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

I suppose that there are times when an hon. Member who is lucky in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills has genuine doubt and worry about what to do and what subject to raise. I was afflicted with that doubt for only a very short time, because it quickly became apparent to me, especially since I was the only Scottish Member to be lucky in the Ballot, that I did not have much alternative. I had to seek to introduce a measure that was genuinely necessary and important and that would affect the whole of Scottish society.

I did not have to look very far. The issue was there in the shape of divorce law reform, a matter which has been raised many times over the past few years.

Having made up my mind and decided to raise this subject, I was quick to find support not only from hon. Members in my own party but, I am glad to say, from hon. Members of all the other parties representing Scottish constituencies, who gave me their encouragement. Having found that support, I was also very pleased to have the constructive assistance of the Scottish Law Commission in preparing the Bill, for which I must thank especially Mr. Niall Whitty who was of great help to me in explaining a complex issue about which until then I knew very little.

I have immense sympathy for those hon. Members and others outside the House who have serious moral objections to divorce, and I am sure that outside this Chamber one could have a lengthy discussion about the moral theology of the matter. But, as legislators in this Chamber, we are not here to go into that kind of moral theorising. This is an issue which affects people basically. One of the most moving experiences that I have had since becoming a Member has been to receive correspondence from all corners of Scotland, all of it, with the exception of one or two letters, from people desperately keen to see the divorce law of Scotland changed.

I have received letters from people living in the depths of misery and, in their view, in the depths of deprivation because of the strictures of the present law. I think, for example, of the poor woman who wrote to me saying that she had been married for many years to someone whom she described as "a drunken monster" and whom she had been forced to leave. She wrote to me, knowing that it was only a year or two before she passed the age of child bearing, saying "Please do something to help me get married again so that I may have the possibility of bringing up a family."

That is the kind of situation that we are discussing today when we debate the reform of Scotland's divorce law. We are not here to theorise or to indulge, rather like medieval philosophers, in an argument about moral theology. We are here to deal with the problems of a growing number of people.

I must make it clear that in no sense does this Bill seek to break up marriages. That is not its aim, and I hope that no one will represent that as being its aim. The aim of the Bill is to make provision for those whose marriages have already broken up and who are no longer married in any meaningful sense. I hope to be able to refer to that later in my speech.

For the benefit of hon. Members who have not had the chance to go through the Bill as carefully as I have, perhaps I may explain the situation as it is presented in the Bill. I have said already that in recent years there have been other attempts in this House to change the divorce law of Scotland. In another place, equally, there have been attempts. Lord Selkirk's Bill completed its passage through the other place yesterday and presumably is now on its way here, if it has not arrived already. Perhaps for the benefit of hon. Members I should make the point that Lord Selkirk's Bill was exactly the same as this Bill.

There have been eight attempts since 1970 to change the divorce law in Scotland. There is at least one hon. Member present today who was responsible for introducing one of those Bills not many years ago, namely, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). No doubt several others will be present later. While those unsuccessful attempts were being made by Scottish Members, more successful attempts were being made elsewhere.

Not only has there been a change in the law in England and Wales, but in other Commonwealth countries the law has been reformed—in New Zealand and Canada in 1968, Nigeria in 1970, Jamaica and Tanzania in 1971, Ghana, Trinidad and Tobago and Hong Kong in 1972, St. Lucia in 1973, and Australia in 1975. Those countries share a similar heritage to that of Scotland and England. There has been divorce reform in recent years in several European countries—for example, in France and Italy. A measure similar to this Bill is under way in Western Germany. We are therefore talking not simply about Scotland going it alone and breaking new ground but catching up in this important respect with many other countries, not least England and Wales.

I should like to deal with the clauses in the Bill in view of the importance of the change which we hope to effect. The main changes are effected by subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1. Subsection (1) provides that the sole ground on which divorce may be granted in future will be that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. However, irretrievable breakdown is not in itself, legally speaking, a triable issue. Subsection (2) sets out five fact situations from which alone irretrievable breakdown is to be inferred. Three correspond to the old matrimonial offences of adultery, cruelty and desertion. In addition, breakdown is to be inferred by a two-year separation if both spouses give positive consent to the divorce and five years' separation if one spouse unilaterally seeks divorce.

There might be logical quibbles about the juxtaposition of irretrievable breakdown with something which corresponds to the old matrimonial offences, but let us not be too theoretical. Let us bear in mind that for ordinary people it is necessary to have the two together—the idea of irretrievable breakdown and the idea that the other fact situations comprise irretrievable breakdown. Various criticisms may be made, but they have little content and we should, as reasonable legislators, reject them.

First, the Bill codifies with amendments not only the main existing statutory grounds for divorce of cruelty and desertion but the common law ground of adultery introduced by the Scottish courts as long ago as the 1560s, which has never been a statutory offence, though it has been much modified by statute.

We therefore have in the Bill for the first time a comprehensive statutory code of the main rules of the substantive law of divorce in Scotland—a measure which in itself considerably simplifies the statute book. In this situation, it seems right that the unifying principle which underlies all the factual situations justifying divorce should be clearly stated and emphasised in the Bill. That is what subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 achieve, and if they explicitly recognise a modern and humane justification for the retention of the old grounds of divorce in Scots law, I do not see why people should complain.

Secondly, it can hardly be doubted that if the pursuer goes to the trouble of raising a divorce action relying on the defendant's adultery, behaviour justifying non-cohabitation, or desertion, the marriage can be said to have irretrievably broken down. The Scottish Law Commission made that point in paragraph 6 of its Report, which reads:

"Every action of divorce is now brought because a marriage has irretrievably broken down, though not on the ground of the breakdown. Marriage being, as a minimum, a partnership, it is enough that one partner maintains irretrievable breakdown for the breakdown to be a fact, however strenuously and sincerely it may be denied by the other partner. It is hardly possible to explain the motives of a sane pursuer who petitions the court to dissolve a marriage which in his view is still viable. Whoever was to blame (or if no one was to blame), however disgraceful the conduct of either of the partners may have been (of if one virtuous person has merely got tired of another), the litigation demonstrates that there is one partner who has decided that the partnership must be dissolved. This is the rationale of the application to the court."

Later the Report states:

"The pursuer determines the fact of the breakdown by refusing to forgive a 'matrimonial offence' or to overlook incurable insanity; the court will, as a general rule, dissolve the partnership if, and only if, the specified event it proved to have occurred. The court does not enquire whether there has been irretrievable breakdown; the raising of the action would, if such enquiry were called for, be sufficient evidence of that"

It follows that in all the situations specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 1(2) we can be sure that irretrievable breakdown has occurred. It does not always follow that a divorce will be granted on proof of those facts.

Public policy requires the retention of certain defences, such as connivance, in case parties encourage each other to commit adultery to avoid the two-year minimum period which is stipulated in Clause 1(2)(d). Public opinion would also insist that something more than the mere fact of litigation was required to infer irretrievable breakdown. There are other reasons, but chiefly for those reasons we should reject the argument that it is inconsistent to fuse together the old matrimonial offences and the new principle of irretrievable breakdown.

I wish briefly to examine the main provisions of the Bill. The five fact situations are set out in Clause 1(2) and all provide concrete evidence additional to the fact of litigation that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Clause 1(2)(a) provides that irretrievable breakdown is to be inferred from proof of the defender's adultery. Some may argue that it is not possible to infer irretrievable breakdown from a single act of adultery as opposed to a continuous adulterous association. Clause 1(2)(a), however, is based on the view that the choice must be left to the aggrieved spouse. As the Morton Report said:

"he may feel that it would be impossible to resume married life with his adulterous spouse after the commission of one act of adultery."

Moreover, it would hardly be right to prescribe in a statute specific minimum acts of adultery which would justify divorce.

Before calling the next speaker, I must tell the House that I am in some difficulty in trying to maintain a balanced debate. Of those who wish to catch my eye, I do not know who are in favour and who are against. Therefore, I hope that any hon. Member who wishes to take part in the debate will let me know on which side he seeks to argue, and in that way I hope to maintain a balanced discussion.

I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick), first, on his good fortune in the Ballot and, secondly, on his great personal courage in steering this Bill through the House. I have seldom heard a non-lawer deal with a legal Bill in such a competent fashion. I know from experience how difficult it is to present these legal difficulties and complexities in a manner recognisable to the layman.

In the past four or five years there has been a great change in the climate of opinion in Scotland on divorce. There is today a much greater understanding of what is involved and of the kind of human difficulties we seek to remedy by producing such a Bill. Therefore, I was delighted when the hon. Gentleman asked me to consent to be one of its sponsors.

In 1971 I had similar good fortune in the Ballot and brought forward a like Bill. I hope that this afternoon we shall see a much different result, because my efforts and those of my sponsors were unsuccessful: otherwise we should not be discussing this legislation today. In 1971 we could not obtain all-party support. This Bill has the support of every political party in Scotland represented in this House.

We must recognise, as was emphasised by the hon. Gentleman, that divorce was recognised in Scotland far earlier than in any part of the United Kingdom and even before the United Kingdom was in existence. It is often said in discussions that Parliament is insensitive to public opinion. I am not sure that that is true. It may be that what happened in 1971 reflected public opinion at that time; public opinion may not have been ready for a change. Indeed, I had many letters at the time to the effect that Scotland by that measure would merely be hanging on England's coat tails. My correspondence has now changed. Its tone now is to the effect that it is wrong that England should have advantages denied to Scotland. It is a curious anomaly flowing from separate legal systems.

There is widespread support for the changes proposed in the Bill. People recognise that we are dealing with human frailty and difficult human relationships. In such circumstances no law can lay down how people should behave. One can have moral values and believe that within the marriage institution couples should behave in the best spirit, but no law can ever regulate human relationships.

I have had heart-rending letters from people who have lived apart from their spouses for 30 years and who have been unable to form any other stable relationship because of great moral considerations. They have had great reservations about "living in sin" while still being married and often refuse to have anything to do with divorce.

It is often said that by seeking reform of divorce law we are making it easier for divorce to happen and are guilty of a fundamental attack on the institution of marriage. The hon. Member for Argyll has made it perfectly clear that from his standpoint there is no question of any attack on the institution of marriage. It may well be that one thing that comes out of the Bill is a strengthening of the institution of marriage.

The law as it stands is that one act of adultery can lead to divorce. It also means that where there is a possibility of a reconciliation, people often have to proceed quickly to divorce, because if they salvage the marriage and it breaks down later, if they try to use that act of adultery as a cause for their action, they are asked why it is that after all this time they find that particular action so bad that they cannot possibly live together. It may be that in that respect we shall get a strengthening of marriage.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) on his good fortune in the Ballot and also on his courage, despite many reservations because of his religious views, in giving us this opportunity to discuss the vexed question of how a marriage should be dissolved. I can scarcely think of a matter more worthy of discussion in this House. Last Session, however, simply because we would not agree to the Bill going through without debate, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and myself were subjected to a degree of arm-twisting and attempted character assassination at the instance of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East——

It was Edinburgh, Central.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Western Isles and myself were subjected to a degree of arm-twisting and attempted character assassination at the instance of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) which I would not have believed possible of a Member of this House to other hon. Members had I not experienced it myself.

I realise that our procedure, particularly on Fridays at 4 o'clock, is not very clear to the public. One professional man—I believe he was a solicitor—wrote to me complaining because I had not explained why I was opposed to the Bill. However, the whole trouble last Session was that no hon. Members could give their views either for or against the Bill.

I want to make a suggestion through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this aspect of the matter. It would be preferable if hon. Members who were not willing to allow a Bill to go through "on the nod"—as I certainly was not willing for this Bill or any other Bill of this nature and character to go through "on the nod"—were to shout "Debate" rather than "Object", because a debate is all that an hon. Member can demand.

The hon. Gentleman has made an observation that the procedure at 4 o'clock is not clear. It is abundantly clear according to the present Standing Orders. The hon. Gentleman suggests an alteration to the procedure, which is entirely different.

I believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you and I agree. My phraseology might not have been clear but neither is our procedure clear to the public. It is perfectly clear to hon. Members, but some hon. Members sometimes make use of the fact that it is not clear to the public. It was in order to avoid that difficulty that I made the suggestion. I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are not the proper authority to whom such a suggestion should be made. Nevertheless, I wanted to ventilate my view that at 4 o'clock we should say "Debate" if we do not wish a Bill to go through "on the nod", because by the rules of this House a debate is all that an hon. Member can demand.

As for the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East——

Edinburgh, Central.

Yes, Edinburgh, Central. I am sorry, I got it wrong again. However, at least I got the right side of the country. I naturally understand the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for his Bill and his feeling that the end justified any means to secure its passage. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who is absent at present, felt exactly the same sense of frustration in the past, yet they accepted the situation without comment and I am sure that they were wise to do so.

We are present in this House not to question each other's motives or to seek to denigrate perfectly respectable arguments on purely personal grounds. If we are to do our job properly, we must examine carefully and critically, as well as sympathetically, in accordance with our own view of what public interest requires, whatever proposals are put before us.

That was what Burke meant when he said that hon. Members offered their judgment. It is the unfettered expression of that personal judgment which alone gives this place its value. I hope that the House will not think I am unduly stuffy in saying that, but I am sure that if we can approach the Bill in a spirit of mutual regard, if not of actual agreement, we shall, even in this highly emotional and apparently contentious matter, be living up to the noblest traditions of Parliament and be serving our country well.

Having got that off my chest, I turn, with good humour and fairness, I hope, to the Bill. The hon. Member for Argyll has wasted a great opportunity. If there is to be any justification for a separate Scottish legal system, we should look at each problem with fresh eyes and not simply follow what is done in England. It is especially ironic that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Scottish National Party, should be so barren of ideas of his own that all he can do is to imitate an out-of-date and imperfect Act of the English. [Interruption.] I cannot understand why hon. Members laugh. Surely we can do better than that for Scotland if we try. After all, it is eight years since the English debated the matter in two Second Reading debates and 26 sittings of the Committee. I hope that in that respect we shall not attempt to do better than the English. Yet not only has no advantage been taken of the English experience during this period, but people in Scotland have been led to expect something entirely new and revolutionary.

Marital breakdown, we are told, is now to be the only ground for divorce. That sounds very advanced. At the same time it sounds rather nice and comforting, because no one has the least idea what it means. However, like so much else that is offered by the Scottish Nationals, almost nothing new will happen in practice. In confirmation of that view I refer to my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Hillhead, the distinguished Scottish judge Lord Reid. He gave it as his opinion in the debates on the English Bill—and today's Scottish Bill is largely a copy of that—that there would be almost no change and that the old grounds for divorce would still have to be proved. Lord Simon, during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, said that the Bill would work just as well if a completely nonsensical word such as "abracadabra" were inserted in place of "marital breakdown". I ask the hon. Member for Argyll to try it. He will find that it is quite true.

The Bill is thus a bit of a sham. The old accusatorial confrontation is to be retained, the public hearing of what is essentially a private and personal matter is to continue and the demeaning queues in Parliament House are to be allowed to grow longer. Despite all the publicity about a new era of civilised kindness—"civilised" was the word that the hon. Gentleman used in his speech—nothing is done to introduce a more humane procedure.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I do not want to be interrupted, but I will allow the hon. Gentleman.

I thank the hon. Gentleman. If the Bill makes no difference, why is he objecting?

The hon. Gentleman really must wait and let me develop my argument. I have given him some grounds on which I hope that he—and he is a very advanced, progressive fellow—will seek to get amendments into the Bill which will remove this dichotomy, this dual approach, which is part of the trouble of what is wrong with it.

I was saying that despite all the publicity there will not be a more humane procedure. Nor is it even likely that relief will be brought to more than a tiny number who are unable to obtain it under the existing laws. The rocketing rise in the number of divorces is proof of how productive the present system is.

The only real change introduced by the Bill is that those who are unwillingly held to a marriage will now be able to get out of it after five years of living apart. That is the only real change. Unfortunately I did not hear the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, but I think that this is what he was instancing. Here we always have instanced the case of the man who has left his wife, set up home with another woman and had a family but who cannot, without the co-operation of his wife, marry again and so legitimise his children. That is what we are always told. I believe that this problem would be better solved by getting rid of the whole concept of legitimacy. It is out of date. It does not belong to the present day. That is how that aspect of the problem should be dealt with.

However, leaving that aspect on one side, what one discovers as a result of this change is that, while the right to repudiate can bring relief to one partner, it often brings sadness to the other, so that the total of human happiness is not increased. This is what so often happens with well-intentioned reforms. In helping one class of person, we damage another class. Who is to say who is the more meritorious or deserving of our sympathy? Is it the woman, ageing and alone, and after a lifetime of loyal devotion divorced against her will, or is it the man, happily coupling each night with a new and more alluring partner?

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North may laugh, but this is a situation that occurs time and again. I have no doubt that it is the deserted party who most deserves our sympathy—and who until now has obtained it, because until now marriage has been regarded as a contract. The present tendency, however, which the Bill recognises in this respect, but not throughout and everywhere, is to regard marriage as a relationship and not a contract.

God!

I wish that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)—I hope I have got his constituency right—would stop making his interventions. I am trying to make a serious speech. If the hon. Gentleman feels as he appears to feel, let him leave the Chamber and go into the lavatory and express himself there.

However sorry we may feel, therefore, for the pathetic figure of the repudiated spouse, under the Bill we must sadly accept that a marriage relationship which is not a mutual and voluntary relationship is not a marriage at all. That is the great change that the Bill introduces. Perhaps it is not spelt out in the Bill as clearly as it might be. There are various elements of the older attitude which are inappropriately retained and which I hope that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West will endeavour to remove, such as the requirement to prove adultery or cruelty. However, the essence of the change introduced by the Bill is to remove the structure of contract as the support of marriage and to regard marriage as a willing human relationship depending for its permanence not on contractual obligations, as in the past, but simply on personal volition. I do not think that that, by itself, is sufficient.

