contract labour, they have had to move around and have purchased a mobile home, and they have alternated between their house and their mobile home.

The proceedings may be brought at a time when they are trying to decide where their principal residence should be, or it may be that they become involved in a dispute with the site owner at a time when they are about to, or where he has reason to believe that they are about to, change their status, in that it may no longer be, from a point subsequent to the application, their residence as described in Clause 1.

I hope that what I have said makes sense to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). If he can assure me that the purpose of my amendment to Amendment No. 27 is covered by Amendment No. 27 as it stands specifically and clearly and without any possibility of doubt, I shall be happy to seek to withdraw my amendment to his proposed amendment and shall wholeheartedly support his amendment.

Perhaps I shall be able to clarify the position for my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).

His amendment to the proposed amendment would tend to damage the occupier rather than to assist him, as it would make it necessary for the court to rescind an agreement even if subsequent to the owner's application the occupier in good faith began to use the mobile home as his only or main residence or resumed such use. Amendment No. 27 tabled by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) protects the occupier in circumstances in which my lion. Friend the Member for Derby, North wishes him to be protected. I suggest that it would be better if the amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgwater were left as it is.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment to the proposed amendment

I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 6, line 24, after owner' insert:

'who hold a site licence for the time being in force in respect of the site to which the agreement relates'.

The amendment covers the problem of a successor in title. We gave some consideration to this matter in Committee. Such a successor must obviously be someone who is willing to carry on the running of a site and who is legally entitled to do so—in other words, he must hold a site licence. A person who had no licence to operate a caravan site would, if he permitted the stationing of caravans on his land, be committing an offence.

The amendment is therefore designed to ensure that an agreement will be binding on a new site owner only if he holds a site licence. This is an important clarification.

I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 6, line 33, at end add:

'or other dependants who have been resident in the mobile home for not less than one year'.

I return to a point which greatly exercised the Standing Committee. The point was made originally by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) during the third week of the proceedings of the Committee—that there might well be many people living in mobile homes who were not covered by the precise wording of new Clause 4—as it then was—subsection (2)(a). In substance, new Clause 4 has gone into the Bill as Clause 5. The two subsections remain as they were at the time of the Committee.

I do not wish to rehearse the worries that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, some of my hon. Friends and myself—the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) in particular—had on this point, but it seemed to us that, particularly because of the nature of some of the motives of people going to live on mobile home sites, perhaps far away from their original places of residence, there could well be a number of situations in which the partnership was not a regular one in law, although of long standing.

The point about common law wives, mistresses and illegitimate children was raised by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, and the Minister was asked the hypothetical question: what would happen under this legislation—that is to say, Clause 5 as it now is—if a couple had been living with a child, or a person had been living with a child of 16 or 17 on a mobile home site, and the person known as and defined in the Bill and in the lease as the mobile home owner were to die suddenly, after which it was discovered that the dependants fell into the category either of common law wife, mistress or dependent illegitimate child? What protection would they have? They would not be defined as

"the widow or widower of the occupier; or in default of a widow or widower so residing, any member of the occupier's family".

The Minister said that Rent Act law worked perfectly satisfactorily—I dispute that for a start—and that if such a case were to go to the courts on the precedent of Rent Act law a common law wife's claim would be acknowledged. As I said in Committee, it is precisely this category of person—the dependent common law wife or a person with no particular legal standing and no legal claim on the estate of the deceased—who is least likely to go, and will have the most inhibitions about going, to the court. We know so much from social security legislation about the difficulty of getting take up when people are entitled to social security benefits, and one realises that there are considerable difficulties and inhibitions experienced by dependent people in this category. If their status were to emerge as a result of the sudden death of the mobile home owner, we felt that there would be an additional coercive element entering into the relationship between the site owner, assuming—as one has to assume—that he is an unscrupulous and ruffianly individual, and the dependants who are left on the site.

The Minister challenged me in Committee, having given me assurance, to have a shot between then and Report to consider a further draft amendment. He said:

"I should advise him also that we should have to look at that in the light of valid law rather than in the light of what he quite admirably would seek to do."— [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 30th April 1975, c. 135.]

I accept the situation in terms of valid law. As I have had only one day in which to reconsider this matter since the Bill and the Government's amendments have been published, and as the various expressions of concern from the Government Front Bench and from the sponsor of the Bill have come to naught in terms of tangible amendments on the Paper, I thought it necessary to put before the House another form of words to meet my original purpose and the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, who cannot be here today but who I know would want this point made, about the status of a certain category of dependant. For this reason I suggest that we add to Clause 5 the words set out in the amendment.

May I ask a question in clarification? If the amendment were carried, what would be the position if there were dependants living with an occupier as the hon. Gentleman has described, but the occupier left in his will the mobile home to some other relative who was not one of those dependants living in the mobile home? In that situation the mobile home would pass into the possession of the legatee, but nevertheless some form of right would be bestowed by the amendment and possibly by other parts of the Bill on the dependants living in the mobile home. There would then be two forms of right.

I accept that. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the famous phrase of a former distinguished leader of his party, which he used frequently in order to override his civil servants— "Do not argue the difficulties. The difficulties will argue for themselves." As the hon. Gentleman says, the terms of the will would bestow the ownership of the mobile home upon a third party outside the site, but presumably if a claim were made in court some kind of residual right to live on the site might be with the dependants. That is a situation which, no doubt, would lead to difficulties.

We are discussing a dilemma which may involve—and this may be one of the statistics not included in my hon. Friend's comprehensive survey—a small minority of people who have gone to live on mobile home sites because of personal difficulties in their own lives and who hope to make a fresh start—a fresh start which would be cruelly undone by the decease of the owner. It is right that we should express this concern and attempt to protect them.

My justification of the form of words which I have proposed, putting in the stipulation of "not less than one year" is to indicate that this it not an attempt to give wholly unjustified rights to some casual girl friend who had arrived a week or two before and had taken up residence in the mobile home. If we include a minimum period of this kind, it assumes and presumes a stable relationship between the mobile home owner and his dependant. It is in the light of the real distress which could affect dependants in those cases and their lack of legal rights that I am moving the amendment.

In Committee, while commending my hon. Friend's objective, I gave voice to the fear that he would not be able successfully to embody that objective in the amendment. I regret to tell him that my misgivings have been justified.

The problem about this amendment which immediately obtrudes itself is that it would not necessarily achieve its objective because a common law wife is not necessarily a dependant. Therefore, a common law wife could be excluded even if the amendment were accepted. There is considerable practical difficulty in trying to define who, beyond an occupier's widow or family, should inherit an unexpired portion of an agreement.

When one talks of family one talks of children. My hon. Friend asked about a situation in which a common law wife might be left with a child of herself and the deceased occupier. My understanding—I am open to correction—is that the child would be a member of the family regardless of the status of the common law wife and, therefore, that difficulty which my hon. Friend apprehends would not arise. However, I repeat that neither a common law wife nor—to give a less worldly example but quite possible—the survivor of two retired elderly ladies in necessarily a dependant. To bring such categories of people within the scope of the Bill would necessitate a definition encompassing all co-residents who had lived with the deceased for a stipulated period before his death. Such a definition would be too broad and could lead to abuses. My hon. Friend—and I do not criticise him for this—discounts the protection under the Rent Act legislation which I mentioned in Committee.

With respect, I did not discount it. What my hon. Friend has just said suggests that I dismissed it. I said that I objected to his saying that the legislation worked perfectly satisfactorily. Perfection is not something that should be ascribed to Rent Act legislation.

I accept that, which is one reason why, when we have come to the end of our housing finance review, the Government will embark upon a review of the Rent Act legislation to make sure that we have the whole thing right. We are perfecting law at a rapid rate, and I hope that we shall be able to achieve perfection on that matter also before we successfully appeal to the electorate at the next General Election.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bridgwater must allow me an occasional spark as I travel down this consensus road with him.

It may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North does not repose total confidence in the Rent Act legislation but it is the best legislation that we have. It would be better to use that than to specify in the way suggested in the amendment, since one of the problems of specificatory legislation is that it excludes what is not specifically included and might exclude persons whom my hon. Friend would wish to assist.

The succession provisions in Clause 5 correspond with the Rent Act provisions as to rights of succession to statutory tenancies in conveying these to members of the dead person's family who lived with him at the time of his death. One of the things that my hon. Friend is doing in the amendment is one of the things that I feared might ensue. He is disadvantaging the people whom he is trying to help, because it is not satisfactory to specify a period within which a relationship can be termed stable and lasting. Relationships can exist for less than a year and still have the seeds of being a stable and lasting relationship which would have survived if the person concerned had lived. The Rent Act lays down a minimum period of residence not of one year but of six months, and I think that if Parliament were to desire a minimum period under the Bill it would be reasonable to follow the Rent Act rather than prescribe a minimum period of one year as my hon. Friend suggests.

I am sorry to pour such cold water on my hon. Friend's amendment because, at the risk of being tedious, I say that I have total sympathy with what he is trying to do. It is just that he is not doing it in this amendment, and therefore it would not be satisfactory to include it in the Bill.

I endorse the Minister's concluding words. This matter has given us concern because we are anxious to ensure that people who are genuinely co-residents in one form or another are covered as far as possible.

The advice that I have received—and it was repeated by the Minister in Committee—is that a common law wife and her children are regarded as members of the family. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) the Minister said that the Rent Act would leave the courts to decide in the way that my hon. Friend wished. I said:

"…the three categories to whom my hon. Friend refers—common law wife, mistress and illegitimate dependent children—are covered." —[Official Report, Standing Committee C: 30th April 1975; c. 133.]

Going further than that is a difficulty which we recognise, but there is a further safeguard to which I hope we may draw attention. In the case of elderly companions who are not related and where, technically, there are no dependants, there is nothing to prevent a joint agreement by which, in the event of the death of one person, the agreement subsists in the other.

In the event of a joint tenancy being entered into in the names of Mr. and Mrs. X, if it is subsequently discovered, on the decease of Mr. X, that Mrs. X was not what she seemed but was merely his common law wife or mistress and she had signed the forms in a name that was not her own, will she be protected?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not a lawyer, and he is taking me into a matter to which I am not sure of the answer. I do not know whether the Minister can enlighten his hon. Friend. This is a technical point of law to which I do not know the answer.

Speaking as a layman, my answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) is that this may have seemed more of a difficulty than it is. There is nothing in the Bill which says who actually owns the mobile home. The point has been made, and it has been underlined by the letter which many hon. Members have received from the Finance Houses Association Ltd., that the mobile home may be owned or charged against some other body, such as a finance house. If the dependants are living in a mobile home, and if on the death of the owner the home is left to a person somewhere else, those dependants will have the same rights as they would have if they were living in a flat. If somebody living in a flat with dependants dies and leaves the flat to somebody else, those dependants have rights. Under the Bill dependants living in a mobile home have similar rights to dependants living in an unfurnished flat.

I have considerable sympathy with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) about common law wives, but less sympathy when he talks about people living away from home and maintaining mistresses. I do not think that we can officially go on record as being sympathetic to that idea.

My hon. Friend must have some concern for my moral reputation in my constituency. I did not talk about people living away from home and having mistresses. I was referring to people who left home and established a new life, which many might do in the event of a marital breakdown.

I accept that. My real sympathy lies with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is right to say that to try to extend the definition in the Bill of dependant to to cover the point about mistresses, common law wives and all the other combinations that can be created would be impossible. In any case, this is the wrong vehicle by which to try to make that kind of sweeping and immensely important definition.

I believe that what we can usefully do in this short debate is to get it spelled out with some clarity that common law wives should be sensible enough, at the beginning of their long and happy relationship with their common law husband, to come to a sensible agreement, preferably backed by legal documentation, about the ownership and eventual disposition of their mutual assets should one or the other die. That is a better way, in these individual circumstances, of protecting the future of the surviving partner of such a relationship than to chance either the Rent Act or the definition which my hon. Friend is suggesting.

My advice to any common law wife who, by some strange quirk of circumstance, happens to read Hansard is to get cracking immediately on drawing up a legal arrangement, duly recorded in the proper documentation, to safeguard her future. Mistresses who have a much more temporary relationship than common law wives should also exercise great caution if they want to protect their future tenancies.

Leaving aside those categories, the real problem was touched on by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) when he talked about the elderly widow whose old friend moves in with her on becoming widowed. The problems which could arise in such a situation would, I suggest, command the respect and genuine sympathy of every hon. Member and, indeed, of every decent member of our society. I think that they need real protection and they could achieve it, as has been pointed out, by a joint agreement. However, they could certainly increase their chances of protection by joint ownership of the mobile home and by making clear in their respective dispositions for their demise the transfer of their share of such ownership to their partner living in those circumstances.

At this stage in our law that is probably a better, more practical and common sense way of dealing with this serious situation than to try to make the amendment, which would not cover the people about whom I am most concerned—the elderly couple or the couple who, for reasons other than those set out by my hon. Friend, have come together to live in a partnership in a mobile home.

I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 7, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

'(4) An order under subsection (1) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.

Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recollect that I offered to go along with the majority of opinion in Committee when new Clause 5 was debated whether a proposed wider order-making power for the Secretary of State should be deleted. This was the power to prescribe items to be included in agreements between site owners and residents, either in addition to or in substitution for the items set out in Clause 3.

My offer was conditional on making the remaining order-making powers in the clause subject to the negative resolution procedure. In the event, the Committee voted for the removal of the wider power in question after I think every member of the Committee who spoke had indicated that they thought my offer a fair one. This amendment accordingly seeks to substitute the negative resolution procedure in respect of the remaining powers, which is certainly more appropriate to the exercise of these powers.

This was a point of considerable contention and I should like to express appreciation for the way in which the Minister handled the matter in putting forward the Government's point of view. He very fairly left it to the Committee to decide what the right balance should be. Part of the compromise was that in return for the deletion of the paragraph which gave much wider order-making powers to the Secretary of State, which were of some concern to a number of hon. Members, it was agreed to substitute the negative resolution procedure.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This will give me a further opportunity to express my appreciation to the Minister for the interest and considerable amount of time he has spent on the Bill. I hope I may, through him, pass a very sincere expression of appreciation to his officials who have worked to improve certain aspects of the Bill and to enlist the support of other Departments, not least the Lord Chancellor's Office and the Scottish Office. I should like also to say how much I appreciate the efforts of my parliamentary agent, Mr. Colin Winser, who spent an enormous amount of time on the Bill. Its complexities have grown as we progressed. I could just about carry the file into the Chamber and I shall just about be able to carry it out again. That is a measure of the work involved.

I express my appreciation, too, to the sponsors of the Bill. Sadly, a number of them were not able to he with us today, but they have all played a part in the discussions. The Bill has been an excellent example of close co-operation across party lines to achieve common objectives. I say "Thank you", as well, to all the hon. Members who attended the Committee, not least the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved).

I have received an enormous amount of correspondence about the Bill. It is clear that there has been much misunderstanding about certain aspects of it and exactly how certain reasonable points were covered. The most common concern among site owners was that this would provide a licence for any resident, no matter how dishevelled or broken down his mobile home, automatically to be able to maintain totally unfit accommodation for up to eight years. I have tried to clarify that point and to show that there are proper safeguards.

It is always easy to make exaggerated claims about a measure with which one has been closely involved. All hon. Members recognise that the Bill goes some way to improve the situation existing under the 1968 Act. Some have asked whether it gives full security of tenure, and the honest reply to that is that it does not. It gives a qualified security of tenure—an improvement in the present situation. In the odd situation of mobile homes, where people may own their own dwelling but rent the site on which it stands, it is impossible to give the occupiers absolute rights over something which does not belong, to them. That is part of the problem.

I have one regret about the Bill. It is, with great respect to the eminent draftsmen who worked on it, that the language is not absolutely clear. It is significant that this week my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) produced, with the help of his colleagues, a report on the problems of the wording of parliamentary Bills. The situation of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) showed how one can be led astray by wording which seeks to achieve an objective, and which one thinks will make an improvement, but which is revealed by legal advice to disadvantage those whom one is trying to help. However, the Bill is as clear as we can make it. I hope that it will be backed by explanation by the representative bodies, so that all concerned will understand their rights and obligations.

The Bill will not be the final answer to all abuses, some of which are exaggerated. As both representative bodies have said, there are rogues on both sides who may exploit loopholes, but for the great mass of people who live responsibly and properly on sites, the Bill will be a further reassurance and confirmation of their rights and will give them that greater security which we all want them to have.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), I hope that the Bill will help to make more respectable the whole concept of mobile home living. As I said on Second Reading, in the United States 5 million people live in mobile homes by choice. Apart from those, mentioned by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, who have no alternative, many people in this country make the same choice. I hope that the Bill will show that Parliament recognises the choice of these people and its own responsibility to see that they are properly treated under the law. I hope that it will open up an expansion in a useful field of housing provision.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and those who have helped him to bring the Bill to this point. He is far too modest about his own rôle. If there is a lack of clarity in some parts of the Bill, the important thing is that he has brought a good deal of clarity to the relations between site owners and residents. In the last few weeks my own contacts in my constituency have borne this out. I have been asked to have a meeting with residents and owners to discuss the Bill. I, too, think that the Bill will bring about a new relationship between owners and residents.

Because of the social and geographical isolation of many people on caravan sites, it is important that proper information about the Bill should be disseminated. I was hoping that the Under-Secretary would be able to tell us that the Department would make publicity available, perhaps through local authorities, to ensure that occupiers know their rights. It is important that the details of the new agreements are known. Although this would involve some minor public expenditure, I hope that the Minister will ensure that it is not left to the popular magazines and the associations.

The associations cover only a limited number of sites. Like other hon. Members—I hope—at my meeting on Sunday I shall do my best to extend the activities of these organisations, which bring order and sense into the relations between owners and occupiers.

Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member and those who supported him, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan).

I should like to extend my own strong congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King): I and many others can testify from personal experience to the enormous care that he has taken to consult people and organisations, and to the good-humoured patience and acumen with which he has listened to what, at the beginning, were somewhat unclear observations from many of us who came to this area without, perhaps, the deep knowledge that some hon. Members possess. In a tangled matter of this kind, without such qualities on the part of the main sponsor the Bill would have foundered.

We should also thank the Under-Secretary for his attitude. I had previously known and heard of him in a more combative capacity, and it has been pleasant to hear him time and again doing his best to make the Bill a workable reality. Perhaps it is a little churlish to ask him not to weary of well-doing. He has been placed in charge of an important inquiry into these matters. I hope that he will confide in us from time to time how he is getting on and tell us when he will be able to bring forward something new. There are other aspects, such as holiday caravans, where real problems arise. I hope that he will keep an eye on these, although they are not strictly relevant to this debate.

In our constituencies we all hear of people who are in desperate difficulties, domestic, social and personal, because they do not have a satisfactory roof over their heads. Since I began to listen to these stories, I have come to the conclusion that the mobile home could provide an answer which was economical and independent, and which, in suitable conditions, could meet the needs of people who have never thought of a mobile home. I hope that the Bill will establish in people's minds the concept of the mobile home as a serious addition to our housing scene. The achievement of this Bill, I hope, will be not simply that of bringing order and security into existing sites; I hope that it will encourage individuals and particularly local authorities to get into this business themselves to relieve housing stress.

One of the things which have given me pleasure in the few years that I have been a Member of Parliament is the use which is made of our complex procedures in marshalling through useful Private Members' Bills, which have reached the Statute Book through the diligence and, sometimes, the courage of private Members.

The Bill which the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has steered through is very worth while. If not one of the greatest and most far reaching of Private Members' Bills, it certainly joins the ranks of those Bills which, in their own spheres, will have great impact. This one will benefit the owners of mobile homes and site operators and I believe will have the desirable spin-off described by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) of encouraging people to live in the open in mobile homes.

My only regret is that our procedure means that we must move so quickly from Committee to Report to Third Reading without being able fully to study the impact of all these provisions. If I may say so, that is not a fault of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when he said that he had seen him on previous occasions in the House as a combative politician. We also see the hon. Member for Bridgwater in the same position when he sits just behind the Opposition Front Bench making hard-hitting and pointed comments to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. However, when it comes to these occasions, when there is a degree of co-operation and understanding, the qualities that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend possess come to the fore. They are able to join together on a non-partisan basis to get through such measures as the Bill now before us.

Far from being a disadvantage to anyone, I believe that the Bill can form the basis of an expansion not only of site facilities but of the mobile home industry itself. That would be a good thing. The hon. Member for Bridgwater has said that many people choose to live in mobile homes because they provide the sort of life that they want to lead. I have absolute sympathy and understanding with that point of view. Although I am not a mobile home dweller I am an active caravanner and camper. I know just how great a benefit can be conferred upon one's family by getting out into the countryside, away from the smoke and dust of a large town, and enjoying the beauty and the relaxation that should be open to us all and is, indeed, our heritage. I fully understand those mobile home occupiers who choose a form of existence in which they are very close to the open air and to the good living that can come from it.

I appreciate that not all mobile home sites are in the country. Many are adjacent to large towns and cities, such as the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward). I join with my hon. Friend in his plea to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to ensure that this worthwhile measure receives adequate publicity. It is not enough merely to get it on to the statute book; we must go further and ensure that people are aware of its existence. That applies not only to those who now occupy mobile homes but to those who will occupy them in succeeding years.

We can provide publicity in a number of ways. I shall briefly draw two methods to the attention of my hon. Friend. First, it is obvious that local authorities will be aware of the measure, because it is their duty to be so aware. However, I think they can be encouraged by a departmental circular to ensure that in their information offices a short document is available to convey information to interested parties. That can be done at minimum expense but with considerable benefits.

Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend to give consideration to encouraging publicity through the citizens' advice bureaux. I know that in my constituency an enormous number of people go to the bureaux and receive very good advice on a wide variety of topics. Certainly the bureaux are equipped to pass on a wealth of information on many complex subjects. They provide a friutful source of advice and they are known places where citizens can go when they are in trouble. People either go to the citizens' advice bureaux or to their Member of Parliament. Sometimes they can combine both those desirable sources of information. If the citizens' advice bureaux could provide information on this measures in a document in leaflet form they would assist in making information on the benefits of the Bill more widely known on a continuing basis to operators and site dwellers.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that he has been talking about passive publicity? People would have to take the initiative to receive that sort of information. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a case for asking local authorities, which in most cases must have few caravans in their area—in my area there are about 500—to make some positive material available to caravan site owners and site dwellers?

I do not dissent from that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has made a note of my hon. Friend's views. Certainly an initial splurge of publicity to get the Bill understood as quickly as possible is an excellent idea, but I must add a word of caution. When we are encouraging local authorities to reduce expenditure, would it be right, in a borough where there is widespread use of mobile homes, to incure any great expenditure? I would not like to comment upon that, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will take the point into account in any circular that he finally decides to send out.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill's Third Reading. I hope that it will open up a new era of opportunity and co-operation between the two parties involved—namely, the owners and the site operators—which will be mutually satisfactory. Above all, I hope that it opens up greater avenues for sites to be developed which are not only fairly profitable for the owners but enjoyable for the occupants.