Human nature is essentially frail, and if the structure of contract is to be removed something else must be put in its place as a support, otherwise I am afraid that the permanence of marriage, with all its social values, particularly the upbringing of children, will become even less secure than it is today. The growing number of divorces shows how fragile it is already. We are almost up to the 10,000 mark—or, at any rate, we shall be if the Bill is passed. This growth is not due solely to a change in social attitudes, which now regard as acceptable conduct which previously was unacceptable.

Another reason, I believe, is that a generation or so ago, when a marriage was in difficulty, support for the continuance of the relationship was often found in the influence of the Church or the attitude of other members of the family, as well as in the social outlook of those days. I have no doubt that because of those influences many marriages which were in no sense real unions continued. But I have equally no doubt that many other marriages, which under present conditions would quickly come to grief, were then, because of that support from the family, the Church and the social conditions of the day, helped through the period of crisis and thereby saved from avoidable disaster.

It is in this respect that the proposals in the Bill are utterly deficient. Doors are to be opened and divorce is to be made easier. There is nothing necessarily wrong in that, but by itself the opening of doors is not enough. A spiritual vacuum is created in which there is no help, no guidance, no encouragement or no sense of obligation—just freedom to walk out, which may not be what is really required in every case. Therefore, in the present social climate many divorces may take place which might have been avoided if the necessary support was made available when the relationship first came under strain.

I am informed by Dr. Jack Dominian, who is a recognised authority on the problem of marriage breakdown and whose book I advise those such as the hon. Member for Argyll to read, that the salvage figure could be as high as 30 per cent. if help were given in the right way and at the right time.

The concept which I have in mind is quite different from the reference to reconciliation in the Bill, which will achieve precisely nothing and which is more an exercise in public relations than a serious attempt to grapple with the problem of reconciliation. The Bill, in fact, is a charter for peace after war, when what is really needed is a procedure which may prevent a misunderstanding escalating into war. On the international scene great efforts are made to prevent such escalation taking place, so why should we not make the same efforts on the home front?

Divorce is no longer just a matter that concerns individuals. It involves the whole community now far more than ever before. An avoidable breakdown in the relationship between a husband and wife is always immensely sad. Always children lacking either a father or a mother in the home—not nearly enough has been said about children, and I hope that in Committee the hon. Gentleman will say something about that subject—suffer a sense of deprivation.

But no longer are these simply, as they were before, personal disasters. As the number of single-parent families grows, so also the burden of subsidising an increasing divorce rate mounts all the time. Already it costs approximately £300 million each year to support single-parent families, and this is before the implementation of the recommendations of the Finer Committee, which will greatly augment this figure. Therefore financial prudence, as well as the claims of human happiness, point to the need for something far more creative than just the "open door" proposals in the Bill, in imitation of the English.

I should like to see Scotland a pioneer in this field. I hope that the many Scottish National Party Members here will follow me and will make this Bill into something which will enable Scotland to be a pioneer in this field, pointing the way to something better, more humane, less legalistic in approach and more constructive in results.

What I have in mind is an organisation based on the Finer Committee's concept of the family court, or family centre as I prefer to call it. I realise that the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Social Services has said that the Government cannot afford this for England, and I accept that, but why not try out the idea for Scotland? Surely the whole justification for a separate legal system and a separate administration is that in Scotland we can carry out experiments at a fraction of the cost for the country as a whole. Then, if the idea works, it can be applied to the rest of Britain; and if it does not work we can try something else.

In contrast to this concept of a family centre, under the Bill as it is now drafted the disenchanted party may still have to prove adultery—the hon. Member for Argyll admitted that—and still have to twist innocent facts in order to prove cruelty. How much better and cheaper my idea would be. Think of the savings in legal fees, now getting on for £1½ million a year. The hon. Member for Argyll gave a figure of £1 million but I think that it is getting on for £1½ million. How much better it would be if all the irrelevant facts no longer required to be proved and if the disenchanted spouse were able to go to the family centre instead of visiting a solicitor. I would remind the House that solicitors are like soldiers. They are skilled in offensive and defensive tactics rather than in the problems of emotional conciliation—I use the hon. Gentleman's own words.

How much better if, instead of visiting a solicitor, the disenchanted spouse could go to the familiar family centre, which is used all the time by the community for all sorts of family purposes, and could there state informally and privately that she wanted a divorce. This fact would be noted, and from that moment the two-year period or whatever it was—I would prefer it to be a little longer—would start to run. There would be no need to allege adultery, to prove cruelty or even to leave home as the Church of Scotland's scheme unnecessarily requires. All that would be needed would be the simple statement, confirmed every three months, that one did not wish the marriage to continue. That would be only the first step.

Then the social workers would offer their services. I should like to make consultation with them mandatory, though perhaps that should apply only where there were children. Two years would thus be available for reviewing the situation, and that would be a far better way of helping and strengthening marriages than the present accusatorial system because, as I say, once the parties get into the hands of lawyers they are in their slit trenches.

Reconciliation and the saving of marriage would be only one aspect of the work. Preparing the parties to face up to the consequences of divorce would be equally important. It is one thing to want a divorce; it is quite another thing to accept it without shock when it has taken place. While divorce may end the marriage relationship, where there are children a new parental relationship is required, which is particularly difficult for the former marriage partners to adjust to without help because of its unnaturalness.

To sum up this is not a very honest Bill. I am sorry to say so, because the hon. Gentleman made a good speech. Nevertheless, it is not a very honest Bill. It pretends to introduce a new humanity and it ends up for the most part with the old accusatorial situation. As Lord Dun-park has said, the Bill is trying to ride two horses at the same time by paying lip service to irretrievable breakdown while retaining the existing matrimonial offences as evidence of that breakdown. I urge, instead of this mixed bag of high-sounding phraseology and unnecessary recrimination, that the mere passage of time should be the deciding factor—the passage of time combined with the repeated confirmation at regular intervals of the desire to end the marriage, the passage of time during which the social services, if they do not save the marriage, could at least provide the divorce, particularly if there were children, with a better start.

In divorce, as in marriage, expectations do not always accord with reality, and both marriage and divorce require a period of preparation if adjustment to the new status is to be successful. The provision of this help I regard as the most hopeful safeguard for the sanctity and preservation of marriage. Admittedly, to set up such an organisation would be a difficult job for a private Member to undertake. But why should the Government stand aside in such a vital issue as this? It is not as if moral matters of this sort are always left to private Members. I see that the Under-Secretary of State has what I would call a Mona Lisa smile. That is what people think it is but in reality it is simply the ministerial smile. It means nothing at all. I have seen it many times. I can almost see the hon. Gentleman getting the excuses ready and saying that moral matters of this sort are always left to private Members. Lord Butler's Street Offences Bill which re- moved prostitutes from the street is a good example of the Government acting in a moral area when they thought it was socially desirable to do so.

Let the Government—the hon. Member for Argyll and I can now join together and attack the Government—show a sense of responsibilty. What is wanted in a progressive society is not only a mortuary for dead marriages but a curative hospital service for sick marriages and even a preventive service that may help to eliminate the trouble at the start, just as inoculation has largely rid us of diphtheria. We also need the provision of a research service that will identify the cycle of emotional deprivation which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) illustrated a few years ago, so often lays the seed in one generation that causes marital failure in the next generation.

Let us by all means open the gate in the interests of personal freedom, but let us also show ourselves to be a caring and responsible society by providing at the same time the help, support and understanding without which that freedom will be a sham, bringing neither stability to marriage nor happiness to those who need it most.

It gives me genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). I remember all that passed between us in the House 12 months ago and the 10 successive occasions on which he objected to these proposals on the ground that the Bill required a debate. I only hope that when those who were concerned about the delay which has been caused come to read today's Hansard they will feel that the 12-month delay was worth while.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman felt obliged to begin by raking over the coals of what happened last year. I confess that over the past 12 months I have acquired considerable affection for the hon. Gentleman, which perhaps can be likened to the way that Milton in the course of "Paradise Lost" came to have considerable affection for the Prince of Darkness. One always ends up with that kind of symbiotic relationship with one's opponent. Nevertheless, despite that affection, I confess that I cannot agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I should like to deal with one or two of his comments which, in my view, attacked the Bill unfairly and without foundation.

As I recollect, the hon. Gentleman drew a vivid contrast between the deserted and lonely wife left at home and the husband who divorced her after five years, having left her to cohabit every night with a younger woman. Frankly, such a situation exists only in fantasy. If the hon. Gentleman visits the Library and consults the figures for England, where there has been such a provision for a number of years, he will find that last year more women than men resorted to the five-year clause. The fact is that women often find themselves in the situation where they are totally innocent of the marriage breakdown but in the eyes of the law they are guilty.

I recollect that 12 months ago, when I tried to introduce a Bill, I received a large number of letters from women in Scotland who were precisely in that position. They had left their husbands because of cruelty and neglect and often because of battering. Like many women who are battered, they concealed the fact that they were being cruelly treated by their husbands, and they were ashamed to let their friends and relatives know about it. Therefore, there was no evidence and there were no witnesses to the fact that they had been ill-treated. When they left their husbands it was said that it was they who had deserted. In the eyes of the law they were guilty and, therefore, they were unable to obtain divorce under the present provision of the Scottish law.

I have letters from people who have been separated from their husbands for 10 or 11 years without succeeding on any grounds to get a divorce. It is nonsense to suggest that these women are in any way to blame for the situation they are now in. I believe that to try to import the whole question of guilt or innocence into the breakdown of what is not a fixed or written contract with subsections and footnotes but is a human relationship, is perhaps a rather false and archaic way of viewing the situation.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to single parents. It goes without saying that every social worker must be extremely concerned about the growth in the number of single parents. However, I counsel the hon. Gentleman not to pin the blame solely on the divorce laws. A high proportion of single-parent families are not divorced and do not intend to seek divorce.

I should like to revert to the Finer Report. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not inform the House that the Finer Report, at great length and in a full chapter, argued the need for reform of the Scottish divorce laws because the present state of the law leaves the woman, who is generally the single parent who lives with the children, in an extremely weak position to enforce her legal rights, especially in connection with the collection of maintenance payments. I am sure that, if hon. Members reflect on some of the cases which they have dealt with at their surgeries, they will agree that there is a clear and compelling need to improve the Scottish law of diligence and the enforcement of these payments.

If we mention to the Scottish Law Commission that the present situation is inadequate and that most women cannot enforce maintenance payments and if we ask it what can be done, it will say that until it knows the future of the Scottish divorce law it: cannot introduce a law of diligence. It will say that reform has first to be introduced.

It is of sincere regret that the House, by delaying the move towards reform of Scottish divorce law, has in turn delayed a move concerning the enforcement of maintenance payments which could reduce the cost of £300 million to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick). I congratulate him on the disinterested way in which he put what he conceived to be a Bill of importance to the nation before his own personal scruples. He also deserves to be wholeheartedly and sincerely congratulated on the lucid manner in which he introduced the Bill. I only hope that by the end of the debate I shall also be able to congratulate him on having succeeded where so many other hon. Members have failed.

There is also a rather ironical aspect because, given his political views, the hon. Gentleman is introducing a Bill which essentially is designed to bring Scottish law into line with English law. The hon. Gentleman dealt with that matter ably and well. I have discussed this matter with many people in Scotland who feel strongly that the law should be brought into line. Undoubtedly one of the prime impetuses for that feeling is the general sentiment that the law as it affects individuals within a united country, should be broadly comparable and similar. That is one of the main reasons why there is strong public feeling in favour of this reform. I am committed to preserving the unity of the country. I find that sentiment most encouraging and heartening.

The hon Gentleman was right to spell out that the case for reform is based not only on an argument for uniformity but on the argument that the present law is inadequate. If the Scottish law was adequate, no one would argue that we should change it simply for the sake of making it the same as English law. Indeed, I think that the hon. Member for Hillhead also agrees that the present law is clearly inadequate.

Some of the letters which I received last year were from individuals who had been separated from their husband or from their wife for over 20 years. In one instance I received a letter from a man who had been separated from his wife for 36 years without any prospect of divorce under the existing provisions of the law. It is preposterous that we provide no legal remedy for people in this position. I do not believe that we in any way weaken marriage by recognising that such a marriage is dead. On the contrary, we weaken marriage and make a mockery of it by pretending that a couple who have been separated for such an inordinate time are in any sense married. In fact, what we do when we insist on keeping such a couple married in name is to make the law appear an ass because it refuses to recognise what all who know the couple can see for themselves.

Moreover, as the hon. Member for Argyll underlined by his reference to making legitimate the products of illicit unions, we must remember that two-thirds of those who are divorced subsequently remarry. There is a paradox here in that, by easing the process of divorce, we increase the number of happy marriages rather than the reverse, because those who are divorced are then able to marry other persons with whom they have subsequently formed unions.

However, I emphasise that the prime reason behind the need for this reform is not that it will make divorce easier for certain sections of the community. I do not believe that there is anything in that point. Indeed, I should be surprised if there were a substantial effect on the divorce rate as a result of the Bill. The figures for the increased rate of divorce over the past two or three years reveal the astonishing fact that there is substantial similarity between the increase in Scotland and that in England. There is no evidence whatever in the movement of the rate of increase in our two countries to show that it is a change in the law which results in divorce. What produces the increased rate of divorce is the changing nature of our society, the pressures which produce marital breakdown and so on. That is the real reason, and not the state of the law.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree also that another factor contributing to the increase is that no support is given to marriages when they run into difficulty? Is it not a weakness of the Bill that it does not adequately deal with that side of the problem?

I readily agree that we wish to see more support given to those who find themselves in difficulty in their marriage and who wish to rescue it, but, if I may say so, the hon. Member for Argyll dealt with that very fully and ably. It is not fair to say that that aspect of the matter is not covered by the Bill. For example, the Bill would improve arrangements for conciliation and reconciliation. It would make it possible for people to come together on a trial basis in a way which is not open to them under the present law. Moreover, it would provide for the court, to some extent, to try to achieve reconciliation, though I am sceptical about whether that is the best way of achieving it.

If the hon. Member for Hillhead is seeking an expansion of facilities for marriage counselling and reconciliation, the best place for that is not in a Bill to reform the law of divorce. It is a quite separate matter. If I may add a personal view here, I suggest that one is starting at the wrong end of the stick if one thinks of trying to save marriages by changing the law of divorce or, on the other hand, by failing to change the law of divonce. One is not starting early enough even in the provision of counselling when a marriage runs into difficulties. We ought to look at the very beginning, since the truth is that, if we want to increase the number of happy marriages, we can best do it not by making divorce more difficult or keeping the law as it is but, I suggest, by making it just a little less easy for people to get married in the first place.

It is an enormous paradox that our society is removing pretty well every constraint against getting married. It is extremely easy now for people to get married quickly, and perhaps without adequate preparation, only to find thereafter that divorce, the other side of the coin, is far more difficult and can be undertaken only with the help of lawyers. I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Hillhead said about lawyers.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will pursue in Committee the important and interesting points which he has made, but I wish to put a question to him before he leaves the subject of the relative increase of divorce in Scotland as compared with England. This is a matter which I have discussed with him, and I wonder whether he will inform the House of the relative proportion of divorces in Scotland, which is, I think, somewhat lower than that in the United Kingdom, and is, therefore, a relevant factor in our consideration of what can be done for conciliation and reconciliation.

My hon. Friend is quite right. The rate of divorce in Scotland is slightly lower than that in England. It is not as low as it used to be, but it is none the less still lower. However, it is worth noting that during the past two years the rate of divorce in England has more or less levelled off—there has been very little increase over the past two years—whereas, as we all know, the rate of divorce is showing a dramatic upsurge in Scotland, and if that trend continues, with or without reform of the law, we shall quickly reach the crossover point. However, I do not use that as an argument against reconciliation, as I know my hon. Friend will at once accept.

The prime argument for reform is not that it would make divorce easier for any particular section but that it would make divorce more civilised for all who are involved. Here I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Hillhead when he rightly criticised the Bill for still retaining references to adultery, cruelty and desertion. It retains those references not as instances or proof of guilt but as criteria for marital breakdown. This is a meaningful distinction, and the hon. Gentleman underestimated its nature.

Morevover, the Bill does more than simply introduce, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, the five-years' separation clause. It introduces in addition the two years' separation clause, and, as we know from experience in England, there are many people who would like to go for the two-years' separation even where other grounds exist. They prefer that route for personal reasons which are readily understandable, since it provides a simple and straightforward method of achieving divorce without the parties needing to accuse one another of sin and guilt, and without the need for them to make public what went wrong in a marriage relationship which, of course, always remains an intensely personal thing.

That is an important feature of the Bill—in my view, probably the most important—and I can tell the House, having spoken over the past 12 months to many couples who have been through the process of divorce in the courts, that I have yet to find one who felt satisfied that the law had worked well and provided a dignified and appropriate end to what had once been an intimate personal relationship. The Bill goes some way towards meeting that need.

Since there seems to be wide agreement on the principles of the Bill, I hope that the House will forgive me if I turn now to what may be regarded as a Committee point. In my view, it is time we laid down a marker as to jurisdiction of the High Court in divorce matters. I believe that it is time we started to consider whether many minor divorce cases, if I may so call them, could be devolved—we are living in a time of devolution—to the sheriff courts. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be sympathetic to the case for devolution.

For my part, I am not yet convinced of the case for such a change. I admit that the High Court has an expertise which is worth retaining, and there are also pragmatic arguments in present circumstances, since the sheriff courts are already overburdened with work. Moreover, I am not impressed with the argument that such a change would make the process cheaper, since my suspicion is that the legal profession will always manage so to manipulate the fees that it will cost the same.