I intervene briefly to add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friends and Members opposite to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) for the diligence with which he has piloted the Bill through all the hazards that any Bill must face and for having brought it forward successfully to Third Reading. In addition, as has been mentioned already, my hon. Friend has negotiated with outside interests and has reconciled what at times must have seemed to be the irreconcilable.

On Second Reading I expressed views on behalf of the Opposition as regards the value of mobile homes and the contribution they can make to alleviating our housing problems. I do not want to detain the House by going over that ground again and by making a second speech along the same lines.

The importance of the Bill goes beyond its application to mobile homes in as much as it is giving a charter to an occupier, a tenant as it were, of a form of residential accommodation without in any way imposing control and security of tenure in the full sense. It is seeking to achieve a new relationship between site owners and occupiers by means of a statutory form of agreement, an agreement that is impartial and objective in seeking to give help and protection to the one side and at the same time to recognise the rights of the other party.

Members on both sides of the House have expressed the hope that the Bill heralds a new era, that it will produce a new relationship between the opposite parties to a bargain which, in the past, has been soured for a variety of reasons.

Parliament has now brought forward an arrangement whereby the rights and duties can be balanced fairly and equitably between the parties. I hope that the House will study this arrangement in the light of experience to see whether it is a means whereby we can in future find a way of taking relationships as between landlord and tenant out of the era of asperity that we have seen for so many years in the past. I shall watch the situation very closely and examine the way in which this measure operates to see whether we can find a formula for bringing peace at long last between landlords and tenants.

The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has understandably widened on Third Reading the ground that we covered in the more detailed consideration which took place in Committee and on Report. Certainly I would hope that we can expand areas of good will in all forms of tenure. Whether this legislation and legislation that may follow from it will be exactly analagous to and comparable with other forms of legislation is perhaps open to question. That there will be lessons to be learned from it when it goes forward to the statute book and comes into practice I have no doubt.

The House will wish me from the Front Bench to voice to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) the congratulations of the whole House for the work that he has put into the Bill. He has spent an enormous amount of time and taken an enormous amount of trouble to get the Bill into the right shape, entering into the necessary consultations and in mastering his brief for the long Committee stage, which was unusually long, although I am sure that he and other hon. Members will agree that it was in no sense protracted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) said in Committee that that Standing Committee had restored his faith in the Standing Committee procedure. I am sure that he was speaking for others, too. Many of us on both sides of the House have often sat on a Standing Committee in which Members of the Opposition, whatever their party, have regarded it as their rôle to obstruct the Government, and Members of the Government, whatever their party, have regarded is as their rôle to evade the Opposition. In this Standing Committee arguments were put forward in order not to take up time but to get a view- point adopted, and in almost every case a debate on an amendment ended in agreement. There were few Divisions, and the House will recall that those Divisions that there were often took place at the instance of one hon Gentleman who was putting forward an individual but isolated point of view.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornsey for his tribute to the officials of the Department of the Environment, who have worked very hard on the Bill and who willingly associated themselves right at the start with my wish to ensure that the Bill was a viable piece of legislation. We wished to take advantage of the hon. Member for Bridgwater's good fortune in the ballot, and there is no doubt that without the devoted work of the officials in my Department, to whom I should personally like to pay a very great tribute, the Bill would not reach the statute book in the viable and workable form in which it already finds itself.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgwater for what he said about other sponsors of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is a pioneer in this legislation. He sought to introduce a Bill on this subject in the last Parliament but one. It is a mark of his devotion that he has been present today right to the end moving amendments and seeking to improve the Bill. He provided us with the one small crisis that the Bill has encountered, but we got over that and reached agreement on that, too.

On Second Reading I was glad to offer encouragement, on behalf of the Government, to the hon. Member for Bridgwater and his sponsors on both sides of the House. I am now glad that I can add to that encouragement, thanks to the highly constructive discussion of the Bill, particularly in Committee, but on Report as well. There is no doubt whatsoever that this Bill, as a result of the work of the entire House, is a notable improvement on the version which we were considering over two months ago.

At that time I felt it only prudent to qualify my encouragement on behalf of the Government by setting out certain misgivings that I had. These misgivings did not centre on the main principles of the Bill, which were common ground between the hon. Member, his sponsors and the Government. We all accepted the case for creating a statutory basis for the contractual relationship between site owners and site residents. There was never any difference over the need to provide a measure of security which would diminish the fears which many residents feel about an uncertain future and which would help to eradicate the exploitation which can and does occur where site owners do not observe the standards of the responsible among them.

At the same time I am sure that we all shared the aim of encouraging those many reputable site owners who already give a fair deal to the residents on their land. Above all, we knew that even if the Bill could not be a comprehensive, definitive measure, it could still, in the shorter term, do a considerable amount of good.

My doubts were concerned with more peripheral matters. In the main, I was not convinced that all the practical details of the Bill had been fully thought through, although I should add that I myself was far from able to produce final answers to the sorts of questions which occurred to me. For example, I suspected that extension of the jurisdiction of the county courts could provide perhaps not an ideal but probably the best available means of settling disputes between site owners and residents if private arrangements set out in particular agreements did not prove sufficient. On the other hand, I could not be confident of the precise way in which this jurisdiction should be framed, and I certainly had not been into the many ramifications which we were able to explore in Committee.

I was also anxious to ensure that even though the Bill was essentially an interim measure sufficient reserve powers should be left to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to deal with unforeseen contingencies which might occur in the interval before comprehensive legislation could reasonably be introduced.

My initial suggestions as to the way in which this should be done received a mixed reception from the sponsors of the Bill. There was general agreement about the desirability of providing reserve powers, but no clear-cut unanimity at the outset on how widely these should be drawn. The balance which we have now achieved in Clause 6 reflects, I think, the recognition that there may well be circumstances in which Government intervention could be justifiable. If, for example, it became clear that totally extortionate levels of discount or premium were being levied on occupiers reselling their caravans on site, my right hon. Friend would be able to check the spread of abuse.

On the other hand, the useful work we were able to carry out in Committee resulted in a pretty clear majority opinion as to just where the Government reserve powers should stop. I frankly acknowledge that my own preference was for some extension of these powers beyond those now embodied in the Bill. But this Bill, as I made clear at every stage, is not, after all, a vehicle for the Government either to drive or to clamber onto. For that reason, we have made every effort to help improve it, if necessary by arguing out particular points in considerable detail. But I am sure that the hon. Member and his sponsors recognise that we have never attempted to impose any Government line, and that we have respected the fact of this being not only a Private Members' Bill but a Bill whose hacking comes from all parts of the House.

I have already, on Second Reading, paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), whose efforts have ensured that the provisions of the Bill will cover Scotland as well as England and Wales. But it would be easy to lose sight of the fact that my hon. Friend has managed to do considerably more than that. He has seen to it also that the Bill extends to Scotland the Caravan Sites Act 1968, another Private Member's measure, and has thereby achieved two results. He has, firstly provided mobile home residents in Scotland with the protection afforded by the 1968 Act, notably against harassment —and that in itself is a thoroughly worthwhile step. Secondly, his industry has ensured that once the Bill has been enacted and has come into force the law on mobile homes will be on the same footing throughout the whole of Great Britain.

From the moment I was appointed to the post I now hold my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West, even when a member of the Government, never ceased harassing and harrying me to get further legislation on this subject. One fortunate consequence of the otherwise perhaps not so fortunate fact that he is no longer a member of the Government is that he has been able to play an active part in achieving for Scotland the legislation that he sought from me more than a year ago. What we have achieved in the Bill will certainly facilitate the work that I am conducting in my review when I shall be consulting fully my Scottish colleagues, among others.

It would be rash for anybody to claim that the Bill as it now stands is perfect and complete. To say this is not to deny the immense amount of work which the hon. Member has devoted to the Bill or the searching scrutiny which it received in Committee.

At one point after Second Reading, I recall that there were optimistic hopes in the air that one day would be more than enough for the Committee stage. The fact that four sittings were required is ample testimony to the kind of examination which the Bill properly received. Even so, preparation has necessarily been short, and it may well be that further scrutiny in another place will result in more improvements. I trust, if we can send this message along the corridor, that the main shape of the salient proposals in the Bill will not be seriously called in question.

There is one perhaps unfortunate but regrettably inevitable by-product of the process of improving the Bill. The initially simple provisions were seen to be insufficient, and the closing of loopholes unerringly leads to greater complexity. I imagine that the Bill as drafted would defeat the efforts of many non-lawyers readily to grasp its effects. If the Bill is to have its proper effect it has to be understood, and well understood, by both site residents and site owners.

If the Bill remains a closed book to them, they may too easily fail to take advantage of its provisions or to comply with its obligations, and I readily foresee alarmist and misleading rumours circulating about its purpose and effect. I have already offered such Government assistance as I can to the hon. Member for Bridgwater to facilitate the passage of his Bill through Parliament, and I hope that I have so far fulfilled my offer. I shall ensure that it applies to the Bill as it progresses in another place.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) that he has shown to his constituents how speedily he has taken on board their problems during the time that he has been in the House. It would be only reasonable for me to extend a promise of Government help in explaining to the world outside Parliament what this Bill does and how it does it. I imagine that the organisations representing site residents and operators will be preparing their own guidance for their members. I am sure that the Government will be only too glad to discuss with them the factual context of any material which they devise. It would no doubt be timely also if the Government could provide some form of assistance and explanation to, say, citizens' advice bureaux, which are so frequently a source of local information and help.

The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), whose kind words I particularly appreciated, bearing in mind the relative roles we have occupied at one time or another, referred to the review which I am conducting. Naturally we have had to wait to find out exactly how this Bill would turn out. Now that we see the form in which it will, we trust, reach the statute book, we can proceed with the review and to the much more definitive and far-reaching legislation to which we are committed. I am sure that I have said enough to show that we shall continue to take a benevolent interest in the Bill in the same constructive way as has prevailed up to now. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I have been in this House for what could be considered a considerable period. Hoping to be a modestly good and assiduous Member and thinking that with my Celtic background I would have a little bit of Irish luck, I have pursued my weary way year after year into the Lobby and diligently signed my name hoping that I would come top of the form and would be able to introduce some tremendous measure that would find its way to the statute book.

In 20 years this is the first time that I have had modest good fortune. I know the position. I know that No. 14 in the Ballot is not the same as No. 1. I wondered what sort of Bill I would attempt to introduce into the Mother of Parliaments. There are many Bills suggested by Departments and there are others in an embryonic stage. I put forward this Bill for a particular reason. We are all aware of the tragedy of cancer not only in our midst but throughout the world.

I came to this House from an industrial background, from an area in which I had held most positions since I began working on the Liverpool dockside at the age of 14. I had become the managing director of my own firm. But there was one constant worry in my mind. I always recalled the people, particularly the boys, with whom I worked, often in dreadful conditions. Often these boys had the worst of all worlds. In some way I felt a bit more secure because I came from a good, modest, clean and comfortable home.

All of these points are relevant to the introduction of this Bill. In introducing it I speak as a layman who left school at the age of 14 and became a scaler boy on the Liverpool waterfront. I noticed in my passage through life that many of the boys with whom I worked contracted cancer and died earlier than might have been the case if they had been more fortunate in their worldly positions. Perhaps there is help somewhere else for people who have to suffer in this way.