Nevertheless, I am moved to ask why anyone in any part of Scotland who wants a divorce—whether in Aberdeen, in the other side of the country or even in the islands—has to come to my constituency to get it. It does not seem to make any sort of a priori sense.

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge, however, that many people in distant parts of the country prefer to have their divorce heard in Edinburgh rather than in their local community?

I accept that entirely, but I am sure that it is not true of everybody living in Glasgow or, for that matter, in Aberdeen. I should not wish to make it compulsory that all who live in Lerwick, Stornoway or other remote parts should have to go to the sheriff court, where inevitably there would be greater local publicity, but I think that the option should be there, certainly for those who live in the more heavily populated parts in the West of Scotland.

There is no particular logic in carrying through such a reform as part of a change in the nature of the law, and in any event it would impinge heavily on Government administration since the Government are concerned directly and centrally in the running of the courts. However, as I say, I think it important to put down a marker in this Second Reading debate so that the matter may be considered further, either in Committee or on Report, and it would be helpful to know the Government's thinking on the question.

It is my firm impression, having spoken to many hon. Members and to people outside the House, that there is a broad consensus behind the Bill. There is no question but that the Bill moves along lines supported by public opinion and supported by all the organisations involved in the divorce law. Without doubt, the House should give it a Second Reading.

I acknowledge some of the criticisms made of the Bill by the hon. Member for Hillhead, and I wish in no way to suggest that it will be a perfect reform, that it will be a reform immutable for all time or that change will not be required 20 years from now. Obviously, all law relating to personal matters of this kind has to move with the nature of society, and I readily acknowledge that one decade or two decades hence this House or a Scottish Assembly will have to reconsider the position. None the less, there is no doubt that the Bill represents public feeling now. It will make a modest and sensible improvement in the divorce law which will be of assistance to many people in Scotland who find themselves caught up in marital breakdown, and I earnestly hope that the House will give to the Bill today the Second Reading which it ought to have had long ago.

My brief comments will be made easier because of the clarity with which the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) presented his Bill. Those who find themselves in trouble with their marriage would do well to read what the hon. Member said, because he set out with great fairness what his Bill seeks to do and the changes that are contemplated within the proposals.

I have no pleasure in listening to a debate on a subject of this nature or in contemplating the results that may flow from the Bill. I hope that an increase in divorce that might stem from the proposals will not be substantial. I accept that there are a number of cases where divorce is merited under the proposals and that we should approve of divorce where marriage has been broken down for years and where no steps to end it can be taken under the existing law.

I believe firmly and sincerely that one should not lightly take the vows of the marriage ceremony or those of civil contract. To do so would be totally against my instincts. I fear that the Bill might reduce the solemnity and meaningfulness of marriage and subsequently the importance of bringing up children. If all things were equal, I would not approve of making divorce easier than it is at present, but, as with almost everything that we discuss in the House, all things are never equal. Year by year and decade by decade, resistance to moral principles and the acceptance of the permissive society become more prevalent. I was a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Argyll said that the Scots started it all in the sixteenth century. Today I am talking in terms of the world and not particularly of the United Kingdom.

Law and order, homosexuality, abortion and marriage have all been the subject of change in the last 10 to 12 years. I begin to wonder when we shall call a halt and stand on the principles in which people believe and for which they have respect. The pass has been sold long go in this matter. The English Act has now been in force for some years. It is ludicrous to have one law for England and Wales and another for Scotland. Although people can change their domicile, it is not always easy to do so and it can be expensive. It is possible for Scots men and women to move to England and eventually obtain a divorce under the existing law.

At one time the English, and others from the Continent, went to Gretna Green to be married, but now even the advantage of being married in God's country has gone and there is no need to go to Scotland to be married. The Scots are now going to England to obtain a divorce. The differential between Scotland and England in terms of marriage and divorce should not exist, and I am glad that it has been removed for marriage. It is therefore illogical to continue the existing situation.

On practical rather than on moral grounds I must accept that the Bill should proceed, and I do not intend to oppose it. But I accept the Bill with a heavy heart.

The hon. Member for Argyll and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) have clearly staled what the Bill will do. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead has pointed out the deficiencies which, in his view, must be improved or considered in detail in Committee. I am not actually volunteering to serve on the Committee, but I am sure that through amendments proposed by the Bill's promoter, its opponents or the Government the Bill will emerge in a form which will merit general respect in Scotland. We shall then have parity throughout the United Kingdom on an important moral issue. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said, we are in the long term perhaps legislating more for happy marriages than for the sad circumstances of divorce.

I do not want it to be thought that in the future divorce will be easier to obtain or that the sanctity of marriage will be less important tomorrow than it is today, because I belive that we must uphold the moral principle of marriage more than ever before. This is a world in which we tend to break things down rather than hold firm to those principles which we regard as important. That is my message. I shall not oppose the Bill and I wish it well in Committee. It hope that it will emerge as a measure of which all Scots will be proud.

I echo some of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). Like him, when we debated the matter in 1971 I was against making a change in the divorce law. I have now changed my mind for much he same reasons as he has outlined. It is now easier for those with means to change their domicile than it is for the average citizen.

I am slightly worried because the Bill establishes the principle that the breakdown of marriage should be the reason for divorce, but in Clause 1 adultery is given as a reason for divorce. That is an anomaly and I wonder whether it is necessary. Perhaps that should be considered in Committee. While there is obviously a need to provide in the breakdown of marriage for contested and uncontested divorces, should we not be able to find some distinction between those marriages that break down also immediately after they have taken place as opposed to those that break down after a period of years?

I wonder whether those who have gone into matrimony for a second or third time after divorce should be dealt with under the same provisions as those seeking divorce after matrimony engaged in only once. I hope that these matters can be considered in the Committee.

We should recognise that we are making considerable changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) seemed to be saying that we were not. I looked up our last debate on this subject. The then Lord Advocate, now Lord Wylie, said:

"If this legislation gets on to the Statute Book it will so alter the whole basis of divorce law in Scotland that substantial changes in the rules of court would be involved, and the earliest date at which this legislation could operate would probably be 1st January, 1972."—[Official Report, 22nd January 1971; Vol. 809, c. 1514.]

The Bill provides that the law should become operative three months after it gets on the statute book. I hope that the Minister will tell us how quickly the Bill could become law.

I emphasise again that if we gave any impression that we are cheapening marriage, that we were going to bring it into disrepute by this Bill, we should be doing a great disservice to the background of the family, which is the background of our civilisation. I hope that the Bill will get a Second Reading and that in Committee hon. Members will improve it and ensure that everything is done to preserve marriage rather than breaking it down.

It would be churlish if I did not congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) on the Bill. It is not unknown for me to spend a good deal of time in this House attacking members of the Scottish National Party, and that situation, unqualified, will remain a general principle. But it would be wrong not to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his courage in bringing in the Bill, for I know his own position and his views. He has done a service to the House and to Scotland. Despite everything else, I am able to distinguish the individual from the principles and policy of the SNP.

One must say of the Bill, "About time". First, it is a bad situation in a single country without borders to have different laws of divorce. Such a situation can be exploited in a way in which it should not be exploited. Secondly, Scottish law has in many ways in the past been more kindly. The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1560 law, which was in advance of the law of Europe and of England at the time. For example, it used the term which I prefer, "love child", to that of "bastard". Now in Scottish law we tend to use the term "bastard", but the "love child" of the old days was a kindlier and gentler term, symbolic of an attitude of Scottish law which is not so obvious today.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) referred to me. I do not want to cross swords with him, but he has it absolutely wrong when he accuses the hon. Member for Argyll of trying to replace the concept of a contract by the concept of a relationship. A marriage is either a relationship or it is nothing. The cruellest way to regard a marriage is to regard it as a contract. When I was a Minister at the Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Hillhead once said to me that we should have heavier penalties for crimes against property than for crimes against the person because, after all, a person was only an extension of property. I did not and do not accept that. Nor does the Bill. The Bill accepts that if a marriage does not have a relationship which will prosper, we cannot expect it to prosper merely because it is a contract.

The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I tried to say that marriage used to be regarded as a contractual relationship but that that was no longer the view of most people today, and that the Bill would change that contractual relationship of marriage into a personal volition relationship. There is no difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself, but I also said that, while that was the fundamental basis of the Bill, it still retained something of the old contractual features.

The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Bill ends regarding marriage as a contract while saying at the same time that it retains the contractual basis. It must be one or the other. The Bill says that there are aspects of statute law, which have either been associated with guilt or with innocence in the past, which will of themselves give validity and proof on the question of irretrievable breakdown. That is where the alteration is taking place.

Yesterday, we saw some of the tragedy of having proof or otherwise of guilt dragged through the court in Edinburgh in distasteful proceedings involving a mother and others. Such a display is harmful to all involved and is of advantage only to the lawyers. I agree that it is ludicrous that people should have to travel to Edinburgh when they do not wish to do so and that it should have to be done at such a level of court. All that will be quite unnecessary if we can once establish that the basis of a marriage is agreement, and that the basis of a divorce should be the ending and irretrievable breakdown of that agreement. Far from cheapening marriage by putting it on that basis, the Bill enhances it. Marriage is cheapened only when it is seen as a contract and as binding. That is not real marriage. Marriage continues only, and is genuine only, in a true relationship.

I welcome the provisions for the encouragement of reconciliation. I do not know why the hon. Member for Hill-head attacked the hon. Member for Argyll on that matter, because the Bill goes out of its way for the first time to introduce the concept of reconciliation. It does it again in a rather gentle Scottish way by making sure that if things happen in the meantime they will not necessarily of themselves be taken as statutory proof that cohabitation, as it were, is continuing and must be taken as proof of no irretrievable breakdown. The hon. Member for Argyll has dealt with this aspect extremely well. He has recognised that a relationship is the basis for marriage and is solving the problem in a proper way by dealing with it in advance and in a continuing way.

Scotland will welcome this Bill. There are always shifts in public opinion. Previous attitudes have been that such legislation would leave the way open to the philanderer, but all that nonsense has passed. The Bill merely gives expression to, but does not go beyond, a convinced opinion that the law was an ass and had to be changed. The hon. Member for Argyll is assisting us to change it, and I thank him.

As the sole woman sponsor of the Bill, I want to make some comments from the woman's point of view, concentrating on Clause 1(2)(e) and Clause 1(5).

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) referred to the idea of the Bill being a Casanova's charter. That criticism was levelled against the English Act when it was going through Parliament. It was so described in another place. Presumably, this stemmed from the belief that the philandering husband would treat his wife like an old car and trade her in for a newer, more sinful model. But statistics do not bear out that pessimistic forecast about the English Act.

In 1971 and 1972 in England and Wales, more of the five-year desertion divorces were granted to husbands than to wives, but in 1973 and 1974 more were being granted to wives. In 1974, of 15,845 divorces granted for five-year desertion, 7,648 were to husbands and 8,197 were to wives. Therefore, it cannot be said that Clause 1(2)(e) is a Casanova's charter or that it discriminates against women or, indeed, against men. One of the aspects of the clause that I like is that an empty shell of a marriage can be buried without discrimination. On that basis, I welcome it.

I intervene briefly to indicate the Government's broad sympathy with the principles embodied in the Bill and to express the hope that the House will accord the Bill a Second Reading.

I also wish to join in the congratulations that have been tendered to the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick). One thing that I pride myself on is that I never withhold praise or credit where they are due. Today I do not withhold praise from the hon. Gentleman. I recognise the special difficulties which he faced in selecting a subject for legislation following his success in the Ballot. I mention three points from the hon. Gentleman's speech, not in a critical fashion—I mention one in a lighthearted fashion—but only because I think that they are worthy of mention.

It was strange that almost at the beginning of his speech the hon. Gentleman said that the Bill "would affect the whole of Scottish society". I hope that is wrong and that the whole of Scottish society is not desperately waiting to take advantage of the Bill.

I enjoyed the way in which the hon. Gentleman, who is such a bulky figure whom I always admire, picked his way lightly through the allegation that he is bringing Scottish law into line with English law. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) that the hon. Gentleman handled that point very well.

On a much more serious note, I must say that I was very concerned to hear the hon. Gentleman say that it was not the business of the House of Commons to concern itself in legislation with morals and ethics. I profoundly disagree. This is why I agreed so strongly with the profound speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). I believe that hon. Members present today have the feeling that they are dealing with a Bill of which none of us will ever have to take advantage—in other words, we feel secure in the knowledge that our marriage and family background are, as far as we can be certain, secure.

Given that background, it is important to recognise the difficulties that were outlined by the hon. Member for Hillhead. I share the view that the position of children and the breakdown that occurs in family life should be paramount considerations in any thinking on the reform of divorce law. After the breakdown of a marriage, the husband and wife can adjust themselves, albeit over a period of time: they are adults and they can adjust; the damage is caused to the children.

So often on the subject of licensing law I say that I have believed throughout my life—it is not my intention to bare my breast today—that one of the greatest assets any nation can have is family life. That is why it is essential that we work very hard to preserve family life.

I recognise the genuine and helpful suggestions made by the hon. Member for Hillhead, particularly the suggestion that we should set up family centres to help marriages which are floundering but which could be saved. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise my difficulties in replying to that suggestion off the cuff. However, I say without qualification that the suggestion has a great deal of merit and I am interested in it as a citizen.

The Bill raises sensitive issues on which there are opposing views cutting right across party lines, as has been evidenced by events in the past year. These views are sincerely held. I have never criticised any hon. Member for taking the opposite view to what I will describe as the popular view on the reform of the divorce laws.

The Government respect and recognise the views of those who feel that any relaxation of the divorce laws represents a weakening of the marriage bonds, but they believe that the present law, with its continuing emphasis on the concept of guilty and non-guilty parties, may not reflect the views of the majority of people in Scotland. This is why we are particularly pleased that the Bill provides an opportunity for the whole question to be debated fully and for an indication to be given of the extent of support for reform that exists in the House.

If the House chooses to give the Bill a Second Reading, the Government will discuss with the Opposition through the usual channels the provision of Committee time through the setting up of the Second Scottish Standing Committee. That is a commitment which I give the House.

A good deal was said about the need for reconciliation procedures, and this is a view which I share. It is an open question whether formal conciliation attempts, at whatever stage they may be applied, would have any really marked effect on the divorce rate. Conciliation was considered fully by the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families. The Committee said that it was not known whether the higher rate of divorce meant that more marriages were breaking down, or merely that more breakdowns were coming to court.

It also said that divorce might be being resorted to more readily because it was now more socially acceptable and because of the improvement in the status and earning capacity of women. The Committee recognised the limitations of the court of law in reconciliation and suggested that this was a rôle for the welfare services rather than for the courts, although it recognised that the kind of family court which is recom- mended—and the hon. Member for Hill-head, laid heavy emphasis on this—would remain alive to any sign that any reconciliation was possible and would take steps, probably involving referral to an outside agency, which seemed most likely to procure it.

Many people, including me, take the view that to have the best chance of success reconciliation efforts must be started at a stage before any court action. It is generally accepted that once a court action has begun the attempts to effect a reconciliation are that much less likely to succeed. Therefore, the best known agencies for this kind of work are marriage guidance councils, which are fully accepted as appropriate referral agencies by social workers, general practitioners, health visitors and the Churches and, as the hon. Member for Argyll said, these councils receive grants from the central Exchequer and from the local authorities.

I turn to the financial provisions following a divorce. The Government are quite clear that it would be completely inappropriate to include in this Bill any measures of this kind at a time when the Scottish Law Commission is on the point of issuing a detailed consultative memorandum on this very subject.

Financial provision is tied very closely to the question of divorce, but it also raises questions which can be answered only after the most exhaustive study. That is the purpose of the Scottish Law Commission's forthcoming consultative document and as a Government we consider that it would be better to await the consultative document and then see how the matter evolves from there.

I now turn briefly to the likely effect of the Bill on the Legal Aid Fund. If the Bill becomes law, it is probable that there will be an increase in the divorce rate in Scotland. Realistically, we all accept that, certainly in the early years, there will be an increase in the divorce rate. This will lead to a corresponding increase in legal aid costs in those years. But it is just not possible to quantify accurately what those increased costs are likely to be. Again, we all accept that there will be an increase in demands on the Legal Aid Fund.

I deal finally with the substantive point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and others about the possibility of taking divorce actions from the High Court—the Court of Session—to the sheriff courts level. I do not deny that there are persuasive arguments in favour of having divorces in the sheriff courts. Whatever we may say about the legal profession, there is no doubt that it would be cheaper and that for many people it would be more convenient in terms of travel. These are accepted arguments. Again, there is no doubt about them. However, there are two practical aspects of the question which in the Government's view make it undesirable to have any change of jurisdiction as part of this Bill.

First, there is the important consideration that at a time of change it is clearly desirable that there should be some unity of interpretation based upon experience, and this points to the clear advantages, at least for the present, of leaving jurisdiction with the Court of Session. Secondly, there is the difficulty that to give jurisdiction to the sheriff courts would result in a substantial increase in the work loads of those courts which they would find it very difficult to absorb, and the Government woud not wish to place any additional load on the sheriff courts which would have a detrimental effect on their general efficiency.

As the Scottish Law Commission pointed out in its memorandum to the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families, the soundness and weight of the arguments for conferring divorce jurisdiction on the sheriff courts cannot be tested without detailed examination of those questions. Such an examination is likely to be successful only if a number of searching preliminary inquiries are carried out and if there is adequate consultation with those who know most about the Scottish judicial and legal system. The Government's view for the present, therefore, is that it would be wrong to include such a major change in this Bill, that being the transferral of divorce actions from the High Court to the sheriff courts, despite the two advantages that I indicated such a change would have.