I do not want to be too pessimistic about this subject because I have learned not to be pessimistic. The subject can be approached in an atmosphere of hope. An eminent American medical authority said recently that while cancer is fatal if untreated or if treated late, the fact is that early cancer is among the most curable of major causes of death. My authority for that is Dr. Clifton R. Read of the International Union against Cancer. situated in America. That statement gave me hope.

Having moved all the way through local government and seen miracles happen there, I thought I would introduce this modest Bill in an attempt to ensure that the things that happened in my youth happen less often in today's society. That is all it is—a small attempt by the hon. Member for Bootle to bring more knowledge, hope, faith and achievement not only into my own environment but into the national environment. I hope that we shall be able to add to international knowledge on this subject, which affects everyone at some time or another.

I hope that hon. Members will understand if I quote some statistics. In 1924 my father had the privilege of coming to Whitehall—I recall this with some pride—to give evidence before an important body on the condition of boy labour in this country. At that time Parliament thought that they were being subjected to things to which young boys should not be subjected. Like myself, he knew about coal, oil, boilers, oil tanks and cofferdams, which were not beautiful places to be in, and rose boxes. The rose, box of a ship is the filthiest part but it has that beautiful name. I shall not go into the reasons for it, but it is called that for obvious reasons.

There were boys working in these conditions and there were other people who were working with slag wool and asbestos. They developed all kinds of conditions. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) would be able to analyse these conditions in great detail, because he is an eminent diagnostician. However, I shall keep to layman's language when talking about the things that cause the conditions that other men have to diagnose. It was insulation and asbestos that caused all these dreadful illnesses which my constituents have to suffer, and no doubt many others suffer from them in other parts of this industrial land.

People may say that this is old hat. I am assured by the best medical authority that this is not the case. It is possible that in modern industry there are more dangers than existed in old industry. That point has been made forcibly to me and I may mention an example later.

In my passage through public life I have discovered another inequality for working-class people. There are, of course, many. Is it not strange that the incidence of cancer among working-class people—a phrase that people do not want us to use any more—is far higher than it is among people who are better off, such as the middle class? Of course, I hope that that is always the case for the middle class, in all charity. However, it is obvious that a man in my situation, coming from the part of the land from which I come, can learn that this class distinction is relevant not only in financial, economic and social terms but even from the point of view of our personal health in the face of this disease.

The example for which I was searching is to be found in the rubber industry, which is a modern industry using additives and is principally concerned, in this country, with the production of tyres. It has been established and proved positively that to work in this industry does not cause cancer of the lung but can cause cancer of the bladder. I am delighted to have the full agreement, I see, of that eminent diagnostician, the hon. Member for Reading, South. It bears out the point I am making. It applies not only to people of my generation but to people of future generations in the same way.

I do not want to use too many business names. However, may we be sure that great international organisations, not only in this country but abroad, such as the great international Dunlop Company, recognise this and make adequate compensation? Will they, with their great wealth, be able to inform workers in their factories that they are in danger of contracting cancer of the bladder? Will they be able to use a screening process which will be beneficial to the workers to whom they have a responsibility?

I want people in this country to realise that we are anxious about these things. We are not all medically knowledgeable. I certainly am not, and I am sure there are many poor innocent people who do not know much about this subject at all. However, we must keep insisting that cancer can be cured and that the pessimism that affected other times must be driven away somehow. I believe that the whole thing depends, firmly, on education and the earliest possible diagnosis.

All hon. Members have a great affection and esteem for one of the greatest physicians in the world. I have been a friend of the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead for many years. Whether this story is apocryphal or whether it is true in every syllable I do not know, but in Liverpool University the great Professor Cohen, as he was in those days, began every lecture of any importance with this statement to the assembled medical students and graduates: "There are three important things in medicine. The first is diagnosis, the second is diagnosis and the third is diagnosis."

I believe that to be the case not only in medicine and cancer but in this country as a whole, economically and in every other way, where we have as yet been unable to diagnose our problems. Therefore, the diagnostic ability of people and the co-operation of people in the early diagnosis of cancer is essential.

Perhaps I may inject a note of hope. I have always been fortunate to have friends in the right places. As a layman I feel it essential to get expert knowledge to try to assimilate matters in any humble fashion possible. I have discussed this matter with an eminent cancer specialist. It was in Mr. Speaker's constituency—and I did not ask for his permission to go there. I went to this wonderful establishment and was given the information that in the Clatterbridge Hospital in the Wirral they have the highest cure rate for bladder cancer in the world. Is not that—were I not to say another word today—a wonderful thing to be able to say to people who think that every case of cancer is hopeless? That hospital has the highest cure rate for bladder cancer in the world. I asked how I could translate that fact as a politician. They told me that there has to be something to take the place of fear. The only thing that we can put in place of fear is hope. That hope has to be based upon achievements and on the knowledge of the people who work so hard.

It may be said to me today, "You are in the wrong Department." The Minister present is from the Department of Education and Science. I could have said with complete arrogance or lack of humility, "Where are the other two Departments? Where is the Minister from the Department of Employment and where is the Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security?" I do not know whether this fits in appropriately with my hon. Friend the Minister's true position.

Education in cancer has to start wherever cancer is found. If a little schoolboy does not start smoking until he is eight, he has to be told when he is eight, not when he is 16, that he will not be able to play in the football team or to run as fast as other boys. Education must start in childhood and continue in adolescence. The development of knowledge should occur naturally in industry, schools and universities according to the need for that knowledge, right through to maturity. I am sure the experts will be with me on that. When people reach maturity they tend to feel that the worst struggle of life is over, but they are the dangerous years.

We all remember what it was like to be 10 years of age. I can remember what it was like to be 21, but when I became 40, the age of 60 seemed a long time ahead, an eternity, but to me the years have gone by on velvet feet and I did not hear them going. I was hushed by the years as they elapsed and went my own way. In talking to the young, we must remember that they are young and do the best we can.

Every year, 32,000 people in the United Kingdom die from lung cancer—one every 16 minutes. Those are not my figures, but they are the most up-to-date figures that can be obtained. Here a note of sadness comes into my mind. I have always asked myself why my constituents have so much trouble. Why do they always get everything—bad housing, plus had health, plus bad environment, plus cancer. That is what I refer to as the plus factor. The theory that I have always held has been proved to be right. Which part of Great Britain has the highest incidence of cancer? Liverpool and Bootle. That is how I justify my Bill on behalf of my people. The plus factors include environment, atmosphere, diesel fumes and smoking. I am told that one can smoke with a freer mind in New Zealand because the air there is so pure that the same risks are not incurred.

People tend to think that the situation is hopeless, but I will inject a note of hope by saying that there has been an improvement over the years. When I first came into active public life in Bootle after the war, one responsibility which I was given was for housing. An eminent public health doctor sent for me and asked whether I had any idea of the dimensions of the assignment that I had been given. I said "I know it is fairly bad". He said "Do you know that you have the highest maternal mortality rate in the United Kingdom, the highest child mortality rate in the United Kingdom and the highest incidence of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom?"

That was immediately after the war. Hitler had done a vicious bombing job and had taken thousands of houses from us. We thought that the town would have to be written off. But by diligent work by all concerned, within a few short years those terrible statistics were reduced below national average. People had thought that their position was hopeless, but by hard work, devoted care and application by all concerned, those dreadful figures were reduced. If the same endeavour can be put into attacking cancer, people will have less reason to be pessimistic. We are just beginning to see the light, and if we follow this road great results may be achieved in a shorter time than we imagine.

Young people should be given information on how to protect themselves. When I went to work I did not know how to protect myself—and I was not unintelligent. After leaving a good grammar school I went down to the docks because I had no choice. I had no idea how to protect myself. But for the grace of God I should have had cancer, as did some of my comrades. People should be told how to protect themselves. If we do not tell them, who will'? Is it not fair for me to ask Parliament for protection for young people in industry and elsewhere? Is it not fair for me to ask local education authories to assist? They are responsible for the teaching of many other subjects. Why should they not he responsible for teaching children how to look after themselves? I hope that the Bill will get its just deserts, because it is a good Bill.

The Bill requires local authorities to provide information. Until recently a local authority was a health authority. I hope that I shall not be accused of leaving out health authorities. There has been a separation of the two, but that separation occurred with the reorganisation of local government and does not occur in my mind. I hope that the term "local authority" will not be taken to mean just a local education authority. It means every kind of local authority, including regional hospital boards and others. The Bill would be a nonsense if it were read in any other way.

I shall probably be told I should not interfere with the curricula of schools and that it is a mistake to force certain things to be done. What are we to do? I am not talking about people who live in Richmond or in Dorset or in Kent but of people who live in my constituency. There are people there who have never known the privacy of their own bedroom. Is that not a significant factor when everybody says that hygiene is important? Specialists tell me that hygiene is all-important and is becoming more and more so every day in the fight against cancer. There are people in my constituency who have never seen an inside toilet. In the 20 years I have been in the House, no Government have ever succeded in solving the housing crisis. I have always been disappointed on that score. The results can be seen in our streets.

If children and particularly young adolescent girls do not have the privacy which we all take for granted, how much harder is the situation that faces them. Perhaps, additionally, the girl concerned may have no parents, or indifferent parents, or may be a vicitim of a marriage which has broken up, and she is left on her own. Who is to tell her these important things, if Parliament is not to tell her through the medium of this Bill? Who is to tell her if teachers, nurses and doctors are not to do so?

Housing and hygiene are all part of the fight against cancer. My constituents are not getting a fair break—and they have never had a fair break. It is my duty as their Member of Parliament to say these things, even though it may bore the House. My constituents need more protection, and they need it from Parliament. That is the reason behind the Bill.

I shall no doubt be told that these matters cannot be included in curricula. However, most schools today have liberal studies, and I shall prove a little later that my proposals are being followed in other parts of the world. We are prepared to teach children of eight the exact situation of the equator, but we are not prepared to teach them about the equation between good health and bad. I do not want to be told about curricula because I have been the chairman of an education committee. I know that children could be taught about hygiene and the standards necessary to avoid cancer.

There is something more I should say. I wondered whether I should say this to the House, and I have decided to say it. The House will know of the stand I have taken on certain subjects in this House over the years. I have never liked the permissive society. I am a little sorry for the young today. I am certainly not envious of them. I believe that we have burdened modern youth with the permissive society. Who will tell the youth of this country that gross promiscuity brings cancer in its train—not in middle age or in old age but in youth'? Who will tell them of that tragedy? If we do not say these things in the Mother of Parliaments, where can they be said? I have heard these things said only in the colleges and medical schools.

When legislation has been enacted which has resulted in the permissive society those responsible have not told people of the dangers of the permissive society. The danger to which I have drawn attention is one of them. I believe that young women need to be protected by a Bill such as that which is now before the House. If they carry on in ignorance they will find themselves in an unfortunate state in a very short period of time. That needed to he said and I have now said it.

I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's argument, much of which is valid, in seeking to tackle the question of education about cancer and the ways in which one should seek to prevent the disease. Certainly the Bill concentrates on the question of education and information rather than on the question of fear about the disease. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we emphasise the horror, rather than intelligent constructive ways in which young people can protect themselves, we shall not achieve our aims as successfully as we might otherwise do?

As a reasonable man of course I underwrite my hon. Friend's intervention. Certainly I expressed hope at the outset of my speech, and I said that I was not pessimistic. I said that in place of fear we must put hope, knowledge and achievement. The more information and education we can give the various age groups, particularly the young, the better it will be for everybody.