The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) asked whether it would be possible, as indicated in Clause 12(2), for the Bill to become operative three months after it became an Act. I can advise the House that we have already warned the Court of Session of the rules that will have to be changed and the situation that will have to be met should the Bill become an Act. Therefore, we are confident that three months after the Bill becomes an Act the provisions of the new Act will become operative in Scotland and that there will be no difficulty in this respect.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) summed up the feelings of us all. I do not think that any hon. Member takes any great pleasure from passing this legislation. Being politicians, we all realise and know the difficulties facing many families throughout Scotland because of the shape and form of our present divorce laws. Being realists, we accept also that those laws have to be brought up to date and modernised to take care of those difficulties.

But I am sure that I am expressing the wish of the whole House—certainly I am expressing my own wish—when I say that I hope that when this new legislation goes on the statute book it will not bring about a decline in social standards in Scotland. That is one pitfall that we must avoid at all cost. We all hope that this new divorce law will take care of the very difficult cases to which so many hon. Members have referred during this debate, but that we shall still prize and have uppermost the preservation of family life.

I intend to make only a brief contribution to this debate, both because the arguments have been well debated already by the many hon. Members who have spoken and also because my voice, which is at present quavering, might disappear totally if I attempted to do otherwise.

I ought perhaps to begin by declaring an interest, having in the past few years participated in several hundred divorce actions in the Court of Session—I hasten to add not as a party, but as counsel for one or other of the parties concerned. I feel that the matters that we are considering today are of considerable importance both to the legal profession and to the public as a whole.

Clearly, the Opposition, like the Government and like all the other parties, take no official party view on this Bill. However, I know that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we welcome this opportunity to debate the measure before us today.

I wish to pay a special compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraitht). He vindicated completely any suggestion that his opposition to previous measures was the result of any blind reaction and made it clear that it was because of his own very special belief that a more humane and sensible alternative could be put forward. His contribution today has been of profound importance in analysing the background to the subject of the breakdown of marriage and the priority which should be applied in considering what alternatives may be put forward for consideration by the House.

We must also be grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick), who has presented his Bill successfully and succinctly. It is ironic that a member of his party should have introduced the Bill, because it emphasises that in the sphere of personal laws, as in so many others, it is undesirable and unnecessary that we should have in this small island separate legal status for different members of our community.

In the past few years the consequences of a legal system for Scotland separate from that for England and Wales have led to the Scottish courts interpreting the criteria for awarding decrees much more flexibly than would ever have been the case in previous years. The courts have had to stretch the interpretation of statutes, and witnesses have had to stretch the presentation of their evidence. Clearly, that is unhealthy and undesirable. Because it concentrates not on artificial criteria but on the simple logical criterion of whether there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship between the parties, the Bill presents a much more sound and sensible basis for determining the relationships between individuals.

Our greatest concern in Committee must be to deal with the financial considerations and the responsibilities of the court concerning the children of the marriage. Although adults can often adapt themselves to the changed circumstances created by divorce, if the matter is not handled with humanity and sense the children may suffer lasting scars resulting in serious damage to them not simply through childhood but throughout their lives.

Though none of us would approve in principle allowing a marriage to be ended against the wishes of the person whom we consider to be the innocent party, if the parties have lived apart for up to five years it cannot be seriously argued that the marriage has done anything other than break down, and it cannot be in anyone's interest to perpetuate it for reasons of rigidity or because of the non-availability of evidence. Although it is often argued that the vast majority of people who wish to obtain a divorce can get one without difficulty, it has not been possible in a number of cases, not because the grounds have not existed, but because witnesses have not been available to speak to those grounds.

Many incidents in married life which cause breakdown take place only in the privacy of the home, with only the husband and wife being present. In Scotland, where, unlike England, corroboration is required to provide sufficient evidence to entitle the court to grant a decree, the non-availability of a second witness or of corroborative evidence has often led to a solicitor advising his client that, without perjured evidence, there would be no possibility of the court granting a decree. Although the court can adopt a flexible approach and help the pursuer to find evidence, if no evidence is available to corroborate a completely honest and trustworthy pursuer the court often, reluctantly, refuses a decree. We must solve this problem.

The Bill marks the end of a long struggle to enable the House to give due consideration to the merits of Scottish divorce law reform. I am sure that it will receive the approval of the House and that when it is enacted many people throughout Scotland will begin to bring together the tattered remnants of their relationship and build their lives in a way which will depend on the strength of the marriage ties and contract and not an artificial series of legal controls which have borne little relationship to the realities of their lives for many years. I give my full support to the Bill, and I am sure that the vast majority of hon. Members will do likewise.

I shall contribute only briefly to the debate, since seldom can there have been introduced a liberalising measure commanding such widespread, cross-party support among Scottish Members. I wish to make three points dealing with the delays and difficulties experienced in introducing previous Divorce (Scotland) Bills, the undue hardship and misery thereby caused to countless thousands of Scottish people, and ways and means of strengthening this measure to make it more comprehensive.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) on introducing the Bill and on his forensic skill in presenting his case. It is an open secret that when he won fourth place in the Ballot he agonised long and hard about what he should do. He has undoubtedly done the right thing. But should measures of this magnitude be dependent on luck in a lottery? If there has ever been a well established case for Scottish law being brought back to the Scottish people through the agency of a Scottish Parliament, it is the long and sorry story of six years' delay in introducing a measure such as this.

I hope that the hon. Member will include in his strictures the fact that in the past, especially in 1971, the delay was caused as much by the failure of Scottish Members to be present to carry through the measure as by anything else.

I accept that. Similarly, the English measure was passed only with the support of Scottish Members.

It is over six years since the divorce law was reformed for our friends and neighbours south of the border ending the medieval concept of the matrimonial offence, of "hotel divorces" and of people having to parade their innocence, guilt and sin before a judge. I am glad that England has achieved reform. But there is a curious paradox in that the Scottish attitude to divorce has traditionally been more liberal, with the reformed Kirk Sessions bringing in more humane divorce measures from the 1560s. Only now are we beginning to see a glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel.

The tragedy of the last six years is that Scottish law may have been brought into disrepute. Given the more flexible approach of some judges in the Court of Session, it is probable that thousands of Scots men and women have tended to misuse the law to achieve a divorce.

Some have committed adultery not because they wished to do so but simply to provide evidence for the other party. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind) said at a Women in Media conference in Edinburgh, cases have gone to the High Court in which no matrimonial offence has occurred but one party was so desperate that he or she committed perjury, running the risk of serious punishment in the courts. Clearly, it is unsatisfactory that the law should drive people to taking such extreme courses of action to obtain their legitimate domestic rights.

Any hon. Member could quote from his mailbag of the past two or three months letters illustrating the great human suffering caused by the state of Scottish matrimonial law. I wish to refer to three people who have been to see me in my constituency during that time. Their cases are typical, although I shall give only thumbnail sketches of them. The first concerns a professional woman of 42 years of age who, 14 years ago, left her husband after 18 months, not of marriage, but of violence and abuse. She cannot remarry because her husband refuses her a divorce and has recently said that revenge is a dish which is better eaten cold. That is a situation which requires change.

The second example is the case of a youngish woman who deserted her husband some eight year ago after repeated violence in the home as a result of his excessive consumption of alcohol. Her nose was broken, her jaw was smashed and she was kicked when pregnant. But being a quiet Scots soul, she told neither relatives nor neighbours. Therefore, no corroboration was available in court. She endured her humiliation privately and so had no witnesses. That too must change.

The third example concerns a perfectly respectable man of 52 who after 26 years of marriage walked out. There was no violence in the home. The marriage had, he says, run its natural course. He claims that is was impossible for him and his wife to live together. It is a clear case of a marriage having broken down. The man concerned has now moved to England, where he hopes to establish domicile. He intends to obtain a divorce in England and to remarry shortly.

Those are thumbnail sketches of cases which have come to my notice in my constituency, but they establish the reasons for a reforming measure being supported by the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Society of Scotland.

Although I back the Bill, I have some reservations. I do not know whether its proposals are sufficiently radical and comprehensive. I am in agreement with many of the points which have been advanced in the past week by the Scottish Legal Action Group. Although they may sound like Committee points, I shall canvass them briefly so that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and the Lord Advocate may consider them before the Bill is considered in Committee. I feel that to mention them now will encourage wider public debate in Scotland.

First, where the evidence of irretrievable breakdown is absence of cohabitation for two years and where the defender consents, it should be possible for evidence to be given by deposition without obliging the pursuer and witnesses to appear in court, provided that there are no children under 16 and there is no dispute as to financial provision. Secondly, where a divorce is sought on the same facts as those on which a decree of separation has already been granted, it should be possible to enable evidence likewise to be given by deposition, provided that the same conditions are fulfilled. Thirdly—and this is the most important point—there should be concurrent jurisdiction in divorce actions, whether or not defended, between the sheriff courts and the Court of Session, subject always to a power in sheriff courts to remit cases of special difficulty to the Inner House of the Court of Session for decision, and to a power in either party to request the sheriff on cause shown to remit the case to the Outer House of the Court of Session for decision. Lastly, as a public declaration of the importance attached by Parliament to saving marriages and of support to solicitors who attempt to do so, solicitors acting for pursuers in actions of divorce should be required to certify that they have dis- cussed the possibility of reconciliation with their client and given particulars of organisations qualified to assist in reconciliation.

The Minister has indicated that, as seen from the Treasury Bench, there are difficulties in introducing such measures. Their establishment might mark the end of the two-tier system in Scottish law. What is so special about that system? If advocates are maintained only by collecting fees in divorce actions in the High Court, that is no justification for the system either in practice or in morality. It is most unsatisfactory that an individual facing a divorce action in Glasgow should first have to go to a Glasgow solicitor, who then has to brief an Edinburgh solicitor, who then briefs counsel in Edinburgh. The whole matter could be much more cheaply and expeditiously dealt with in Ingram Street in the first place.

Is it wrong—I note that the Lord Advocate is twitching somewhat—to suggest that such major reforms should be introduced in a matrimonial measure, reforms which by implication might change the whole legal system in Scotland? I have some sympathy with that argument, but if it has taken six years in Scotland to bring about the reform of the divorce law, how much longer will it take to shift divorces from the Court of Session to the sheriff courts? If we do not do it now, when will it happen? If such a shift took place, there would be a considerable saving of legal aid resources and they would be shifted to more needy cases.

I welcome my hon. Friend's measure and I congratulate him on introducing it. At the same time, I think it could be strengthened. I believe that measures can be taken to minimise the strain, hardship and expense which divorce parties currently experience in Scotland. Simultaneously, much of the expense that is met from public funds could be saved.

I shall be brief as perhaps I am one of the last Back Benchers to speak in this debate. As an advocate I must take issue with the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) when he suggested fusion of the legal profession. I think that the argument the hon. Gentleman put forward will be met by strong opposition from both sides of the legal profession. Furthermore, any attempt to have divorce actions heard by the sheriff courts while a major upheaval is taking place in the legal system would give rise to great concern among many Scots, who feel very strongly that marriage is a sacred institution, certainly at this monent in time.

The hon. Gentleman was correct when he said that since January 1970 seven divorce law reform Bills for Scotland had been introduced and that only one had had a Second Reading. It seems that the history of the Bill serves to highlight the need for a Scottish Assembly. Although Scotland may have less than 10 per cent. of Britain's population, we need more parliamentary time allocated to us. This Bill is a good case in point. There is not sufficient parliamentary time when Scottish Bills become of importance and relevance to a large number of Scotsmen.

The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) should be congratulated on introducing the Bill. He tested Scottish opinion through the agency of the Express. He discovered quite conclusively that more Scotsmen wanted this Bill more than any other at this moment. I think it should go on record that divorce law reform is supported by three great Scottish institutions. First, the Scottish Law Commission, at the request of the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland, has worked hard on this subject and has drafted the Bill. Second, the Law Society of Scotland, in a recently issued document, has confirmed that its council has long felt that marriages which are already dead in all but name should be dissolved and with the minimum of bitterness between the parties.

The Law Society points out that at present a spouse must depend upon the matrimonial offence of the other. That creates a situation in which one spouse is presented to the court as blameless and the other as guilty. Of course, we all know that in many cases guilt is apportioned to both sides. It seems that the real question is whether the parties live amicably together in the fullness of married life, which makes marriage so worth while. If they cannot do so, the marriage gradually become an empty shell.

I have been involved as a lawyer in many defended divorce cases. It was brought home to me most clearly that many people, however much lawyers might be hardened to it, feel that the parties who have to go through every single discreditable episode in their married life find it both a sad experience for all concerned and that it leads to the inflicting of many scars. Is it not preferable to move away from the concept of fault towards that of irretrievable breakdown?

The hon. Member for Argyll quite rightly said that we were not in any way trying to copy English law. I wish to make it clear that where Englishmen can obtain divorce by writing to the courts or signing affidavits, that would be unacceptable in Scotland.

The third institution which strongly supports the reform of Scottish divorce law is the Church of Scotland. In 1968 a working party was established, and its report was presented by the General Assembly on behalf of the Social and Moral Welfare Board. It recommended that apart from incurable insanity, which should be retained as a separate ground for divorce, the breakdown of the marriage should be the sole ground for divorce. It also recommended that separation for at least two years should be the sole evidence of such a breakdown.

The working party went further than the hon. Member for Argyll. The report was sent to 58 presbyteries throughout Scotland. I must mention to any English Members who are present that it was the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland which inherited the procedures of the old Scottish Parliament, and it operates extremely democratically. In this case 36 out of the 58 presbyteries accepted the working group's main proposition. Its proposals were endorsed and slightly modified by the General Assembly in 1969, and submitted to the Secretary of State. He was asked to deal with divorce law reform as quickly as possible and as an urgent priority.

So three great institutions in Scotland—namely, the Scottish Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland and the Church of Scotland—have all recommended divorce law reform. There are some who take the stern Christian attitude that divorce in all circumstances should never be tolerated. I can only repeat what F. E. Smith said when he made the most powerful speech of his life on this subject. He ended by saying:

"I do not believe that the Supreme Being has set a standard which 2,000 years of Christian experience has shown human nature in its exuberant prime cannot support."

By leave of the House, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I also welcome the remarks by the Minister setting out the Government's position, and I trust that in Committee he will take into account the views put forward by all parties.

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

I take the view that our licensing laws are among the most complicated, archaic, uncivilised and restrictive parts of our legal system. I realise that there are those who have come to accept our restrictive licensing laws, and these laws are becoming almost an adopted and accepted part of our way of life. There are also those who firmly believe that the laws do social good and are an advantage possessed by this country which other countries do not have.

I believe that both assumptions can be challenged. I certainly have serious doubts whether the licensing laws achieve any useful social purpose. We tend to have them because we have always had them. They are taken for granted and nobody has seriously questioned their supposed social purpose.

It is interesting to discover when we first introduced into our law the idea of restrictive licensing legislation, and particularly restrictions on opening hours. I discovered that their origin dates back to the First World War in extraordinary circumstances. Our licensing laws are the consequence of a little-recalled episode connected with the battle of Neuve Chappelle in the First World War. I quote a passage from A. J. P. Taylor's "The First World War" in which, after describing the tragic fiasco of that battle, he said:

"The battle has another importance for English people. Sir John French, to conceal his failure, complained that he was short of shells. The Government in their turn blamed the munition workers, who were alleged to draw high wages and to pass their days drinking in public houses. Legislation was hastily introduced to restrict the hours when public houses were open and, in particular, to impose an afternoon gap when drinkers must be turned out. Those restrictions, still with us, rank with Summer Time, as the only lasting effects of the First World War on British life. Anyone who feels thirsty in England during the afternoon is still paying a price for the battle of Neuve Chappelle."

We have gone on a little since then, and the last major piece of reform of the licensing laws was the Licensing Act of 1964. Since then the authoritative Erroll Committee on Liquor Licensing reported in 1972 and made valuable recommendations on liberalising reforms. It is unfortunate that they have never been properly debated and that no Government, of either political persuasion, have announced their position on those recommendations. I should like to see a large proportion of the Erroll recommendations brought into effect.

Before I alarm further those who are opposed to my legislation, let me set out my general views about liquor licensing and the desirability of the Erroll reforms. I appreciate that the major Errol recommendations cannot be implemented in Private Members' legislation and would be better covered by a Government Bill designed as a major reform of the Licensing Act 1964. However, my Bill merely constitutes a modest step in what I believe to be the right direction.

This small Bill aims to implement two small steps. First, it seeks to introduce the possibility of extended and flexible hours of opening for licensed premises in limited circumstances and to introduce the possibility of family provision in licensed premises.

Even these small proposals have aroused some opposition outside the House. I realise the sincerity of those opponents who have major worries about alcoholism, alcohol abuse and social problems allied to the misuse of alcohol, and in introducing this measure I in no way seek to minimise some of the sad effects of alcohol on our society.

I see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), who performs valuable public work in advising on this subject and who will try to take part in the debate to remind the House about the problems in our society caused by alcohol. I would ask him and others who express doubts about the measure to bear in mind that my argument is not based on any attempt to try to minimise the problems caused by alcohol. It involves some questioning of the degree to which the inflexible rigidity of our present licensing hours may or may not reduce the problems of alcohol abuse.

I am not persuaded that the absolute embargo on the opening of licensed premises during afternoons is a valuable contribution to restraint in the use of alcohol. We have reached the stage where bottles of liquor are on sale in supermarkets throughout the day. Part of the problem of alcoholism increasingly comes from the bored and frustrated housewife at home drinking in the privacy of her own place. There are no restrictions there in regard to licensing hours.