I shall come shortly to the provisions of the Bill and explain them in more detail. It is not hard to explain these things to people. I have had information from all over the world which suggests that although we may think the mountain is very high and that we are only at the foothills, we are well advanced at present towards a solution.

I referred to the curriculum in the schools. It has been said that this subject could not be included in the school curriculum. However. I recently received an article from a lady doctor in Finland which reads:

"Schools offer an ideal climate for the growth of a sensible and unemotional acceptance of cancer as a part of life. They give us the chance to eliminate old inherited prejudices and replace them with honest, matter of fact types of information about the various kinds of cancer and the successful treatment of important types of the disease."

She also mentions biology, chemistry, the environment, and hygiene, and health classes as being the natural places for the dissemination of this knowledge.

Referring to the Schedule, I was asked to provide information which would enable people to hope. I can provide that information. Paragraph 1 refers to the extent to which the various types of cancer are curable, especially if detected in the early stages. Reference is also made to the importance of early diagnosis and treatment. I am sure that hon. Members will support me in my plea concerning that matter.

I shall now give figures which will help all those who are interested in the problem. I refer to the extent to which the various types of cancer, to which the Schedule refers, are curable, especially if detected in the early stages. In one eminent hospital 25 years ago two cases of cancer of the tongue suitable for treatment with radium needles were diagnosed each week. In the same hospital they now only unhappily, discover six such cases each year.

I now refer to the existing treatment, the possible development of treatment and the improvement of the treatment of breast cancer. Mine is a layman's approach. However, I have consulted knowledgeable people, who have informed me that at the age of 30 ladies should take advantage of the screening available to them. The years in a woman's life between 40 and 50 are vital. Family history, and size of family must also be taken into account. People who are in the high risk groups should seek medical opinion.

If we try to build a house, school or hospital the question of cost must be considered. However, wars cost much money, lives, pain and wounds, and I make no apology for quoting these figures. The cost of screening women in hospitals is modest—between £5 and £6. However, total screening costs thousands of pounds per person. Even in those conditions, at a cost of perhaps £2,000 per person, the cancer pick-up rate for persons with no symptoms is 0·15 per cent. That is a costly exercise.

When women co-operate with the medical profession, the cure rate for breast cancer improves tremendously. There are many methods of examination. I have a note which tells me to try to avoid the use of long words. However, self-examination should be taught. We are arguing about the method by which it should be taught.

It is sometimes necessary for examinations to be carried out by doctors. However I am informed that, in this natural difficulty, women are more helpful to other women. Qualified nurses are successful when examining other women. That fact should be known. Many women are modest and fearful. Trained, diligent, devoted and knowledgeable women should be employed by local authorities to do this work, which would encourage women to seek examination. If a woman aged 30 to 50, who is modest, as most of them are, knew that she could be examined by another woman, she would be less fearful. However, if further advice were needed, that would have to come from the appropriate higher medical level. I am told that there is a very high "pick-up' rate by the nurses who do this valuable work.

I have done my best to present a Bill on this difficult subject. So difficult is the subject that at one time I thought that people were kidding me when they told me about the dangers of aerosols in ladies' hairdressing establishments. I believe that the particles emanating from an aerosol can be cancer-forming. Aerosols are used throughout the land in massive numbers. One eminent medical authority told me that they were a menace.

We are not doing sufficient to educate people about the dangers of smoking. I regard the notice on cigarette packets as hideous. The warning that cigarettes may kill may be justified, but is that all we can do to warn people of the dangers of smoking?

Could not the Government find time for my Bill? Who will stand in the way of the Bill? It is better than most Bills. I hope that no one will block it. It is a good Bill. My constituents and other people throughout the land will ask questions if it is blocked, because it is such a deserving Bill.

The Bill was not in existence until a few days ago. Considerable thought has been devoted to it. I am grateful for the considerable help of those in the House who help Members such as myself who have little legal knowledge. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have helped me and to my sponsors on both sides. I am grateful to all the doctors who patiently advised me. I hope that I have conveyed to the House at least some of the facts which it would wish to hear about.

In a recent article Dr. E. C. Easson, of Glasgow—he is a doctor of medicine and a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians—wrote:

"With present-day therapeutic measures many cancers are entirely curable. When we cure these cancers we know why we cure them."

That is tremendous.

"When we fail we know why we failed. The greatest single source of failure today is the patient who gives his cancer time to go beyond the measurable possibilities of cure. This is the problem, this is the tragedy we seek to control."

It gives me considerable pleasure to be called so early in the debate and to have an opportunity of welcoming this Bill. I am not one of its sponsors, although I would gladly have added my name to the Bill had the opportunity airsen. My attitude to the subject has been substantially confirmed by the able way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) introduced the main provisions of the Bill. I hope also that I may be somewhat luckier than he in not having to wait 20 years before I draw a sufficiently high place in the Ballot to introduce a modest measure of my own, and I hope that such a measure will be as worthy of the attention of the House as I consider this Bill to be.

I imagine that one of the major objections which may be put forward to this excellent Bill is that here again is the Mother of Parliaments recommending legislation which it requires other authorities to implement; and that at a time when we are all conscious of local authorities creaking and groaning under the weighty burdens that we have placed upon them, and cognisant of our failure to offer them sufficient resources with which to meet those obligations, it might be thought that this Bill runs into son-le difficulties in yet again suggesting that local authorities should bear an additional burden.

I do not take that view. I sometimes think that local authorities inflict upon themselves burdens which are less meritorious. Many local authorities have certainly been prone in recent years to expend a substantial amount of money on rather grandiose civic centres and offices which I do not think have always been totally justified. Perhaps I may enter a caveat. I was privileged in the past week to participate in a ceremony in which the civic centre in my constituency of Enfield was opened by Her Majesty the Queen Mother, and I am not in any way suggesting that money expended on that civic centre is not completely justified. Indeed, I would emphasise that the development of those offices is in the area of an authority which has been operating for more than a decade under the reform of the London Government Act.

My criticism is more substantially reserved for those local authorities which have barely seen the light of day in terms of their new roles before there has been substantial expenditure of public money on what may not necessarily be regarded as the most beneficial resource uses on behalf of their communities. However, I do not place the obligations represented by this Bill, should it successfully negotiate the parliamentary obstacles, in the category of an unwelcome burden.

One is conscious that in recent years many pieces of legislation connected with health have greatly extended the obligations on local authorities. One thinks particularly of the example of the Chronic Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I do not think anybody in any local authority would wish that obligation to be removed or even reduced. What we are witnessing is a substantial transference of crucial areas of health care to the local communities. This philosophy of health in the local community is absolutely right. We should attempt to solve the problems of those who are suffering illness by as far as possible locating their support and help in the local community itself.

One thinks, for example, of the mental health provisions by which greater encouragement is given to the treatment of mentally-ill people at home with sufficient back-up resources from the local authority to ensure that people are nursed back to health so far as possible within the framework of their own community rather than being isolated in hospitals with special facilities.

Moreover, the advantages of this to local authorities are not to be underestimated. In many respects this represents the local authorities as having a human face. Whatever the strident cries for a reduction in the increase in rate expenditure and demands upon the rates, one always recognises that the community is eager to provide appropriate social service support for those in most need in the community, and I do not think that these resources are begrudged by anyone.

One should recognise that there are certain ways in which one can increase the participation of people serving in local authorities, so increasing the motivation towards public service, and it is my view that the increase in the obligation on local authorities in respect of health provisions makes the role of the councillor more satisfying and helps to recruit people to carry out that honourable service.

The Bill represents a small but significant step in the development of our thinking about medicine in our community. For a long time in our history, all our resources with regard to medical provision were concerned with the curative aspects of health. One calls to mind the eighteenth century emphasis on such matters and some of the more horrendous Hogarthian prints. One must recognise that the cure, if not more painful than the disease, looks to have been more horrendous. The movement from there was to- wards the area of the great public health reforms of the nineteenth century. Then it was recognised that the cure of the diseased patient provided no answer to the outbreaks of epidemics and that the community had to have a wider responsibility not of providing a cure but of preventing outbreaks of such epidemics.

The cholera epidemic of 1847, which led to the Public Health Act, was a clear example of the community realising that without the development of suitable sanitation, without the guarantee of clean water for our developing industrial cities, the curative response to the incidence of health could provide no solution.

We are now moving to a situation in which we are developing extremely high standards of public health. Through the National Health Service we have greatly increased the degree of sophistication in our treatment of patients. This is particularly so on the curative side, and the Bill emphasis what I consider to be highly desirable, namely, the need to develop the preventive aspects of medicine. It is cheaper to prevent the development of illness than to cure it, and for individuals it is better that they should never have the disease than that they should be cured after having contracted it.

It is the case in the development of our modern medical history that the fastest spreading diseases in advanced societies are those which people can be taught to avoid. The Bill emphasises the educational aspects of health in our society, and it is therefore appropriate that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is present to reply to the debate.

The incidence of disease in a modern society can substantially be reduced by an increase in our educative facilities to spread an awareness of the dangers of certain practices leading to the development of cancer. This disease has had considerable publicity in recent years, certainly to that point where it is recognised that certain social habits are crucially related to it—particularly the habit of smoking. It is estimated that almost all human activities have within them the capacity to increase the possibility of cancer, and some activities like sun-bathing, smoking and making love, are regarded as more likely to increase that incidence than are other activities. These would seem to be the activities which people regard as particularly pleasurable.

I am not here to produce a Benthamite version of the felicific calculus or to produce a prohibited list of such pleasures. But if, to take the obvious extreme case of smoking, there is a problem in the development of educational techniques to overcome the natural tendency to indulge in smoking, this should be remedied. The relationship between lung cancer and smoking is well established and is supported not just by the advice of the medical profession but in the action it has taken in recent years, for example, by GPs being prepared to practise what they preached. Substantial numbers of them reduced their consumption of tobacco, and the result is that while lung cancer is increasing in our society generally there has been a significant drop in the incidence of the disease among doctors.

The problem of emphasising the dangers of smoking is not that the devil has the best tunes but that he has the biggest orchestras at his command to play them. This is why, in educational institutions, it is essential to concentrate our resources in combating the powerful influences in society which are working in the opposite direction.

The pressures in society are clearly enormous and should be reduced. We should particularly look again at the question of advertisements for cigarettes and tobacco. It is not that we want to deny pleasure to people who are already, unhappily, hooked on that habit. We are seeking to reduce the numbers of people who take up smoking, risking injury to their health. That is why the Bill is important in emphasising the educational institutions aspect. That is why we should look particularly closely at the increasing number of advertisements that are found at sporting occasions and events. In a modest way I participate in sport, in the parliamentary soccer team. The team has not been offered sponsorship by a tobacco firm and I doubt whether, after my speech today, it is likely to get one. However, it is important to distinguish the sharp correlation which exists between what I believe to be distinct opposites and which is highlighted by the presence of substantial cigarette advertisements at sporting events.

Restrictions on TV advertisements have been circumvented by the judicious placing of hoardings at sporting fixtures. This happens even on the glorious occasion of the Cup Final, and at motor racing, although one cannot distinguish the driver or tell one "mobile Hoover" from another, one can see the name of the advertiser.

In our educational institutions we should emphasise the development of powerful countermanding techniques against the pressures of the outside world. The Bill shows how local authorities can play a significant role. The outside visitor to a school is more readily accepted by the pupils than are their familiar teachers. This prestige can help to bring home the message. Doctors still enjoy considerable influence with the young.

Health is our most precious asset, and we must protect it. This does not mean interfering with the school curriculum. Physical education should be abolished in schools and replaced with health education, since it is meaningless without a full education as to the advantages of health. The Bill offers great opportunities for the extension of information to prevent the dreadful scourge of cancer. It is a step along the road to preventive rather than curative medicine and as such should be applauded.

I want to speak briefly about the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon). I was about to call him "my hon. Friend" and that would not be so far from the truth. I agree with the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies). I cannot believe, I will not believe, that the Under-Secretary of State, an old friend of mine, will oppose a Bill which seeks to establish a method which will enable us to find out more about cancer and to notify it more quickly. The six hon. Members present assume that he will oppose the Bill but I do not believe that a Member of this great Socialist Government which is bringing so much pleasure and greatness to the British people will speak against this humble Bill.

Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman resumed his seat, he would find out what response the Minister intended to make.

With respect, I was not rude enough at any stage to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, although it would not have been the most difficult thing that I have ever done in the House.

I do not credit the story that is going around today that this little Bill, which will help to find out where cancer is arising, will become the subject of dispute when we decide whether we should help its passage through the House. It is not possible to believe that. The only reason for my contributing to the debate is my great feeling for the hon. Member for Bootle. I find it impossible to believe that such a distinguished and important Socialist from the North-West, a representative of this great Government of the Socialist Party, will be denied the right to introduce a Bill which will do some good in alleviating the suffering of the people of our nation.

After that passionate and forceful support from the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) I shall bring matters to a slightly more subdued and medical view. I cannot believe that anyone who was present a short time ago could not have been moved by the sincerity and compassion with which the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) presented his case. I thought that he put it forward with a sincerity which all of us would want to support. I and my hon. Friends congratulate him and the other sponsors of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman said modestly that he considered it a modest Bill. I believe that it could be a valuable Bill medically. We need a much wider appreciation of the risks of cancer within the community. We cannot achieve that by adopting only one line of approach. We need to adopt many different approaches. That is why I agree that we need a multitude of information channels. The Bill would provide fresh and valuable channels.

Understandably, cancer is something which we all regard as happening to the other person but never us. That is our attitude, until it is too late. We then wake up to the realisation that we are as fallible and as humanly vulnerable as our neighbours.

It is important that people should understand the risks. The hon. Gentleman took a wider view than I propose to take and he quite rightly spoke of commercial hazards which are not understood by many people. Very often young people work in industrial processes and they have no idea of the risks that they are running either immediately or in later life.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, quite apart from the importance of recognising cancer before it is too late for treatment—and this is very much in the medical tradition of the great Osler to comfort always—there is the need to recognise cancer at an early enough stage so that major anxieties and disfiguring or disabling surgery do not have to take place.

The hon. Gentleman referred to breast cancer and I shall return to two different kinds of cancer, both of which affect women. They both illustrate the possible value of the Bill. A greater awareness amongst women of the risks of breast cancer and cancer of the uterus would undoubtedly save a great many lives. My colleagues in this branch of medicine tell me that one in 17—in some surveys it is one in 16—of all women is likely to develop breast cancer in her life. A short while ago I was looking at the gallery. Statistically one woman of all the women listening to this debate is likely to develop breast cancer later in life.

Each year, about 10,000 women die from this complaint. It is the greatest single killer of middle-aged women that we face today. While the death rate for women generally is falling, the death rate for cancer of the breast has remained alarmingly the same; if anything, it has gone up slightly.

Would it help if the diagnosis of breast cancer were earlier than it normally is?

As so often, my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth is slightly ahead of us. The importance of the Bill and of the awareness it urges is that nine out of 10 cases, or 90 per cent., of cancers of the breast can be detected by the women themselves if they know the risks and what they should be looking for. There are a number of books on the subject which are not well known. They are expensive and difficult to get hold of, but they tell women simple ways of examining themselves. Every woman should know of the existence of these books and should have access to them.

We have already heard a little about the costs of medical screening, which is a far more elaborate process. It is expensive, but even so the benefit that we have had in recent years from screening has been increased. A falling rate, for example, of cancer of the cervix and the uterus, is probably directly due to the medical screening services, which are now better than ever.

For example, BUPA's medical centre—which provides only one form of medical screening—is providing in the private sector a form of regular screening. It is perhaps ironic, when we were discussing what, in the view of many, are the disadvantages of the private medical service this week, that this service is providing a pioneering activity in an area which needs more national attention. The centre has screened about 13,000 women. Of every 1,000 women screened it has picked out 7·5 cases of breast cancer and 3·2 cases of cancer of the cervix. It does this at a cost which is by no means prohibitive.

In these two significant areas where preventive medicine and greater understanding can actually save lives we have a situation in which 90 per cent. of women could detect breast cancer before it was too late if only they knew what to look for. The hon. Member for Bootle mentioned the age of 30. My advice is that every woman over the age of 20 should examine her breasts once a month. It is a very simple thing to do. In that way she is likely to detect the earliest stages of this illness. Nationally, we should provide full medical screening for every woman over the age of 50.

I have spent some time talking about those two medical aspects because from the medical point of view they seem so significant. A number of books have been produced by the BMA. One of them is about what to look for in cases of cancer. The Royal Marsden Hospital has produced a very good pamphlet on cancer of the breast.

I revert to the purpose of the Bill. There is one area about which I am slightly unsure. In the list of places where the local authorities should be required to provide educational facilities, schools are mentioned as being very important. I wonder whether we want to bring more of this kind of topic into our schools. I suggest to the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) that children are not likely to be very concerned about an illness which is, as they see it, far into later life. Some anxious children might be made more anxious and others might be confused or simply regard it as irrelevant. While I welcome other suggestions for increasing educational facilities, I would put a big question mark beside the teaching of cancer risks within the classroom.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be possible to get over successfully to schoolchildren the relationship between poor physical performance and the consumption of cigarettes? That would be emphasising not the dangerous aspects of the disease but, rather, sporting performance in relation to smoking.

Perhaps the one exception I would make is the risk to health caused by smoking, which I do not think can be taught to people too early in their lives. I know that the Minister wishes to make some remarks, so I shall conclude by congratulating the hon. Member for Bootle on his Bill. I welcome what he had to say. I wish the Bill great success. I hope that it will appear on the statute book in the near future.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) on raising this important subject and taking advantage of his good fortune, after so many years in the House, to present this Bill. His speech, to which I listened most carefully, was a typically moving speech, concerned with the well-being of his fellow citizens and particularly with his constituents who, like mine, have more than their fair share of the incidence of this disease.

I thank the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) for speaking with such brevity and allowing me to say a few words. The hon. Member touched on the difficulty I am in, despite the passionate outburst of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), in dealing with this Bill. I would not disagree with very much that has been said by anyone. We have had some good speeches which have shown care and compassion and have revealed the House at its best.

I remind my hon. Friend, however, that this is a Bill to require local authorities to provide information in educational institutions under their control. It is not about the dangers of cancer. It does not deal with ways of bringing home to people the 'need for them to be examined for example. This is why—because the Bill seeks to place this requirement on local authorities—I am at the Dispatch Box rather than a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security. I assure the House that I have naturally discussed the Bill with my colleagues at that Department and have received considerable help from them.

The Bill embodies a naturally laudable wish which is shared by the Government and all hon. Members. It may have been in my hon. Friend's mind that attempting an educational programme specifically intended for young people is one way of being sure of conveying the requisite message. It is well nigh impossible to attempt this with the adult population. There is an obvious drawback to which the hon. Member for Reading, South drew our attention in placing to much emphasis in the education of young children on the dangers of the disease, which, fortunately, is essentially one that strikes at the young only relatively rarely. My hon. Friend has had a lifetime's experience in the education service in local government and will no doubt have anticipated some of my remarks.

The obvious point that occurs to me is that in directing local authorities to ensure that information about cancer is made available in schools and colleges, the Bill is proposing something which, as he has admitted, is completely incompatible with principles underlying the way in which education is organised in this country.

Nonsense.

It is not nonsense. It is a fact. This is a criticism which transcends in scale of importance any question of merit or otherwise of the proposals themselves. I cannot emphasise that last point too strongly.

This system of decentralised control, of local authority autonomy, has its critics but it is one that is ideally suited to this country. In practice the responsibility is one which is almost invariably devolved to head teachers and to teaching staffs. That is why I have reservations about and, indeed, objections to the Bill.

However, I want to be positive in what I have to say because I was very moved by my hon. Friend's intentions and by the speech that he made.

The Government believe that information about cancer should feature in health education programmes. I think that the House has done rather less than justice—not purposely, because my hon. Friend had to move the Second Reading of his Bill in less time than he would have wished—to what is being done in the country about this matter. I want to outline some of the things which are being done—and which are being done in a more effective way than would be the case if we were to implement the provisions of the Bill.

We are concerned not only to keep the problem in the proper perspective but also to see that our inevitably limited resources are deployed in the most effective way possible. In our view, the greatest emphasis in cancer education is best laid on aspects of primary prevention—by advising on improved personal hygiene, on the dangers of smoking and on the need to observe specified precautions in certain industrial processes. My hon. Friend mentioned all these features. We also consider that cancer education ought to be pursued not in isolation but as an element—an important element—in a wider and co-ordinated approach to health education.

Here, perhaps, it would be appropriate for me to say something about the work of the Health Education Council, which is specifically mentioned in the Bill and which was formed as a result of the Cohen Committee Report in 1968. The council was set up some seven years ago as a national body responsible for the promotion of health education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Not only does this council advise Government Departments on health education matters but it also provides advice and assistance to the National Health Service, to local authorities, to voluntary organisations and to other bodies concerned with health education.

This assistance can take a number of forms, but featuring prominently in its work are the making of financial grants, the training of health educators through courses, seminars and conferences, and the provision of health education leaflets and posters. I am sure that those of us who have been in any kind of educational institution have seen the various leaflets and posters.

The council also carries out its own national health campaigns. This involves the achievement of publicity in the Press, on television and on radio and through its posters and leaflets. It has built up a wide range of health education expertise and material and it regularly circularises area health authorities and others about the availability of this and other facilities. It has also undertaken or sponsored a varied programme of research and, in the Government's view, it can be fairly claimed that during its relatively short span of life the council has established itself as a focal point for everyone involved in the planning and development of health education on a rational or scientific basis. The hon. Member for Reading, South said that certain sectors of the population would not be covered if educational institutions were compelled by local authorities to take this action. I put it to him that the work that is already being done is all-embracing.

The Health Education Council is doing a tremendous job. One of the council's main priorities in recent years has been the anti-smoking campaign which hon. Members will recognise as a preventive area of the first importance to lung cancer. In the campaign, the public are also being informed about the risks of contracting chronic bronchitis and heart disease and of injury to an unborn child where women smoke during pregnancy.

The council is also arranging with the British Cancer Council a series of joint study days in different parts of the country and, during these, the discussions will cover not only the promotion of cancer education in general terms but the particular needs and views of the region in which they are held.

I have acknowledged that it would be necessary to consult the Health Education Council with a view to co-ordinating the publication of information if the Bill became law. I have not ignored the great work that has been done by the Health Education Council. I have not always been pleased with all that it has done in recent years, but most of it has been commendable.

I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says. I am not blaming my hon. Friend, who has his job to do in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. Through lack of time we perhaps have not recognised the tremendous amount of information that is being made available. I want it to be made available, but I do not think that the provisions of the Bill would improve communications in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

The first of the study days to which I have referred will take place in Nottingham on Monday next. A wide variety of professions interested in health matters have been invited, including teachers and other involved in education. There will be seven more such meetings in other parts of the country this year.