The unfortunate person with a drink problem is not helped in any way by the inconvenience of our present licensing hours. The great inconvenience is to the social drinker, because the vast majority of those who go into public houses go there for reasons other than the mere consumption of alcohol—namely, for company or for entertainment. To the tourist and traveller, constantly baffled by our restrictions in licensing hours, the modest provisions of my Bill would allow more flexible and extended hours of opening and would certainly not open the way to any great abuse in alcohol.

The Bill proposes that opening hours should be more flexible to meet the wishes of licensees and to serve the needs of their customers as the licensees seek to determine them. The Bill provides that it should be possible for a licensee, if he so wishes, to apply for additional hours of opening outside the present permitted hours but between 10 o'clock in the morning and midnight as the absolute limit. It is envisaged that a licensee in certain circumstances might wish within those times to provide slightly more flexible hours of opening to meet the requirements of his customers.

Let me give an example to show what I have in mind. I am not saying that the majority of public houses will wish to open from 10 a.m. till midnight, but various public houses will have the choice of opening hours according to the working habits and requirements of their customers. For example, in a city centre where there are shops and offices and there is little local population, I envisage public houses opening from about 10 o'clock in the morning to 7 o'clock in the evening and then probably closing. In seaside towns during the holiday season there will be some requests for afternoon openings, and in rural areas no doubt requests will be made for afternoon opening on Saturdays to accommodate people visiting the countryside. I repeat that I am proposing more flexibility so that licensed premises can open at times to suit the needs of consumers and the convenience of licensees.

Some objection to any liberalisation of the law comes from those who live near licensed premises and who complain of nuisance. I have that problem very much in mind. Therefore, in Clause 3(1) of the Bill the justices are given unfettered discretion to refuse any applications which do not appear to be justified. The justices are specifically directed to consider

"the comfort and convenience of the occupiers"

of neighbouring premises, because late opening can prove inconvenient in some areas.

The second step concerns family provision inside licensed houses. At present, children aged 14 and over can be taken into any licensed premises. They can at any age be taken into a room where there is no bar, and they are frequently taken into the gardens of public houses in the summer to be served drinks. Unfortunately, they are quite often left in cars in the car parks at premises that are not really suitable.

At present the law is rigid and inflexible and does not allow the licensing justices to approve any accommodation in which there is a bar being open to children. Some of those most doubtful about licensing reform have sympathy in my view that it is positively good socially that children should first be introduced to alcohol in a family setting, in restrained surroundings, and not brought up to believe that drinking, like smoking, is something secret which adults do and to which they themselves can aspire as soon as they reach a certain age.

The Bill does not go very far. It simply allows the appropriate authority to approve a children's accommodation order in parts of premises specifically adapted to the needs of families. The justices would again have unfettered discretion. It is contemplated that children will be allowed in those adapted parts of premises with adults only until 8 o'clock in the evening. It is because we want to ensure that we are not making a mistake in the case of children that the Bill has some additional safeguards. The present law is not too rigid on sales to children on licensed premises. As the law stands, at the age of 14 years and over children can buy non-alcoholic drinks. To ensure that children's accommodation orders are not abused, my Bill would tighten up the present law in relation to sales to children in those parts of licensed houses to which children's accommodation orders applied, so that no sale of any goods to children in those parts of the premises would be permitted.

I put forward the Bill as containing two modest changes in the licensing law which would be to the general benefit of the ordinary consuming public.

I want to add one final reassurance to the retail trade and to those who work in the licensing trade. It is quite clear in the Bill that applications for these two types of orders will be entirely at the choice of the licensee. He will be entirely free to decide whether he wants his house to take advantage of these provisions. Clearly, there would be no obligation upon any licensee to have to apply for such an order and no obligation on him even to continue to comply with one if he obtained one and found that it was inconvenient in practice.

Many licensees are tenants or managers of their licensed houses and some of them fear that they might be obliged by the brewers to apply for these additional orders, even if they do not wish to have them themselves. When the Erroll Committee considered the matter it considered this point, and at that time the Brewers Society gave a written undertaking to the Committee that it would not interpret its present tenancy agreements or its present contracts of employment with its managers in order to oblige any licensee, be he manager or tenant, to apply for additional hours.

I have approached the Brewers Society to find out whether there has been any change of policy and whether such an undertaking might be repeated. My understanding is that there has been no change of policy and that that society will favourably consider any approach made to it for a renewal of the undertaking, although at this stage it has not formally considered the matter. If the Bill is given a Second Reading today and goes into Committee, it is my intention and that of my fellow sponsors specifically to approach the Brewers Society and request a written undertaking of exactly that kind again. If the Society feels unable to repeat that written undertaking and thereby does not give an undertaking to tenants and managers, I should not feel justified in proceeding with this measure. However, it is my understanding that the policy of the Brewers Society has not changed and that it will give such an undertaking. Therefore, I believe that some of the fears of those in the retail trade need not be regarded as insuperable. They can be dealt with and are, fortunately, unnecessary.

In Committee I propose to be as flexible as possible. We shall listen to any detailed reservations that people have with a view to amending the measure. I hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.

As I speak, the licensing hours will terminate in three-quarters of an hour. However, the licensing hours applicable to this House will not end, and for as long as this debate continues the bars in this House will remain open because of the strange anomaly that the Palace of Westminster is not subject to licensing laws. I do not object to that, but I trust that hon. Members who still believe that some protection is necessary to the public by way of licensing hours might bear in mind that it is a protection which the House has long felt unnecessary to give to hon. Members and the staff because we drink at all hours of the night in the Palace of Westminster. I hope that slightly more civilised arrangements might obtain to the public by giving the Bill a Second Reading.

It may be helpful to the House if I intervene at this stage to define the Government's attitude to the Bill. First, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in his luck in the Ballot and his decision to introduce a Bill raising important but extremely controversial issues. I listened with great interest to the case that the hon. Gentleman made out in favour of his Bill and I am sure that whatever the views of individual hon. Members on its merits, the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity that he has given us to debate this difficult subject.

As he pointed out, the House has not debated this subject in the recent past. The Bill's main proposals stem from the report of the Departmental Committee on Liquor Licensing, under the chairmanship of Lord Erroll of Hale, which was presented to Parliament in December 1972. That was a long and complex Report proposing far-reaching changes in the present law. Its recommendations aroused a good deal of controversy. During the course of 1973, the Report was debated in both Houses of Parliament, but the debate in this House was too brief to give any satisfactory indication of how the House felt on these issues. Since that time a variety of conflicting views have been expressed on the desirability, or the dangers, of the changes recommended by the Erroll Committee.

The Government have thought it wrong to reach hasty conclusions on matters of such difficulty and moment which are still the subject of lively controversy. We shall, therefore, listen most attentively to whatever views are expressed by hon. Members in their consideration of this Bill. The Government do not, therefore, intend actively to oppose or support the hon. Gentleman's Bill, although I should make it clear that if we considered that any general reform of the licensing law was indicated, it would best be effected by Government legislation when our consideration of the Erroll Report is complete.

Accordingly, I shall confine myself to putting before hon. Members what appear to the Government to be some of the considerations which the House should take into account in dealing with the proposals in the Bill. It will then be for hon. Members to make up their minds on their own assessment of the merits of these proposals.

The Bill does not seek to give effect by any means to all the Erroll Committee's recommendations. As has been explained, it seeks, first, to enable additions to be made to the permitted hours in licensed premises on application by the licensee. That is provided for in Clause 1. Clause 2 would permit the presence of children under the age of 14 in approved bars. Children over the age of 14 are already permitted to be present in licensed premises, although they are not permitted to buy or consume liquor there. Under Clause 2(3), the prohibition on the sale of intoxicating liquor to persons under 18 is extended to the sale of any goods.

On permitted hours, the House should note the difference between the approach in Clause 1 and the recommendations of the Erroll Report. Under the present law, once a justices' licence has been granted, the permitted hours laid down in Section 60 of the Licensing Act 1964 apply. There is provision under Section 61 for local variation of these hours within the overall total, but basically the hours are from 11 a.m. to 2.30 p.m.—3 p.m. in certain parts of London—and 5.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.—11 p.m. in certain parts of London. The Erroll Committee recommended that these permitted hours be replaced by the hours from 10 a.m. to midnight, subject to any restrictions which the justices felt desirable either to secure a break in the afternoon on public hygiene grounds or to curtail the closing hour by up to two hours on grounds of public order, including noise nuisance.

The approach favoured by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is less far-reaching, in that the hours of 10 a.m. to midnight will only apply to the extent that the licensee makes application, under a separate procedure, and the licensing justices, in their absolute discretion, allow the application. This is a more cautious approach than that of Erroll.

Since all extensions are to be at the absolute discretion of the licensing justices, it is impossible to predict the exact effect of Clause 1. It could conceivably have no effect at all, if licensing benches throughout the country were to refuse to accept the case for any extensions to present permitted hours. More likely, perhaps, there would be wide variations throughout the country in the extent to which licensing benches accepted applications for extensions. So although Clause 1 is a more cautious approach than that of Erroll, it also appears to be more arbitrary in respect of variations in hours between one place and another.

I should mention here the fact that the Bill will create extra work for the courts in dealing not only with applications for the grant or renewal of the licences, but for the additional hours and accommodation orders under Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. It is possible that this effect can be mitigated by arranging under procedural regulations for applications for these orders to be heard at the same time as the application for grant or renewal of the basic licence.

The House should also consider whether the Bill does in fact adequately protect the interests of the licensee. If the licensee is a tenant, he will in most cases hardly be able to refrain from applying for additional hours orders if his trade competitors have successfully obtained them. If the licensee is a manager, he may—as was recognised by the hon. Gentleman—be subject to strong pressure from the brewery which employs him to apply for the new orders. The Bill could also have implications for the working hours of employees in licensed houses, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention. If the hon. Gentleman sums up the debate perhaps he will indicate what consultations, if any, he has had with representatives both of managers and employees, and what reactions he has had from them.

To sum up on this clause, the more cautious approach adopted in the Bill represents a less abrupt, and more carefully controlled, departure from the existing system than the Erroll Committee's recommendations envisaged, but, equally, it can be seen as an unsatisfactory compromise. A system of extensions, as opposed to an all-embracing system of permitted hours, could prove to be more cumbersome, to cause more work for the courts, and to be more confusing for the public.

Since when have the law courts ever objected to a bit more work, a bit more for those at the Bar, for solicitors and for others? They have not really objected to this at all, have they? It is not an objection to the introduction of this amending legislation that it might involve them in applications at the Brewster sessions. Has any objection been taken to it by the magistrates' courts?

I have occasionally heard objections by the public, who are queueing up for time at the courts, that the courts are overloaded. However, I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. If the Bill goes to a Standing Committee, perhaps this is something that can be discussed there.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me if I point out that many of these are Committee matters. I understand that the Government do not oppose the Bill or ask hon. Members to oppose it on Second Reading today. I wonder whether it is necessary for her to make all these detailed comments now rather than in Committee.

I should like to make my own speech in my own way. These are points of which other hon. Members may not be aware, even though my hon. Friend is clearly aware of them.

There does not seem, moreover, to be any provision for appeal in the Bill either for those whose applications are refused or for those who feel aggrieved by the grant of an order. These are all matters which the House will, I am sure, wish to consider very seriously in Committee.

I turn now to what is almost certainly the crucial point for the House to consider this afternoon. This is whether, in the present climate of increasing alcoholism particularly among younger people, drunkenness offences, and offences of drink and driving, it is appropriate to relax the licensing laws in any respect. Last week as the House knows, the Advisory Committee on Alcoholism, set up by the Secretary of State for Social Services last year, made known its views. The Committee recognised that a case might be made for permitting later hours on the grounds that social customs have changed since the law was first introduced. It nevertheless concluded in its summary that an extension of hours would be likely to increase consumption and should, therefore, be opposed. On admitting children to specified licensed premises, the Committee said in its summary that the effects are not known and that unless a strong educational case can be presented, experimentation would be unwise.

In general, the Committee was opposed to any relaxation of the licensing law which was likely to lead to increased consumption. Such an increase was bound, in its view, to exacerbate the problems and increase the cost of dealing with accidents, ill-health and social problems resulting from excessive alcohol consumption.

I come now to the criminal statistics available to us. These do not reveal the number of offences which may be linked with alcohol misuse. I believe, however, that an important connection exists, and my Department hopes to be able to make further studies of this. Meanwhile, we have the annual statistics of offences of drunkenness, which have been showing an upward trend for some years. In 1973, the figures showed an increase of almost 10 per cent. over the 1972 figures. This rate of increase slowed down in 1974 to under 4 per cent., but the rise, for the first time since 1916, in the number of findings of guilt to over 100,000 is nevertheless disturbing. Convictions in England and Wales for drink and driving offences, rose from 27,242 in 1970 to 58,004 in 1974.

Nor must we lose sight of the possibility that a later opening hour will increase the dangers of drunken driving. Offences in this area have shown alarming increases in recent years, and it is right to question whether a midnight closing hour would be appropriate for those licensed premises to which, in the absence of public transport, the only access is likely to be by car.

Very important points flow from what the hon. Lady is saying. She is implying that it is drinking in public houses and clubs which has led to the increase in alcoholism, whereas the fact is—and I suggest that there is evidence of it—that the increase in drinking is due to the great ease with which alcohol can be bought in supermarkets and elsewhere and consumed much more extensively in the home.

Secondly, is not the evidence from the Metropolitan Police, if not elsewhere, quite clear—that the large increase in convictions results from the very much tighter law? Does she not recognise that in many instances persons convicted of driving under the influence of drink are in no sense drunk or even under excessive influence of alcohol? They may have a mere 80 to 85 millilitres in their blood content. Those facts change the picture, do they not?

I do not believe that there is any clear evidence whether the increase in alcoholism, particularly among young people, has resulted from the ability to obtain alcohol in one place or another. I do not think that has been established. We just know that alcoholism is increasing. Whether the source of the alcohol is predominantly from supermarkets or public houses has not been established.

With regard to the cause and effect, I shall be coming to that in a minute in connection with the Erroll Committee's recommendations.

It would be unfair to give the impression that the Erroll Committee was unaware of the problems to which I have just referred. Indeed, it was fully aware of the dangers and, after examining the available evidence, concluded that

"the various measures tend to point in the same direction. The picture we get…is of rising overall consumption, accompanied by increases in alcoholism death rates and in offences of drunkenness, all of which, however, are still below the peak levels reached towards the end of the last and beginning of this century."

On the relevance of the licensing law to levels of drunkenness and alcoholism, the Erroll Committee said:

"this pattern is very far from establishing that the licensing law has exercised, or is likely to exercise, a decisive influence on these trends—as opposed, for example, to the other constituents, such as price, general economic conditions and cultural attitudes—of the evironmental factors discussed. On this vital point, the views submitted to us were inconclusive."

I think, therefore, the problem is clear in the sense that this is not a simple subject on which it is easy to reach simple conclusions. That is why the Government would like hon. Members to make up their own minds about the correct balance to be struck between a limited relaxation of the licensing laws on the one hand and the risks of increasing alcoholism, drunkenness and drunken driving on the other.

In opposing the Bill I should declare an interest. I have been Chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism for the past four years and I am currently chairman of a working party on the impact of alcohol on industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) described his Bill as a modest measure. He argued the case for it with persuasive charm and moderation; perhaps I should have said "deceptive charm", because the case against the Bill, as I hope to show, is unanswerable.

May I say that although I understand the present situation of the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State, I regret that she took so cautious and negative a line on the Bill. I say that because there can be no doubt whatsoever of the growing menace of excessive drinking in our society.

For the vast majority of people, drinking is a pleasant social pastime and it is very difficult for them to grasp the fact that for a minority—the point is that it is a growing minority—it is a destroyer of health and happiness, it is a major factor in the breakdown of family life and it is a potent cause, as the statistics show, of death and injury to others.

Already the amount of alcohol consumed per capita in this country is at its highest level since the commencement of the First World War, when convictions for drunkenness averaged 180,000 a year. By 1974 we reached the alarming level of 170,000 offences arising from excessive drinking. If, therefore, there is to be a relaxation of licensing laws, even of the minimal character suggested in this modest little Bill, I suggest that we must reflect very carefully on what we do.

The Erroll Committee stated:

"the law controlling the sale of intoxicating liquor has to strike a balance between the perfectly valid demands of a great number of the population and the needs of those vulnerable in themselves to liquor or potential victims of its side effects."

The Committee went on to say:

"the causes of alcohol addiction include a number of environmental factors of which the availability of intoxicating liquor must be counted as one".

There is now sufficient evidence to show that the total alcohol consumption in any population has a direct bearing on the extent of abnormal drinking. An overall increase in consumption, which is the object of the Bill as I shall show presently, would inevitably produce an increase in the number of people with an alcohol-related problem, whether it be a social or a health problem. It is important for hon. Members to recognise that this does not relate simply to the number of dependent, addicted or chronic alcoholics—I should like to have said this to my hon and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) had he been here—but also to an ever-increasing number of people with difficulties in personal relationships, job performance, domestic harmony, driving under the influence of drink, absenteeism and the loss of jobs.

In a recent survey carried out by Shaw, Cartwright and Spratley of the Maudsley alcohol pilot project which reported in October 1975, it was discovered that 3·5 per cent. of the sample had experienced a problem due to alcohol intake during the previous 12 months. This figure projected nationally would suggest that probably over 1 million people would have experienced an alcohol-related problem in that period. I stress that those would be people who would not normally be described as alcoholics and who would not welcome that label being put on them. It would be wrong for us, as a responsible legislature, to consider this simple little Bill, this seemingly innocuous measure, except against the background that, ironically, the Erroll Report suggests should be taken into account.