I have spoken about how the council has established a network of links with area health authorities, local authorities and others. It is important for hon. Members to bear in mind that that has been achieved entirely on a voluntary basis. I know that the council would not consider it helpful for such contacts to be made mandatory through legislation or regulation. Indeed, it would rightly feel that such a step would have a damaging effect on its relations with other bodies.

I want now to bring the attention of the House back to the subject of education in schools and colleges—which is what the Bill is about—and in particular to the health education programmes that are to be found in them. Many schools and colleges now provide health education programmes for their pupils and students in a variety of ways. I want to emphasise the phrase "in a variety of way", for the institutions that present the subject under that label in their time-tables are probably only a small minority. In most instances it is presented through other subjects or groups of subjects. There are sound reasons for this.

The aims of such education are to get young people to understand and to accept their personal responsibility for their health, to know when and how to call for advice or help, and to form attitudes which will help them to resist the many pressures which society or circumstances may exert upon them to live unhealthily. What is especially important is not that a particular body of information should have been put across to young people but that they should absorb and accept the implications for behaviour that go with this information.

Many teachers recognise that the young are particularly susceptible to suggestions that they are being "got at". Therefore, their aims in giving health education are more likely to be achieved where both information and its implications develop naturally out of other areas of work. There are, however, a number of difficulties which schools and colleges face in attempting such work. It is a relatively new area of education for them, although one which is developing rapidly.

The House realises that the Minister is trying to do his best, but he is a Minister on the educational side of things. Will he tell the House why there is no Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security present on the Government Front Bench when we are dealing with a Bill which is of deep concern in the health of the nation?

With great respect, that is not a very helpful intervention.

It is not meant to be.

It is typical of the hon. Gentleman. The Bill is aimed at requiring

"local authorities to provide information in educational institutions under their control relating to the dangers of cancer and the need for early screening".

I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that the title of the Bill is the Cancer Screening (Education) Bill.

Is cancer not to do with health?

Indeed it is.

Then where are the health Ministers?

We also deal with these matters in schools, colleges and institutions. What is important is not that a particular body of information should be put across to young people but that they should absorb and accept the implications in terms of behaviour and act on that information.

There are a number of difficulties which face the medical staff in educational institutions. Co-ordination of programmes—which are usually, of necessity, presented in an oblique or diffuse way—presents particular difficulties. An encouraging development in recent years has been the development in many local education authorities of comprehensive programmes of work in which health education plays an important or key rôle. Such courses appear under a multiplicity of different labels. In my visits to schools I have come across a number of courses—for example, "Education for Living", "Education for Parenthood" and "Education in Personal Relations", to name but a few.

The Minister is trying very hard, and I admire him for the way in which he is trying to build up from his humble situation. But this matter affects the nation and its health. What he is burbling about comes from an extraordinary brief which he has had from his boys at the Ministry. He should be able to give the House something better than this.

The hon. Gentleman says that I am trying very hard. That is what they kept saying in the educational institutions which I attended, "He must try harder". I am glad that I am carrying out the injunctions of my teachers.

I was saying, when I was interrupted, that some authorities are also providing or arranging in-service training courses for their teachers in this area of work. A number of voluntary organisations are able to offer them invaluable help. It is encouraging to note that both the Schools Council and the Health Education Council have curriculum development programmes in health education in progress at present.

I mentioned earlier the autonomy which authorities and teachers possess over the management of their schools and their curricula. It is they who decide what is to be taught and how it is to be taught. I suspect that the House would be very suspicious if the Government were to attempt to lay down that central Government had the right to say what should be taught and how it should be taught. However, it is clear that authorities and teachers generally consider that health education should be presented, not in isolated or fragmented themes, but as a coordinated broad programme, and that emphasis is placed on helping young people to understand how to keep healthy. This includes providing information and discussing attitudes and behaviour—

This is disgraceful.

Object.

Object.

What day? No day named.

Object.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to place on record that the Government have frustrated the wishes of many hon. Members in that objection.

That is not a point of order.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

What day? No day named.

Object.

What day? No day named.

Object.

Object.

I am indeed grateful to have this opportunity of raising this subject under the Adjournment procedure. I am sure that the Minister will welcome this opportunity to debate the problems connected with the use of high alumina cement.

Those words—or the abbreviation "HAC"—are rapidly and relentlessly becoming a combination of misery, apprehension, worry and fear for thousands of people in the United Kingdom. I must make it clear that I am not an engineer. Nor am I a design consultant. However, I have the responsibility, as do all Members of Parliament, of representing thousands of people from my constituency. Today I speak not only for my own constituents but on behalf of a far wider franchise.

Many hon. Members have sought information through the Parliamentary Question procedure and letters to the Department. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak for a short time, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant). I am sure that my concern over the problem which I seek to raise this afternoon is shared by hon. Members on both sides.

However, I was a little disappointed when I did not receive a reply from the Minister for Housing and Construction to my letter dated 18th April. Neither did I receive a reply to my letter dated 30th April—which again sought a meeting with the Department of the Environment —until I received a telephone call on 5th May from the Department of the Environment which recognised my desire to see the Minister to discuss HAC. I am sure that it was pure coincidence that this phone call came shortly after my success in the Adjournment Ballot was published. Indeed, this was followed by a letter a few days later. I hope—indeed, I am sure—that the Department is work- ing swiftly and confidently on the vexed problem of HAC

We know that high alumina cement has been used extensively in the United Kingdom as a construction material during the past 20 years. We know also that it has been in use in other countries. I understand that at the outset two of the great merits of high alumina cement—so the manufacturers claimed—was that it set quickly and, especially important, that it was resistant to salt water. These were no doubt two of the reasons for its tremendous commercial boom in this country.

What we now know is that concrete made with high alumina cement undergoes changes in its crystalline structure. This, among the construction and engineering fraternity, is known as conversion. This causes loss of strength, and this loss of strength can be generated by moisture or warmth.

Many professionals in the construction field have had growing concern about some of the methods and materials which have been used in design and construction for a long time. In February 1974 the collapse of the school roof beam at the John Cass School, Stepney, perhaps demonstrated their concern, and this near-tragedy sparked off the current alarm which is now so prevalent in this country.

It must be understood by those with anxiety about this matter that high alumina cement is a perfectly adequate cement when used properly, and it is generally accepted that houses built with HAC parts are not at risk. However, if high alumina cement is mixed incorrectly it can cause "rotting" and then the beam cannot take the strain. A recent letter from the Department of the Environment to local authorities advises that the risk of structural failure is small in buildings with HAC with spans of up to five metres, so that the risk of structural failure is probably confined to spans of more than five metres. Undoubtedly this crucial point is one of the dozens of questions which will have to be answered at some stage and to which the country will want to know the answers by the Department in due course, such is the anxiety at present.

Last week's Daily Express posed several pertinent questions in an excellent article which appeared over two days, but the most disturbing aspect was the fact that Professor Adam Neville of Leeds University, produced a published report in 1963 in which he warned of the possible dangers of HAC.

I see that, happily, Professor Neville is one of the five men appointed to the Government's emergency committee for drawing up the safety rules for HAC buildings.

I want to turn now to the reasons for the deep consternation which many people must feel. First, on 20th July 1974 the Department of the Environment wrote to all authorities stating that

"All existing buildings incorporating HAC must now be regarded as suspect, at least in the long term."

I cannot but help wonder if this circular triggered off a little unnecessary alarm which spread surreptitiously and unofficially, as always happens with certain elements of the mass media. Local authorities have now compiled lists of suspect buildings, the newspapers have reported this fact, and this, in turn, has done nothing to allay people's genuine concern. A little news item has assumed gigantic proportions in the minds of many.

Thousands of home owners in my constituency and throughout the country have tried to put their property on the market and have been greeted with an opening question from a potential buyer "Does it contain HAC?" If the answer was "Yes", it is distinctly probable that the negotiations ended abruptly.

A home is the biggest and most important thing the majority of us ever buy, and it is only natural that caution is exercised. At the moment I think that caution has become distorted by the wretched bandwagon effect which, alas, is so often a feature in society today.

Then there are people seeking a mortgage who find that not all the building societies like to see the phrase "high alumina cement" in the surveyor's report, and a fee is wasted. There are people working in buildings which have stood the test of time—for two decades, perhaps—with HAC, but suddenly they develop concern because of the bandwagon effect. At present rumour and concern are rife and I am convinced that the Government have a clear duty to hasten their findings and urge upon the Building Research Establishment that the direction of its investigations warrants a 24-hour day until its research and advice is made known to this country. The cost to the nation could be enormous when taking into consideration the loss of amenity. There is also disruption of education and the concern of parents for the safety of their children. It is estimated that Birmingham alone could cost over £10 million to strengthen or replace the buildings. It is estimated that 22,000 buildings could well be involved. Newspapers and the mass media carry the claim that this programme could cost £2,000 million to remedy. The speculation is endless, in private, in the local authorities, and elsewhere.

I ask the Minister to convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the fact that there are serious accusations against the length of time and the methods being used by the Building Research Establishment to finalise its report. It might be better to assume that all HAC beams in excess of the 5 metre span are suspect. If not, tell the nation they are safe and dispel the worry. I cannot help but feel that one of the schemes which the Department should consider is the use of glass reinforced polyester. A glass reinforced polyester U-shaped beam can be installed around the suspect high alumina cement beam so that the new beam carries the entire load. The GRP beam would withstand any HAC collapse. Glass reinforced polyester's many benefits and properties will be well known to the Building Research Establishment.

I close by expressing a hope which I imagine is one held by many Members. The Government must do and say something quickly. Further testing is merely postponement. Further delay enables rumour, innuendo and anxiety to spread like wildfire. Not unnaturally, the mass media has seized upon the frailty of the scene, and the Government have a clear duty to restore a rational balance and dispel the low morale of many people within the community.

rose—

Has the hon. Gentleman the agreement of the Minister?

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. MacFarlane) for this opportunity to debate the problems which have arisen from the misuse of HAC in this country, and I am indebted to my hon. Friend for allowing me two minutes of his time.

I wish to raise two points. The first deals with who pays for the structural alterations to the schools and other buildings owned by local authorities, and who will bear the loan charges and other costs which may have to be written off if those buildings can no longer be used in the way in which they were originally intended. In my own constituency, Ealing Mead school can no longer be used as a school because of structural defects, and provision has had to be made to accommodate the schoolchildren elsewhere. It is intolerable that the ratepayers in Ealing, who are reeling from the 63 per cent. increase in rates, should have to bear unaided the cost of remedying the structural defects which arose through no fault of their own and which are a national rather than a local problem.

I remind the Under-Secretary of State what happened after the Ronan Point disaster. The local authorities had built high rise accommodation to the technical satisfaction of his Department, but after the disaster structural alterations were required at great cost, and the Government recompensed the local authorities in that case because they recognised that it would be inequitable to let the burden fall on those local authorities which had built high rise accommodation. I urge the Department to adopt the same solutions to the problem of HAC as were adopted following the structural alterations which were necessitated by the Ronan Point disaster.

My next point concerns the 61,000 people in England and Wales living in accommodation in which HAC has been used. Those people find that their property is effectively blighted. They are unable to sell or move, and they face the evaporation of their life's savings. I urge the Minister to introduce as soon as pos- sible a system of certification so that those buildings which are not at risk can be authoritatively identified, and those properties which are at risk should be treated in the same way as properties which are affected by planning blight. The analogy is quite clear. Through no fault of their own but through the action of public bodies they find that the value of their accommodation is diminished. I therefore urge that they should be entitled to sell to the local authority or to the Government their properties at pre-blight value as in the case of properties affected by planning blight.

There is considerable concern in my constituency that the Department of the Environment Circular 271 referred to a working party set up to represent "all public sector interests", and made no reference to private sector interests. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to reassure all the people living in these buildings that the Government will not sell them down the road and that they are urgently identifying solutions along the lines which I have outlined to solve the human and structural problems.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) for giving me the opportunity to come in on this short debate. I shall not detain the House for long, because we want to hear from the Minister.

I think I can summarise the information that we want by listing 10 points. First, we would like to know why the Department of the Environment continued to allow this cement to be used after the 1963 report, which we have heard mentioned today, and the experience of France. Secondly, why did the Department issue a circular on 20th July which caused considerable anxiety and panic? Thirdly, why is there delay on this report? We have heard that it is in the hands of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. Could we not get this report sooner? Fourthly, when will the report be out? It should be issued so that people have some idea of the situation, particularly when they are trying to sell their properties.

Fifthly, how many alternatives have been examined for dealing with this situation? Have we taken all the advice that is available? Can we now free those beams which are less than 5 metres in length? Can we say that they are all right? If we can, that will help the situation.

Sixthly, why is there no system of checking these beams? There seems to be some argument about this. Surely the French experience should be brought here to see whether we can do the checking. Seventhly, do we know the size of the problem? After all, all sorts of buildings are involved—hospitals, offices, and so on—and many have been mentioned today. Eighthly, are the building societies refusing to grant mortgages on these buildings? There is some argument about this. Some societies are, and some are not. May we have an answer to that? Ninthly, can help be given, as was suggested by my hon. Friend, under the planning laws relating to blight? Tenthly, who will pay?

The Minister always gives us straight-to-the-point answers, and I hope that he will do so this afternoon.

With blandishments such as that, how can anybody resist?

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) and his hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and Reading, North (Mr. Durant) have raised a matter of considerable topical interest and concern. The problems connected with the use of high alumina cement concrete are far-reaching, and I realise the concern that they are causing to property owners in both the public and the private sector. I welcome this opportunity, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam expected I should, of explaining what the problems are and what we are doing about them.

Concrete itself is, of course, a very old building material, and examples of Roman concrete still survive. Most concrete today is made from Portland cement of which the basic ingredients are limestone—or chalk—and clay. The cement is mixed with sand or aggregate and water in varying proportions according to the type of concrete required. Concrete made from Portland cement is durable but it takes some little time to reach its full strength. In high alumina cement, as its name suggests, the main compounds are calcium aluminates. Concrete made from high alumina cement reaches its greatest strength quickly, and so it has hitherto appeared an attractive material to use to help to produce much-needed building components.

But, as we are now finding out, concrete made from high alumina cement is liable to undergo changes in its crystalline structure even when it is used in a normal environment. This process is known as conversion, and it is accompanied by a loss of strength in the concrete. This loss of strength can take place slowly or quickly. and the ultimate strength of the concrete when it is fully converted depends on how strong it was to start with. Whether or not this loss of strength means that the building in which it is used becomes unsafe in turn depends on the way in which the concrete was used and on the overall design of the building.

In this connection I must point out that most buildings are designed with ample safety margins which would take care of any loss of strength. It is important to make clear, and for it to be fully and widely understood, that the mere fact that a building contains high alumina cement concrete must not be taken to mean that it is necessarily for that reason dangerous.

After the collapse of the roof of the swimming bath at the Sir John Cass School in February last year we thought it right to ask local authorities to identify schools and other buildings with roofs of the same sort as the roof that collapsed at Stepney, and to have them appraised, particularly where there were likely to be high temperatures in the roof. At the same time the Building Research Establishment was asked urgently to look into the cause of the Stepney failure. Its report showed that the weakening of the concrete beams in the swimming pool roof was not solely attributable to loss of strength but was also the result of chemical attack on the highly converted concrete. Some serious weakening of the concrete was also found in the gymnasium roof where the conditions of temperature and humidity were less onerous than in the swimming pool.

It was at this stage that we concluded that high alumina cement concrete ought not to be used for structural work in building until further notice, and we put in hand the amendment of the building regulations so that local authorities could reject proposals for work involving the structural use of high alumina cement concrete. We advised local authorities that we considered it inappropriate in general that high alumina cement concrete should be approved for structural use.

We also decided that the appraisal and testing of buildings containing high alumina cement concrete should be extended to all buildings with precast prestressed non-composite roof or floor members, or columns, with spans of more than five metres. "Precast" means made separately and not cast in the course of putting up the building. Precast members are often made in factories rather than on site. "Prestressed" means that the concrete was poured around steel reinforcement held under tension. "Non-Composite" means that the member is entirely dependent on its own strength and is not embedded in other material which carries part of the load. And, while I am about it, five metres is equivalent to 16½ft.

Identifying these buildings has not been easy. We are grateful to the cement suppliers who gave us names of many of the precast concrete manufacturers and to the manufacturers who have given us lists of buildings for which they have supplied members. We are grateful, too, to designers and, not least, to the local authorities who have searched their own records and have passed on to private owners all the information that is being obtained from various sources. Of course, this information could not be as selective as we would have wished. Some of the buildings will have spans of less than five metres for which our advice has been, and still is, that appraisal need not, for the time being at any rate, be carried out.

At the same time that we started this detailed work on identifying buildings and notifying the owners, we asked the Building Research Establishment to carry out more research. This has taken longer than was at first expected, and, although we have been able to send out a summary of its main findings and the conclusions to be drawn from them in our most recent circular letter of 23rd April, its full report will not be published until later this month.

I should like to repeat what these conclusions are. First, our earlier conclusion that precast prestressed isolated roof beams represent the main potential hazard is confirmed, and all such beams, regardless of span, should be appraised by structural engineers. Second, the risk of structural failure in floors with spans up to about five metres is small and the Department's earlier advice, that appraisal need not be extended to these floors, still holds good at this stage. In the meantime, as the circular letter also explains, we have set up a special subcommittee of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to provide further advice on the subject.

Its first task is to determine criteria which structural engineers can use for checking the designs of buildings containing high alumina cement concrete structural members. These checks, supplemented in appropriate cases by visual inspection, would identify those buildings in which safety margins are acceptable without further investigation, and those which require further investigation. Its second task is to determine what categories of buildings contai flings high alumina cement concrete structural members need not be appraised. This subcommittee has been asked to report before the end of July. The sub-committee meets weekly, has already had four meetings, and is holding its fifth meeting today.

It is right that we should put the size of the problem in perspective. Altogether about 22,650 buildings have so far been identified, of which 13,250 are housing, 1,450 educational buildings and 7,950 other buildings. Of these about 11,500 are in the public sector. The greatest estimate of the total number concerned is about 50,000—and, at the risk of repeating myself I must say that even if the total number is as great as this, there is no reason to suppose that more than a few of these will require remedial work. The number so far identified has been only 350.

One of the questions that has been asked more than once and has been asked again today is why was high alumina cement permitted to be used here when its use was prohibited abroad? The examples of Germany and France are often cited. It is true that in Germany the use of high alumina cement was prohibited following the collapse of farm buildings in Bavaria in 1961. But in those cases the cause of the collapse was corrosion of the reinforcing steel and the high alumina cement used in the concrete was of a different composition from that used here. In France I understand there has never been any prohibition on the use of high alumina cement concrete in private buildings. Its use in the public sector was prohibited in 1943 but since 1971 it has been allowed, although subject to strict conditions.

The hon. Member for Reading, North asked why high alumina cement concrete was permitted to be used after Professor Neville produced his paper in 1963. As an immediate consequence of that paper, the Institution of Structural Engineers set up a committee to review the whole field and to prepare a report for the guidance of engineers. The report of that committee, on which Professor Neville served, was published in August 1964, entitled "The Use of High Alumina Cement in Structural Engineering" and included the following paragraphs:

"Ample evidence exists to show that this cement can be used satisfactorily to produce sound and durable concrete when proper precautions are taken during mixing, placing and curing, and due regard is paid to the temperature and humidity conditions to which it may subsequently be submitted.…

The stresses to be used for high alumina cement concrete are considered to be a matter for the Codes of Practice which deal with stresses and design criteria for structural concrete…

High alumina cement concrete can be used safely for load-bearing members of a structure provided that"

certain precautions relating to its mixing, placing, and curing were taken.

Again, discussion of possible Government responsibility—when people talk about responsibility they usually mean financial responsibility—has centred around the fact that the codes of practice that are deemed to satisfy the mandatory requirements in the Building Regulations have, until recently, provided for the use of HAC. Let me make it clear that no one has been required to use high alumina cement concrete against his better judgment if he did not want to do so. Expert opinion at the time these codes of practice were prepared was that, provided high alumina cement was used properly— this is important—it was a safe and useful building material. The committees which prepared the codes of practice laid down strict conditions about its use and, had these conditions always been followed, there might have been no need for this debate. I can understand the feeling that Governments can sometimes be mistaken in accepting even expert advice, but I am also aware of what the reaction would be if Government were deliberately to disregard the best expert opinion.

Apart from the crucial question of safety, the issue that is concerning both local authorities and private owners is, of course, money. Who is going to pay for testing buildings and, if necessary, strengthening them?

For the public sector, as has been said. we have set up, at the request of the local authority associations, a working party which includes representatives of Government Departments, local authorities and health authorities. This working party is looking into both the practical and financial aspects of the problem. An exploratory meeting has already been held. Local authorities are particularly concerned about the money that would have to be spent on schools. The Government greatly appreciate the hard work which local education authorities have done, and the resourcefulness they have shown.

In continuing the education of pupils whose schools have been closed or partly closed, authorities have had some difficult decisions to take but they have rightly had the safety of the children as their first consideration at all times. They have carried out very extensive checks on their schools and as a result of this work the basic information on educational buildings is well documented. Officials are examining the information which is available about how much money will need to be spent, when it will need to be spent —and by which authorities—and are considering what further information is needed. Until all this has been done we cannot usefully take the question of the ultimate financial responsibility much further.

We have had letters, both through hon. Members and direct from the people concerned, about the worries and difficulties of owners of private flats who have been told that their flats contain high alumina cement concrete. I very much sympathise with them. It is not much comfort to be told to wait until yet a further committee has made a report at a later date to find out whether one's flat is safe, particularly if, in the meantime, one wants to sell it. But, as we said in our latest circular of 23rd April, the risk of structural failures in floors with spans of up to five metres is small. Where high alumina cement concrete is used in flats, it is usually in the floors, and in most cases, the floor span is less than five metres.

Most people who buy flats do so through building societies. I am told that the Building Societies Association is continuing its policy of advising its members to treat applications in respect of properties that contain or are suspected of containing high alumina cement concrete on their merits and to lend in the absence of serious deterioration, although they advise that special care should be taken in the case of completed flats. Where flats are in the course of construction, the BSA is advising societies to defer lending by way of building finance until the borrower can produce a certificate of structural soundness. A number of building societies are known to be granting mortgages on houses and flats contain- ing HAC concrete. I must, however, emphasise that this is a matter for the individual building societies themselves. They are not obliged to follow advice given by the Building Societies Association, nor, of course, can we tell them what to do.

I should like to assure the House and the public that we are far from complacent about this problem. We recognise the serious concern it has aroused, and the practical and financial problems it has posed for innocent individuals, let alone for public authorities. But the opposite of complacency should be neither panic nor sensationalism but thoughtful rational action, directed first to a solution of the immediate problem and then examination of the action necessary to prevent similar situations arising. Although we have still to complete the first stage—