I shall lift up the stone and peer beneath and describe the realities of the situation in which our society unhappily finds itself today in relation to this problem. Let us take the question of domestic violence. The British Medical Journal reported a preliminary survey last year in which 100 battered wives were interviewed. It was alleged in 44 cases that wife assault occurred regularly when the husband was drunk. The questionnaire revealed the frequency with which large numbers of husbands in the marital home became drunk or indulged in episodes of heavy drinking. That was borne out by the report of the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage. Under the heading "Alcohol" it said:

"No one can be sure whether excessive drinking is the cause of violence or a result of the frustration which produced it. However, we have had considerable evidence indicating that excessive drinking is frequently a factor in domestic violence. This is not surprising in view of the known pharmacological actions of the drug alcohol. We recommend"—

hon. Members must remember that this was a Select Committee of this House—

"that the Government should now introduce a vigorous publicity campaign against excessive consumption of alcohol particularly by the young and should formulate a positive policy on the advertisement of alcohol. The consumption of alcohol is increasing and the number of alcoholics is growing. If nothing is done we fear that the incidence of family violence may increase. We hope to pursue this subject further next Session."

Let us take the question of child cruelty. In 1970 the Council of Europe stated that

"sixty per cent. of child cruelty comes from a background of problem drinking."

We have seen this borne out in the reports of two Government inquiries into non-accidental injury to children—the appalling cases of John Auckland and Maria Colwell. Those who think that we should lightly embark on this modest little opening of the door to more liberalised drinking hours should look at these official reports before going any further.

Let us take the question of drinking and driving. The Department of the Environment expressed concern to the Erroll Committee that an increase in drinking hours could lead to an increase in consumption on the part of drivers and pointed to the possibility that more flexible drinking hours might coincide with afternoon traffic peaks and drinkers driving from one public house to another. Therein lies the relevance of what the hon. Lady said about the variation in hours as between one area and another that the Bill would permit.

We still await the Blennerhassett Committee's report on the operation of the breath-test laws, but we know that the number of breath-test offences already shows an alarming increase. The figure for England and Wales increased from 11,000 in 1968 to over 67,000 in 1974. Although that increase is bad enough, the significant factor is the increasing proportion in those figures of young people. Of the latest figure, the 67,000 offences committed in 1974, 53 per cent. were committed by persons under 30 years of age.

We are not without relevant information on the correlation of drinking and driving offences. Clair and Clooney have shown that in Ireland alcohol-dependent drivers have four times as many prosecutions.

Who are Clair and Clooney?

I am using the normal method of describing the authors of serious academic studies of social problems. I shall continue to do so. I am saying that this was a survey conducted in the Republic of Ireland.

What standing have these people? It would help the House if the hon. Member would explain who Clair and Clooney are and what is their standing. It is no good the hon. Gentleman quoting statistics unless we have some indication of the source.

I am quite prepared to give detailed information of that kind to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garett) and other hon. Members until 4 o'clock. I should have thought it was unlikely that an hon. Member with my years of experience in the House would quote anyone who had no standing whatever. I am quoting a survey which is well known to those engaged in the study of alcoholism and to the Government's own Advisory Committee, whose report I shall refer to and which was referred to by the hon. Lady.

Therefore, we come back to Clair and Clooney. They have shown that in the Republic of Ireland alcohol-dependent drivers have four times as many prosecutions and twice as many accidents as other drivers and that such accidents occurred early in their drinking history—that is to say, some six years before presenting themselves for treatment as alcoholics. Alcoholism is a disease which manifests itself over a period.

Schmidt, Smart and Popham concluded that in Canada traffic accidents involving the drinking driver were at least in part a problem of alcoholism rather than largely or entirely a problem of the effects of alcohol on the casual driver. This latter statement, they suggest, is a probable reason for the serious problem of drinking and driving in Scandinavian countries, Canada and various American States, despite education campaigns and rigorous application of the drink and driving laws.

I am giving the House this information because it must not be said that we are ignorant of the effect of excessive drinking and of too-liberal laws upon social behaviour of that kind.

The hon. Lady talked about the burden on the courts which the Bill would impose. Let me tell the House what the burden on the courts is already as the result of the trend in alcohol-related offences. We now have coming before our courts the highest number of drink-related offences since the First World War. I want hon. Members to absorb these statistics before they think of giving a Second Reading to the Bill.

Consider what has happened in the past decade. The figures jumped from 76,842 in 1964 to 103,203 in 1974; and what is still more striking is that the proportion of persons under 21 within those figures rose from 12 per cent. of the total in 1964 to 19·5 per cent. of the far larger total in 1974.

I put the matter quite bluntly. The House must take proper note of those statistics. One simply cannot dismiss lightly the fears of the Department of the Environment regarding increased drinking breaks which the flexibility that the Bill would introduce would encourage. Any likelihood of increased alcohol consumption related to traffic accidents at peak hours must be avoided.

I turn now to the impact on health of any encouragement to drink more, which is what relaxation of licensing laws—even the minimal relaxation suggested in this modest Bill—must make inevitable. The World Health Organisation maintains that the best indication of a change in alcoholism rates is a change in the death rate from cirrhosis of the liver. I see that the Under-Secretary agrees, and I am glad that she does. Let the House reflect, then, on the appalling statistics for Britain alone. Let us leave Canada and the Republic of Ireland and see what is happening here.

Deaths from alcoholism-cirrhosis increased between 1963 and 1973 by 95·2 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has asked me to read to the House a letter from Professor Duncan Vere of the department of pharmacology and therapeutics at the London Teaching Hospital. Referring to what he describes as a

"well meant but ill-informed proposed piece of legislation",

Professor Vere said:

"In East London we have seen a steadily increasing incidence of alcoholic disease and a steadily diminishing DHS provision for alcoholics, thanks to the financial crisis. Are we to add to these factors the cynical threat of increased availability? So far as I can see, the incidence of alcoholism is closely linked with availability, and the casual link is probably from the latter to the former rather than the reverse."

I realise that my hon. Friend is trying to help the debate and is not, as he implied a moment ago, simply trying to use up the time between now and 4 o'clock, so may I put to him this question? Will he not acknowledge that the figures which he is using are a little questionable? I say that, first, because the number of convictions for offences relating to alcohol may reflect the reduced tolerance of society towards public drunkenness compared with circumstances 20 or 30 years ago, when public drunkenness on a Friday or Saturday night would probably not lead to prosecution in the way it would now. Second, may not the figures relating to deaths from cirrhosis of the liver in part reflect improved public health, so that such diseases are not killing people and they therefore live longer and may die from social diseases such as cirrhosis of the liver?

Third, if my hon. Friend says that availability of liquor will increase the problem, what does he say about the fact that, under the present law, anyone can go to Sainsbury's and buy a bottle of intoxicating liquor at any hour of the day? In what way would improved flexibility in the opening of bars and licensed houses make the slighest difference to that situation?

Order. The hon. Gentleman will be in danger of talking out his own Bill.

I think that my hon. Friend, on reflection, will wish that he had not made that intervention. I draw his attention to what was said in the Lancet of 14th February, which came out firmly against his Bill. At one point the Lancet said:

"There is therefore a possibility that the health issues will be similarly glossed over".

That is precisely what my hon. Friend is doing. He is not an authority on the medical aspect. In fact, the medical profession as a whole is alarmed by the Bill. I have a great deal more to say on the subject, and if my hon. Friend continues to interrupt me I shall indeed take a good deal more time than I originally intended.

If we pass this Bill, how do we explain to our constituents—how does my hon. Friend explain to his constituents—that the National Health Service, which is unable to cope with its present load, must have more money to deal with the rising tide of ill health due to excessive drinking? The hon. Lady would not dispute that. The Department of Health and Social Security does not dispute it, and the medical profession does not dispute it. My hon. Friend will be in great difficulty in explaining that contradiction.

There can be no doubt about the connection between consumption rates and the social and economic damage inflicted by excessive drinking. Even the Erroll Committee stated that the evidence which it had received pointed to the fact that total alcohol consumption in a population had a direct bearing on alcohol-related problems in that population.

In 1974, the per capita consumption in this country was 33 gallons of beer, 1·93 gallons of wine and 0·78 gallons of spirits. In terms of absolute alcohol consumption per head of adult population, it is now about 14 pints, which is the highest level since the beginning of the First World War. I do not know what my hon. Friend makes of that in relation to what he said about statistics and the application of the law.

I am talking about the rising consumption of alcohol. Is it any wonder, against that background, that social and health problems have increased? Have we any right, then, to support measures which manifestly would aggravate those problems? Should we not heed the Government's own Advisory Committee on Alcoholism? This is the Government's own inquiry, referred to by the hon. Lady, and here is what it tells us:

"We cannot doubt that, if national consumption were to increase, howsoever that came about, then the number of people drinking at high personal levels of consumption would also increase. From this would follow an increase in the number of alcoholics".

Dare the House ignore advice of that kind?

It is argued by some that our drinking laws should be liberalised in order to accommodate the growing number of tourists. This is a puerile argument. Our first duty as a legislature is to our own people and to our own children. But, none the less, let us note what is happening elsewhere.

France has the highest levels of alcoholism in the world. The French Government are deeply concerned. The French Prime Minister's special committee on alcohol problems has been striving to get consumption levels cut. The French Government are envious of our controlling legislation. They have been endeavouring to persuade the French public not to give alcohol to their children.

This wretched little Bill would open the door a little—only a little, of course; the provisions of Clause 2 are very cautious—to familiarisation of the young with alcohol. Yet, as the Lancet said on 14th February, in a scathing attack on the Bill, the argument goes that if the law allowed children to be brought by their parents into selected parts of public houses

"they might thus observe how to drink sensibly. The danger is"—

this is the point which the Lancet makes—

"that parents who brought their children with them might include many whose drinking was unrestrained. As an educational measure, then, the proposal is risky".

That is an understatement if ever there was one.

Our country, which does not yet have the heavy drink problem which obtains in France, Italy or Western Germany, has long relied on legislation, fiscal measures and education to control excessive drinking. Since education is a long-term measure and has been neglected for over a generation, the two effective measures of control in this country are legislative and fiscal.

Again, I call in aid the Government's own Advisory Committee, which warned:

"If the recommendations of the Erroll Committee should be enacted, the resulting relaxation of controls would, for all practical purposes, be irreversible. An increase in alcohol consumption and serious alcohol-related problems might ensue and this committee can see no way in which controls could be reintroduced in the short term."

That is why the French are so envious of our legislation.

The countries in Europe which have lower rates of problem drinking than we have are those which possess the sort of legislation that we have. Once we let the legislative control weaken, the Government will be left with only one effective way of dealing with the rising tide of excessive drinking—namely, the use of the fiscal weapon. There are international experts who suggest that it would be necessary to treble the prices of alcoholic beverages if we were to expect any immediate effect on our alcohol problems. That would be manifestly unfair and politically impractical. It would certainly be unfair to the average social drinker of modest means.

I do not believe that the sponsors of the Bill can assure us that the Bill will not aggravate the present grave situation by enabling people to drink throughout the day until midnight. Can they give us an assurance that the total consumption of alcohol will not increase? Of course not. The Government's advisory committee states that it is

"inclined to mistrust any proposals that increase the hours during which alcoholic drinks can be bought as these would only be supported by the trade if some increase in consumption were expected."

That is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. I need not ask the question because we already know the answer. There is evidence that relaxation of the licensing laws affects consumption. In 1955 in Sweden it led to a one-third increase in spirit consumption. In 1971 the lowering of the permitted level of drinking in Ontario led to a large increase in consumption even among those below the new permitted age. My hon. Friend cannot ignore these trends, which have been observable in other countries.

The difficulties experienced by customers in being able to drink when they like is a poor argument. I have heard it frequently. The general public do not feel inconvenienced by the present laws according to the OPC Survey report commissioned by the Erroll Committee. After all, public houses in the vicinity of market places and elsewhere, where the existence of a special local need can be demonstrated, are already granted extensions. That survey reported that the public generally did not wish to see any changes. Only 14 per cent. desired any liberalisation.

As for those who might be expected to provide the increased facilities proposed by the Bill, their answer is loud and clear. I was intrigued that my hon. Friend had gone to the Brewers Society to discover its view on the subject. Let me read a telegram I have received from the National Association of Licensed House Managers. It says:

"Britain's 14,500 pub managers opposed the Bill and wish you success. The Bill would mean more overheads and increased prices, the closing of managed public houses and unemployment, the loss of tenanted houses because of unfair competition. Success of the Bill would be a retrograde step."

That is signed by Harry Schindler, the national secretary of the association. That is the answer of the people who will have to provide the increased facilities which must be made available for those who want to consume more alcohol at times more convenient to themselves.

The pattern of permitted hours under the Bill is, of course, variable. The results that we fear will occur in some places but not in others. All the problems that I have suggested will flow from stupid ill-considered arrangements of that kind.

The medical profession has spoken out. I have already quoted the Lancet article. I could quote it at greater length. The Government's Advisory Committee on Alcoholism has warned us. In its summary the Report says:

"The health aspects of alcohol consumption are of fundamental importance in the consideration of laws affecting the consumption of alcohol. The relationship between consumption and alcohol-related problems is known. It is, therefore, unwise to run the risk of increased consumption which would be created by a relaxation of the licensing laws."

That is a devastating answer to those who would tinker with the licensing laws of the country.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the Erroll Committee has also spoken and in a contrary spirit to that which he is now expressing? It considered this matter for two years.

The Erroll Committee is one of the worst authorities that anyone could quote. It considered certain sets of facts and came to conclusions which those facts did not sustain. If the Erroll Report was the sound document it is supposed to be, how is it that its recommendations have not yet been implemented by any Government? How is it that we have not had hordes of thirsty customers descending upon the House insisting on reform of the licensing laws and insisting that this should be given precedence over all other business? We have not heard anything from anyone.

That is because there is no evidence that the great majority of people who like a quiet drink in their pub want changes of this kind. There is no evidence that the family men and women of this country want permission to take their children into public houses. We have only to reflect on the problems of publicans and public house managers in dealing with young people who are below the permitted age to realise the stupidity of the Bill's proposals.

The Bill has no popular support, apart from a small minority pressure group and probably from some who seek to make money from the increased consumption of alcohol. A matter of such great consequence for the health and well-being of the nation requires the maintenance of a careful balance between the freedom of the individual to enjoy a pleasant beverage in agreeable surroundings and the control of excessive abuse. There must be the most careful scrutiny of such a proposal.

This issue should not be the subject of a Private Member's Bill. The Minister said as much. I wish that she had gone further and said in clear terms that the Government do not consider this to be a suitable subject for a Private Member's Bill. She said that the Government have not yet formulated their views on implementing the Erroll Committee's Report as a whole. I can understand that, for the reasons I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) a few minutes ago. I do not believe that any Government, in the light of the facts I have put forward, will implement the Erroll Report. Why tinker with this matter? Why waste the time of the House with this modest, ill-conceived little measure? This should not be the subject of a Private Member's Bill. There is too much at stake. The Bill should be rejected.

The House has been entertained many times by the fervour and skill with which the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) presents his cases. This occasion is no exception. At one time, he presented his case with a skill which would have done credit to the founder of the Salvation Army. But the fact is that we are trying to get some degree of moderation into the argument. It may well be that, had time permitted, some of the statistics quoted by the hon. Gentleman would have been refuted.

Similarly, the Under-Secretary of State with smooth silky voice, said originally that she was neutral, but, as she proceeded with her speech, it was clear that she was putting across hostile arguments against proposals for any change. I am trying to give some modest measure of support to a Bill which would be a step in the right direction for many people we represent.

We are not seeking to oppose the managers or the tenants. Nor can anyone accuse me of being a champion of the Brewers Society. But from time immemorial Governments have to be moved to a change in the licensing laws. They tend to remain neutral on the issue many years after significant changes in human behaviour have occurred about the consumption of alcohol.

It is no good arguing that extending hours would increase the consumption of alcohol. If the hours were reduced to two a day, if the determination were there, people could still get themselves tight. That would happen whether the hours were extended or not.

I like to think of working people enjoying themselves in town, country and at the seaside. It is not much of a problem for the middle and upper classes to get drinks out of permitted hours. It is not much of a problem for Members of Parliament to do so. At 4 o'clock, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East and I may have a pint together in the Strangers' Bar and discuss the debate.

Let us consider the changes in social behaviour. There is more leisure. People have longer holidays. They go out into the countryside with their cars. It is a myth to think that because a person drives a car to a pub, he will come out a raving lunatic and be a menace on the highway.

Is the hon. Gentleman being serious and suggesting that it is not a matter of concern when a car is parked outside a public house and the driver emerges a raving lunatic? A relatively small consumption of alcohol impairs safety.

I am a motorist but I can go into a pub for two hours, meet my friends and emerge below the limit. That happens to millions of people, including hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman and I live in the same constituency, Hexham, where one of the tourist attractions is Hadrian's Wall. Pubs are scattered along the 80 miles of the wall, and on Sunday men take their wives and children there. Outside those pubs one will often see children sitting, sometimes in cars but often in the open, looking very forlorn because their parents have gone into the pub, perhaps for a non-alcoholic drink. That is unfair; it means isolation for the children.

I support the provisions of the Bill which would allow part of the licenced premises to be set aside for children to enter. I support a variation in the permitted hours. This is a simple measure. It would mean no additional legal work. It would mean that the licensing magistrates would still have the obligation of considering the application of a tenant for the 12 months for which the licence would apply. The tenant or manager or owner would not be able to vary the hours over that 12 months. That would be a good thing. The local police would know the situation. They would know the hours that the pub was supposed to be open, and would make sure that they were observed.

Although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that she was normal, I think that, on reflection, she should try to persuade her colleagues in the Home Office to look again at the Bill and instead of putting forward objections to it, try to help its sponsors to overcome the technicalities involved. It is no good being negative about these things and saying "We have not studied the whole of the Enroll Report". That Report has been in the hands of the present Government for a long time. Indeed, it was in the hands of their predecessors.

There are bad points in the Erroll Report, but there are also good features. Now is the time for the Government to take some initiative. If they do not, the situation will drift and we shall not be able to get a series of facilities which, in themselves, are modest and, above all, would be welcomed by many working people.

I declare three interests—first, as a practitioner at the Bar with some experience of licensing cases; secondly, as a member of the Committee on Liquor Licensing of the Society of Conservative Lawyers and a contributor to the pamphlet "Liberty and Licensing", price 15p, which was put to the Erroll Committee in the form of a memorandum; and, thirdly, as Member for a famous brewing constituency, although my views are not affected by any discussions I have had with the brewers there on the Bill, since I have not had any.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on his initiative in introducing the Bill and arguing so persuasively. But I should be happier if these proposals were part of a new comprehensive licensing Bill and not just a patch to be sewn on the somewhat worn fabric of the licensing laws. If the Bill were to precipitate the Government into a more widespread implementation of at any rate the best of the Erroll Report, I should be well pleased.

It is plain that in present circumstances there is too great a rigidity in the licensing law. It was, after all, designed for a pattern of social behaviour far less diverse and more regular than we enjoy today. It is important that as much as possible of our drinking as is consistent with a reasonable amount of personal freedom should be carried on in well-ordered licensed premises. The tendency which an ill-adjusted licensing law might have in driving more and more people away from consumption in public houses under tight legal control to consumption in public parks, streets and even in badly-ordered homes should be resisted. This argues strongly for more flexibility in the licensing law.

On the other hand, we understand more than we did a decade ago the serious dangers of alcoholism and of the tendency in particular for alcoholism to aggravate the restlessness not to say lawlessness in our society. A large section of our electorate—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) here—would not want to do anything which would encourage more people to take to drink. This argues against too great a liberalisation in the licensing law.

The Bill introduces an element of flexibility within the scope of the range of permitted hours recommended by Erroll. It also sensibly provides in Clause 3 that, if any extension should result in an increase of public disorder, the additional hours may be revoked at any time by the magistrates. I confess that, although I believe that the licensing law needs to be reformed along the lines indicated by Erroll, I am not completely happy about this clause.

I am apprehensive about the effect of such a proposal on the future of the small husband-and-wife type of pub. One of the most unsatisfactory developments in recent years has been the gradual disappearance from our High Streets of the family shop selling sweets, tobacco, newspapers and so on. If we are not careful, the family-run pub could go the same way. It could happen if the family pub were forced to open for longer hours.

The real problem is that there may be economic pressures upon the small tenant licensee to keep open for longer hours than he would really want. If a competitor with a large staff down the road can keep open for the permitted hours plus the additional hours, the husband and wife may feel obliged to do likewise or go to the wall. We must be careful that such a clause does not become a charter for the big man and the death sentence for the small family pub, which is so much a part of our British way of life.

Therefore, I would rather see a statutory maximum and a statutory minimum within the range of extended permitted hours recommended by Erroll—that is, from 10 o'clock in the morning to 12 o'clock at night—so that the bigger organisation and the smaller public house alike, whilst being able flexibly to adjust their opening—for example, in the summer to catch the afternoon trade—would have to forfeit some other period of opening time. In that way the big man would not be able to gain over the small man at both the swings and the roundabouts and the husband-and-wife pub as we know it might survive.

Secondly, I want to say a few words about the proposed children's accommodation order. I am delighted that the sponsors of the Bill have resisted the temptation to suggest any reduction in the drinking age to 17 as recommended by Lord Erroll. I think that the forces of law and order are too much under pressure at present to invite more trouble.

However, in my view it is not inconsistent with the desire to keep children from the dangers of intoxication that children's accommodation orders should be available. It is a much greater evil that drinking parents—and no amount of legislation would be likely to stop their activities, as was shown by what happened in America in the years of prohibition—should always have to leave their children alone at home or waiting ouside in the street or in the car park stuffing themselves with ginger beer and crisps than to keep the family together in congenial surroundings.

Children see their parents drinking at home; they see them drinking on holidays and abroad. I cannot see any objection to having children in family rooms in public houses which are pleasant and well controlled. In fact, the presence of children might well limit alcoholic excess. Some licensed premises are wholly unsuitable for children. Others can be made suitable. This is to be a matter for the discretion of the licensing justices. Provided that the premises are well controlled, I think that more good than harm is likely to come from this measure.

Two matters will require closer attention. First, I think we want to restrict the measure, if practicable, to apply to children who are accompanied by their parents. It is a glaring error in the Bill that children need apparently not be accompanied by anybody at all. I am not too happy about a provision which refers only to children's accommodation without qualification. It is the family aspect which is the important reason for extending the law and I think that aspect should not be forgotten. I appreciate that it would not always be easy for the publican to know whether the relationship was that of parent and child and I would not want to see too great a burden of supervision placed upon the licensee. Nevertheless, I think that in Committee we should devote more thought to this aspect.

Secondly a fine of only £20 at the maximum for selling drink to under-18-year-olds needs a second look. After all, any liberalisation of our law will be safe only if there is the strictest practicable control.

The curtailment of personal freedom involved in licensing is a difficult matter for Conservatives. The problem of how far we should go to liberalise restrictions at the present time is not made easier by the fact that society does not speak with a united voice on the matter. Nor is it made any easier by statistics which show everything and nothing. I do not think that the mass of statistics and references to learned authors which my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East made proved that any harm would be likely to result from the Bill.

Since the rise of alcoholism has been while the present restrictive law has been in force in public houses, if there is rising alcoholism it is more likely to be because of its ready access outside public houses than inside. But if the public houses are made more and more attractive to customers, it is equally possible that drinking will be more restrained and disciplined and that alcoholism will be reduced. As Erroll concludes, after two years of listening, not to the selected experts referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East, but to all the experts:

"It is impossible, however, to assess precisely the impact on levels of alcohol consumption and abnormal drinking of changes in the licensing law, and in this country, it would probably require very considerable changes in the law in order to influence this significantly".

I believe that we should always look to see whether we are justified in giving more freedom rather than less and I believe that there is room for just a little more freedom and just a little more flexibility in the climate of modern society at this time than we have hitherto enjoyed. It is therefore with reservations that I commend the Bill.

Unlike the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), although I, too, am a lawyer, I have no interest to declare, except perhaps that I find this a very refreshing subject and I admire the spirit in which the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) moved the Second Reading of his Bill.

I have received very strong protestations from many constituents against the possibility of the Bill's becoming law. I agree entirely with those protestations. I do not know what popular support there is for the Bill. I know of none. It may be that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe can bring forward some arguments in favour of it, but, unless there is a popular demand for a measure of this kind, it is entirely wrong that an hon. Member should seek through the medium of a Private Member's Bill to bring into law a measure of this kind.

I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). At one stage, I thought that he intended to repeat a performance that he gave on a former occasion when he spoke for a very considerable time. But I agree with his arguments. I have no desire to repeat them but in my view they adduce powerful evidence against any possibility of a Bill of this kind being passed.

There is no doubt whatever that alcoholism is a decisive factor in creating a great deal of misery and distress. To appreciate that, one has only to think of the drunken driver, who is a menace, of the battered wife, often suffering from a drunken husband, and of the tremendous effect that alcohol has upon people who commit crimes. It seems to me, therefore, that anything which tends to increase the danger resulting from the consumption of alcohol should not be permitted, and this Bill certainly does that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wall-send (Mr. Garrett), who spoke in support of the Bill's provisions, said that there was no evidence that if a person drank for two hours, the hours being reduced rather than increased, there would be any difference in the effect. But it is obvious that there would be. If we limit the hours and we limit the opportunities for drinking alcohol, obviously we decrease the chances that any ill-effects and any misery will result. I repeat that anything which permits an increase in the consumption of alcohol is not justified and should not be encouraged. In my view this Bill does so.

One has only to look at the provision contained in Clause 1 concerning additional powers in licensed premises or at the provision in Clause 2 giving permission in certain cases with regard to arrangements about children. These are obviously measures which, if the authorities agree, must result in increasing the opportunities for the consumption of alcohol. I deplore them.

The Bill is not justified because it has no real popular support. I believe that it will have ill-effects and for that reason alone I hope that it will not receive a Second Reading.

I apologise sincerely to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for having missed his opening remarks. A number of us were surprised by the expedition with which the Bill to reform Scottish divorce law was dealt with. Some of us were extremely pleased about that, because it is a long overdue measure. I wish that I could say the same for this Bill, which has a great many defects that we ought to consider.

The speed with which our earlier business was dispatched also accounts for the absence from the Treasury Bench of a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security, which ought to be closely concerned with this Bill. I know that the Under-Secretary covered much of the ground that any Health Minister would have covered, but this is as much a Health Bill as a Home Office Bill, because the concerns to which it gives rise are now seen more and more as health concerns and not simply concerns about the ordering of our affairs.

I am sorry that we have a relatively poorly attended House, however high may be the quality. This is a matter giving rise to very serious concern and one which many hon. Members might have occasion to reflect upon with some caution, having heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman).

There are a number of important practical difficulties about the Bill. I have been especially concerned with one of them, because my main interest in this House is Home Office matters. That is the difficulty of enforceability and the work of the police. If the Bill were passed in its present form, I see a very serious addition to the already extensive difficulties of the police in dealing with their wide responsibilities in the enforcement of our licensing laws. Our police have far more pressing matters than that. It is not a job that policemen particularly relish, and their job will not be made easier for them by the provisions of this Bill.

I remind the House that a given police area can cover several magistrates' districts where different arrangements under the provisions of the Bill may obtain in the future, resulting in the police having to enforce different licensing hours with which the people concerned may not themselves be familiar and presenting problems with which people moving between areas may not be familiar. What is more, the police will find the number of hours in the day in which they have to be concerned will automatically increase, resulting in even more difficulty in dealing with the public over an issue which has never been a source of very friendly relations between the police and the public. I do not envy the police that task. We should not add unnecessarily to the severe problems with which they are confronted.

If within the permitted hours the licensee is able to open for the hours that he wishes, why should he wish to contravene the hours he sets? Does not that get rid of all police supervision of permitted hours?

I do not think it does. It underestimates greatly the problems of the licensee to suppose that he never needs police assistance in order to comply with the permitted hours. Too often in recent years have licensees and public house managers become the victims of violence on their premises for us not to recognise that in the enforcement of hours the licensee is not necessarily the enemy or victim of the police. Often he needs the policeman as an ally to deal with customers whom he does not know, who perhaps have come from elsewhere and who do not accept his judgment and determination to keep within the law. In any case, it is not the general responsibility of the police to ensure that licensees maintain the law.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his remark about the difficulty of enforcement in giving the police extra jobs to do which may not be popular might apply even more if legislation were introduced on the compulsory wearing of seat belts?

That is a serious problem and I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point of view. It is my only reservation about legislation on the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would not wish me to enlarge on that matter now—we shall have the opportunity of doing so on Monday—but it shows that the more complex the legislation in which members of the public are potentially involved, the more difficult the task of the police becomes and the greater the number of things the constable must look for when he should be dealing with people who are about to perpetrate violence, terrorism, or other offences against the person.

The second practical problem to which we should apply our minds is the position of magistrates in exercising their powers under the legislation. We cannot suppose that there will not be considerable pressure on them to go for the widest extension possible. In many areas, vested interests will naturally wish to press for the longest period of opening possible and any bench of magistrates which tries to resist this development will find itself in some difficulty.

The domino theory as applied to international relations, particularly in South-East Asia, has been shown to be rather weak, but it has a quite striking applica- tion in this respect when there is liberalisation of the law from area to area. Once provision has been made in one area, it is extremely difficult for people in a neighbouring area to stand out and say "We do not want this". There are good arguments for saying that magistrates should conform to the practice in the neighbouring area, because if they do not they may well find people in their community driving to other places to take advantage of the licensing hours in them, thereby increasing the risk of alcohol and driving being mixed in the usual dangerous way. We must not suppose that it would be simple for areas in which this development is desired to go one way and areas in which it is not desired to go another way. Magistrates are likely to be under considerable pressure, and they may find it difficult to operate like that.

The third practical difficulty on which I wish to touch arises from the genuine intention of those who support legislation of this kind and of the Erroll Committee and the difficulty of implementing that intention. The theme running through the attitude to children particularly in the Erroll Report and the remarks of many hon. Members who are in favour of legislation is that it is possible to change the public house in such a way that it becomes a safe, proper and happy place for families, including children, in which the children are not exposed to the risk of being unduly pressured to take up drinking. I think that that is a laudable aim. If I thought that it could be achieved, I should be more sympathetic to legislation that sought to bring it about.

I hope we are all agreed that we wish to bring about a situation in which those who want to drink moderately, to endanger neither themselves nor others, should have reasonable opportunity to do so. Anything which might make it difficult to resist the slope into alcoholism is not to be disregarded. We must try to strike a balance which meets the genuine and legitimate demands of the ordinary, moderate drinker, a balance which does not put pressure on others to take what is a dangerous path.

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. A problem which he has not dealt with is that which results from over-restricting licensing hours. I accept what he says about reducing alcoholism, but if the pubs are shut, someone might go into a supermarket, purchase a bottle of whisky and drink it in his car in front of the children. Is not that worse than the present situation?

Yes, I accept that there are a number of difficulties. It would be misleading to pretend that the consumption of alcohol in pubs is the only way in which liquor can be obtained. There are other dangers, and the hon. Gentleman has described one. There would be dangers if the restrictions on hours for public houses were too great. I think that restrictions are too great in one or two countries that I could name. They drive people into obtaining alcohol and drinking it in ludicrous situations, one of which has been described by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). However, the normal consequence of our present licensing hours is not to drive people into alcoholism. If that were the consequence, it would be a reasonable danger to point out, but that is not the case. I hope to show that there are two different problem areas. One area involves the public houses, and the other the purchase of drink from other outlets.

I suggest that the supporters of the Bill have a reasonable and fair objective in trying to bring about a situation in which the public house is some kind of happy family place in which excessive drinking does not take place, the presence of children discouraging excessive drinking. It has already been contended that the presence of children in public houses would result in the diminution of excessive drinking. Those who put forward that view look with some enthusiasm to the practice that obtains in a number of Continental countries. They think of the Continental café or refreshment place as a sort of model for their views.

Much depends on which country is considered. A number of countries—not least the liberal and progressive countries of Scandinavia—have felt it necessary to impose far more fierce and restrictive licensing regulations than Britain. They do not allow spirits or even strong beer to be sold in places of refreshment of the sort that some hon. Members envisage.

The hon. Gentleman must remember that Sweden—not Denmark—introduced severe laws known as the Brat system of liquor control. That was done because of the grave alcoholic background that had existed for many years. At one time there was severe control on all drink. That situation was later liberalised, but severe restrictions were found necessary because of the frightful background of alcoholism. We have never had that background in this country. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why France, Germany and other main countries can have good arrangements for the family to have their drinks with the children when it seems that we cannot?

I was about to deal with the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made about the Scandinavian countries. I am much more familiar with Norway than Sweden, but I concede that the restrictions employed in Norway are not particularly satisfactory. The level of alcoholism in Norway before and after such restrictions has demonstrated that.

I am worried that medical evidence demonstrates that alcoholism is rising rapidly, and it might be worsened if we introduced some of the measures contained in the Bill. We must make it clear that we do not know how to stop the rising tide of alcoholism. That is the most worrying thing of all.

One side argues that the present laws must be the cause of the problem. The other side argues that liberalisation of the present laws would be likely to make the situation worse. That is my honest view, but we do not know. We are dealing with something that is dangerous and damaging and a problem that is on the increase. It means that we must be cautious and not rush into changes whose effects are uncertain.

We should reflect on the argument relating to Continental comparisons because there is some confusion. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) referred to the situation in France, but one can hardly say that the arrangements operating there have brought about a happy state of affairs in terms of alcoholism. Any reference to figures of the alcoholism in France does not encourage one to want to follow the example of the French.

The hon. Gentleman no doubt knows that the alcoholism rate in France is four times greater than the figure in Britain, and the rate in Norway, which has strict legislative and fiscal controls, is below the figure in this country. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that what matters is not the rates, but the way in which they are accelerating? We should be concerned about the way in which offences relating to alcohol and the disease of alcohol—in other words, alcohol dependence—are increasing. One cannot get away from the figures. The trends are moving in the worst possible direction.

I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman obviously shares my concern, and he has considerable knowledge of the subject and knows what is involved from his discussions with those who are concerned with this problem.

A great many of us do not in our daily lives confront the problem of alcoholism. Most of the people we know are happy, contented and moderate drinkers and their behaviour when taking alcohol gives not the slightest cause for concern. But one has only to talk to any doctor who deals with the problems of alcoholism to appreciate how frightening the situation is.

Let us examine whether the objective of creating a family refreshment house, if I may so call it, is likely to be achieved. The example of the Continental model which has been cited is sometimes mistaken, and certainly the model of France is not one to follow. Can we bring that kind of establishment to this country? I am not so sure we can, or indeed that a great many people want us to do so.

The character of the English public house is something that most regular frequenters would not wish to see changed in that direction. There is likely to be natural resistance to making public houses into family resorts from those who use public houses and who do not want to see such a change. I do not think we can start from the traditional pattern we now have and move readily and easily to something different. I do not think we can move from licensed houses that serve almost exclusively alcohol and a certain amount of food to the kind of establishment where alcohol plays a minor, subsidiary rôle, where the customers go to drink the odd half pint of beer or single glass of whisky, and where most of the people go to drink a cup of coffee or tea with the family, with orange juice or Coca Cola for the children. The two worlds are so different.

The weight of tradition behind the public house is so strong and attractive to its customers that we are labouring under an illusion if we believe that we can readily move from one to the other. I do not imagine the brewers of Burton-on-Trent or elsewhere will put weight and finance behind that change. They have done a considerable amount to try to extend the provision of food in public houses, and that is a welcome development, but I do not think that the public want to see a total change from places where people go primarily for the drinking of alcohol, which may go on for some time, to places in which families readily go to drink primarily beverages other than alcohol.

Let me turn to the practical problems confronted by the tenants and licensees. The views of the managers were made clear in the telegram read by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. There is a wide difference of view among licensees, but there is general apprehension among, for example, those families who keep small public houses. Those establishments are often well managed and the atmosphere in them has some beneficial influence on the way in which the place is conducted. Anyone who runs a public house as a family venture will say just what a time-consuming and tiring business it is. There is apprehension among these hard-working people about how this legislation will affect them.

I turn from the practical problems to the health problems. One of the striking developments since the Erroll Committee reported has been the increase in the expressed concern, particularly by the medical profession, about alcoholism as a health risk. There is no doubt that if we were to measure the weight of concern expressed in articles published in medical journals we should find that it has gone on apace since the Erroll Committee reported.

It is not particularly a reaction to the Erroll Committee's Report, because changes in the licensing law have been advanced for a long time. It is simply that the medical profession has become far more alarmed at and conscious about alcoholism. Alcoholism is probably being diagnosed more frequently and accurately than it used to be and is more frequently being referred for specialist treatment.

All that indicates that we should look carefully at the weight of opinion within the medical profession, particularly at the opinion of those who deal with alcoholism.

One of the most alarming features that people in the medical profession and the social services have noted is the increase of alcoholism not only among women but among teenagers—children still at school.

That gives us great cause for concern. No one who believes, as I am sure supporters of the Bill believe, that moderate drinking is acceptable and nothing should be done to discourage it can be in the least happy that people who have scarcely begun in life should come so quickly within the purview of the medical consideration of alcoholism. It is quite appalling and it should make us think in terms of introducing wider legislation, if it is legislation that is needed, or far greater allocation of resources to deal with this enormous problem.

We should not be happy about dealing with this problem in a small and piecemeal fashion. The weight of medical opinion accounts for the cautious note in the remarks of the Minister. She and her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have been much influenced by it. Let us take note that if this were simply a matter of widening the area of freedom available to the private individual without doing any harm to others, no one would be a more enthusiastic supporter of the Bill than the Home Secretary and no Department would be more enthusiastically encouraging its ministerial personnel to put their weight behind it than the Home Office. However that is not the case.

It would be interesting if the Home Secretary were present and were to speak, strangely, against the advice which he has received or the speech of his hon. Friend. I do not think that he will. I find his absence rather surprising. The advice that both the Home Secretary and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have received will give them cause to reflect that the problem with which we are confronted demands major measures and not piecemeal alteration of legislation.

The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that what was required was comprehensive Government-sponsored legislation to deal with licensing laws as a whole. That view is widely shared. I should like to be in a position to support a Government-sponsored review and adjustment of our licensing legislation. That review should come before the House with the clear and unequivocal backing of all the Ministers in the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security and with the clear and unequivocal backing of the bodies that advised them. This House would easily be influenced to support a measure of that kind if we were told by those responsible that they did not see any cause for alarm or concern in where the measures led. Many people would support such a measure. I should like to support legislation of that kind. However, notes of anxiety have come from such important quarters and have been expressed so strongly that I do not find myself in that position. There is no one who strengthens that feeling more than the Advisory Committee on Alcoholism in its clearly expressed and unusually stringent opposition to the measure.

Is not the hon. Gentleman saying that he is prepared to back this Advisory Committee on Alcoholism and the temperance lot, but is not prepared to back the recommendation of the English Tourist Board, the tourist authorities, a great many licensed victuallers and others of those who support and promote what the great majority of people in the country want to do?

First, I do not believe that the great majority of people want moves in this direction. I think that there is no evidence to support that argument. Secondly, if it were the view of every tourist body in the United Kingdom, from John o'Groats to Lands End, and if it were strongly advised against by those who are concerned with the health of our people, I know to which group I would listen.

I am keen on tourism in my part of the world. Many tourists come to my area and use the licensed facilities that they find there. I have not heard many complaints about the licensing hours, but even if I heard many complaints I should not be very concerned about tourists drinking for an hour or so less than they think they should be able to drink. To be so concerned would be an appalling attitude for the House to take.

I am influenced in some measure by the feelings of those who have to operate the law, be they the police, managers of licensed houses, tenants or licensed victuallers—I am rather less influenced by the brewers because the simple argument of interest obviously applies to them—knowing as they do the conditions with which they have to deal in their own bars and public houses. If the other groups were unanimously in favour of this measure, perhaps I should be worried about the line that I am taking, but there is not a unanimous view.

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for some time. As I am the sponsor of the next Bill for debate, I wonder whether he would be in favour of per-permitted hours for the length of speeches.

Yes. I should be strongly in favour of a way of dealing with Private Member's legislation so that it should not be contingent upon the legislation preceding it. We have seen an unhappy experience with worthy legislation on a number of Fridays recently. However, the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that he and a number of other hon. Members have interrupted me during my remarks. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Burton, speaking from a sedentary position at present, wants to interrupt me again, I shall give way to him.

The consumption of alcohol is possible in places other than public houses. As was pointed out earlier, it is not simply a problem of pubs and licensed houses. Pubs are certainly not the only cause of alcoholism, nor the only means by which it is sustained. What is involved in the premises in which alcohol is served, however, is the encouragement of continuous drinking in a social atmosphere par- ticularly for those who might be on the verge of alcoholism—that is the main identifiable problem—and the dangers in relation to children, to which I referred earlier.

It is at this stage that we must consider the alcoholic who is determined to get liquor by some means and who is in a medical condition in which he cannot resist the temptation to buy it. He can buy it elsewhere, and neither the passing or the rejection of this legislation will make any difference to that. What we are concerned about is the position of people who, during long permitted hours for public houses, might be brought closer and closer to, and eventually reach, the point of dependence on alcohol.

If the debate were about some of the other dangerous drugs about which we are concerned, and if the state of the law and the general situation in this country were the same in relation to alcohol as it is in relation to cannabis or harder drugs. I think that we should be looking at this whole matter in a different light. It is curious that a great deal of anxiety is expresesd about outlets for soft drugs such as cannabis, but the same anxiety is not always brought to bear on what is recognised by the medical profession as being a far wider concern and a real health risk and damage than that drug. We must be cautious about that, too. If alcohol were coming to us as something new, we should be even more cautious about it. However, we are dealing with precisely the same problem of addiction, and in the case of alcohol it is a problem which we have allowed to go far wider than the problem of soft drugs, about which we are also concerned.

I do not believe that the ordinary moderate drinker and his family have anything significant to gain by the Bill that outweighs the serious dangers involved. They are dangers which, on my evidence, are to be counted as very considerable, and on the evidence of those most qualified to speak—those who deal with the consequences of heavy drinking—the Bill clearly stands condemned.

Those who know most about the problem are those who enter a note of caution. If I felt that we were dealing simply with a Bill by which we could usefully widen the area of freedom available to the individual without threatening him or his neighbours, I would give the Bill my enthusiastic support. But we are dealing with something which is extremely dangerous, which we have not learned how to handle, by which I mean the problem of alcoholism.

I have great reservations about the Bill. Nevertheless I shall support its Second Reading because I believe that it is time that this matter was aired in detail in Committee.

The Government have dodged their responsibilities in relation to the Erroll Committee's Report. It would have been better had there been a Government Bill to deal with this issue.

I am worried about the Long Title of the Bill, the purpose of which is to

"Extend the permitted hours of licensed premises and registered clubs; to enable children to enter parts of licensed premises and registered clubs during permitted hours".

I hope that the sponsors of the Bill have consulted in some depth those who are involved in it. I am not aware that the Clubs and Institute Union has been approached to discuss the problems. I am sure that this is a matter on which that organisation has some reservations, particularly on the provisions concerning the admission of children to registered clubs.

The provision for the extension of hours worries me. I would be prepared to talk about a variation of hours. I have a lot of sympathy with areas like London and holiday resorts. I should like there to be more flexibility. But as for the extension of hours, why midnight? I do not know whether the sponsors have considered the transport problems. In my area it would be very difficult to get public transport home after midnight closing. When the licensing hours were extended from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m., my experience was that people went into a public house half an hour later than they had previously done and stayed half an hour later.

In a debate like this we tend to get extravagant language. I would not accuse the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) of using extravagant language, but surely this is not a Bill on which we should discuss the increase in alcoholism. Anybody who wants to get into that condition can do so without having the permitted hours extended. I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) has left the Chamber. He spoke of drunken driving. We all deplore drunken driving, but I do not believe that a modest Bill of this nature will have any effect on drunken drivers, or, for that matter, on battered wives.

I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss its provisions in depth in Committee. I am not happy about children being allowed in public houses. But the Bill refers to "a person under eighteen". With what age are we concerned? Are we concerned with children being taken into public houses in their prams, wearing nappies? I shudder to think what the atmosphere would be like in the average working-men's club if that were allowed. I can imagine a man and wife with their baby in a pub. If the baby was crying, the man might say to his wife "Dip the dummy in the rum, Mum. We do not want to go home yet. I am enjoying a chat with the lads". It worries me, and I think that it should worry the House.

I hope that the matter will go into Committee. This is a Private Member's Bill. I cannot envisage the Government bringing forward any whipping arrangements. If the matter goes to Committee, we can sound out the Government about what they intend to do about the Erroll Committee's Report and the like. Let us have the matter thrashed out at that stage. If when it comes back on Report or Third Reading we do not like it, we can then defeat it.

I agree with the main burden of what has been said by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier). The Government are refusing to come forward with any legislation in this area. However, they are not the only Government to fail to do so. Their predecessors were also at fault. The Erroll Committee reported in December 1972 and the only Home Secretary since that time who has had a genuine intention to secure the reforms which are necessary was my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). All the others up to and including the present incumbent have let us down. Indeed, there is no indication that the present incumbent of that office will take any action. The only way it will come about is if the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South carries weight in the Home Office. I hope that it will.

I remember a Home Office spokesman saying in the House that if it put forward gambling legislation the Home Office would become unpopular. In fact it became extremely popular. It will also be extremely popular if it carries out effective legislation in this area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rush-cliffe (Mr. Clarke) is to be congratulated on seeking to put on the statute book something in this connection and on giving the House an opportunity to consider this matter. He referred to two particular aspects. The first was children and the second was permitted hours.

Let us get the record absolutely straight in respect of children. The recommendation which I put forward to the Erroll Committee was adopted. It was:

"That the licensee of a public house shall be allowed to specify that either the whole or specific parts of the premises should be available to be used by children of any age provided they are accompanied by adults. Such parts of the premises should be identified by a notice stating that children may be present if accompanied by an adult."

I also recommended:

"That children, provided they are accompanied by an adult, should be entitled to enter bars in any hotel or other on-licence establishment."

The purpose is clear: that children aged 8, 10, 12 or 14 years can go into a bar provided the licensee or the management has decided to set it apart as a family bar. They cannot go into the working-men's bars, clubs or anywhere else. For example, if parents went out for the day and had their children with them, whether those children were 4 or 14 years of age, there would be an opportunity for them to enter a specifically designated family bar but no other bar of any kind. The licensees favour this because they have the choice. Some licensed premises would be totally unsuitable and the licensees would not apply. However, some licensees would wish to apply in respect of one room which might well have television and other facilities. That is only one provision, and it would be wholly admirable for it to be considered by a Committee of this House. There would be great advantages because we could thrash out the real difficulties that arise.

The other provision concerns permitted hours. I do not share my hon. Friend's view that one can simply extend the permitted hours in general. It cannot be done, for the reason given by the Under-Secretary of State that to do it in that way would not sufficiently protect the working hours of the employees: nor would it sufficiently protect the licensee. That does not mean that we cannot extend the hours. I agree with the Erroll Committee on this point.

I put forward a total of 32 recommendations to Erroll, 24 of which were adopted. But there was one recommendation by the Erroll Committee—its main recommendation—which was opposed by the trade. Erroll wants 10 in the morning till midnight, with a two-hour exemption. I do not favour it. It presents a disadvantage to the small licensee and the man in the trade. It presents a disadvantage to the workman in the industry.

In my view, the right way to go about it is to have nine hours in any one day, those hours to be at the choice of the licensee. Nine hours make a long enough day, but that arrangement would enable licensees to decide the desirable pattern, which, of course, could be different in various areas. For example, in the Isle of Thanet we should wish to set our pattern, and that is what we should like. We could have the nine hours either early or late, according to the pattern preferred in the district.

It is said that one would not be able to have police supervision. But police supervision of the permitted hours is not necessary, because if people have the hours which they wish to have, with power to close when they wish to close, there is no need for the police to carry on the old nonsense of supervising permitted hours. All that the police are required for, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, is the supervision which a licensee needs against violence. I entirely favour that—it is most important—but it does not apply to the question of permitted hours. It is a matter of seeing that the police are from time to time able to supervise a public house at the instance of the licensee when he feels that he needs help against the danger of violence, and that applies, thank goodness, to only a limited number of areas in the country, though it is, no doubt, very much needed there.

I emphasise again that the Bill deals with only two matters, though it could have dealt with many others. It will, however give an opportunity for this matter to be considered in Committee. Later, when it returns to the House, it could well be a useful small measure to go on to the statute book. Above all, it will give a chance for the Home Office to do some radical rethinking about doing something worth while for the general public and, no less, for tourism and people in the trade itself.

I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not take more than 19 minutes. I should at the outset declare an interest as parliamentary consultant to the National Union of Licensed Victuallers. However, I am not in any way speaking on its behalf today.

I welcome the basic concept of the Bill. I should make clear that I was able to arrange a meeting between the parliamentary committee of NULV, which represents the licensees of public houses, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), and the parliamentary committee had some doubts to express. Its main doubts were about whether there would be any sort of pressure put on licensees by the brewers to open for all the extra permitted hours, and, secondly, whether they would have to provide the accommodation for children. My hon. Friend said that he would seek suitable undertakings from the Brewers Society, and, although I could not be present to hear his speech, I understand that he said that if the Bill had a Second Reading and he could not get copper-bottomed guarantees and undertakings from the Brewers Society, he would not seek to proceed with the Bill in Committee. Therefore, I take it that the National Union of Licensed Victuallers would be satisfied with that, though I say again that I am not speaking on its behalf.

My hon. Friend stresses that he is not speaking on behalf of the National Union of Licensed Victuallers but is, I take it, approaching this matter entirely objectively. What view does he take of the determined opposition of the many thousands of public house managers to the provisions of the Bill?

I do not necessarily accept that there is determined opposition. There may be such opposition from their spokesmen, but I do not accept that there is from hundreds or thousands of public house managers. It was interesting to note that the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), who made one of his Friday speeches and then went because he had to be in Stoke Newington, said that he had received scores of letters. I reckon that I have one of the largest mailbags among all hon. Members—certainly in excess of 65 letters a day—and I have had precisely two letters against the Bill since my hon. Friend presented it. I do not, therefore, accept that there is that widespread opposition, although I am sure that the opposition which is expressed is genuine.

My hon. Friend was not present in the Chamber at an earlier stage. Was he present when I read a telegram from the National Association of Licensed House Managers, representing 14,500 pub managers? Is he casting doubt on that?

I heard my hon. Friend read that telegram. With the greatest respect, my hon. Friend knows that if, for example, the AA sends us a brief on seat belts, it cannot claim to speak for all of its members. That is the point I make. I put as much value on that telegram as I do on the brief we have all received from the AA saying that it is against the compulsory wearing of seat belts. The people who sent it are probably able to speak only for the individuals who have authorised them so to do.

By the same token, will the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a wide variety of opinion among licensed victuallers on this point and that precisely the same caution must be exercised in respect of what is said on their behalf?

That is why I said that the licensed victuallers' parliamentary committee appeared to be satisfied with the undertakings given. I did not say that every member of NULV agreed. I was careful not to do so. If we read the columns of the Morning Advertiser we shall see that there are managers in favour of the Bill and licensees against it. That ought to be taken into account by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

For too long the Home Office has fluffed this issue, under both Governments. The Home Office has a deplorable record on this subject and that of taxi-cabs. Governments of both complexions have done nothing about either of these subjects. It is time that the House flushed Ministers out. This Bill will do that. I very much hope that it receives a Second Reading.

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

In the few minutes that remain to me I shall attempt to deal with this Bill, the purpose of which is to enable the Stock Exchange to introduce a new and more efficient settlement of stock transfer system and to facilitate the procedures relating to the transfer of securities generally.

The average investor who deals on the Stock Exchange is probably quite unaware of the settlement process. He gives instructions to his brokers to buy some shares, receives his contract note, sends off a cheque and sits back to wait for the certificate to arrive. The investor probably knows that his broker's first task is to execute his order at the best possible price with the jobber. He may well not realise that this has to be followed by a complex process to complete his bargain.

Behind the scenes a great deal of work has to be done. This includes payment, internal accounting between the brokers and jobbers concerned, certifying and stamping the share transfer and registration of the buyer as the new owner of the securities.

The procedures involved are inevitably difficult and time-consuming, especially as the number of transactions which have to be settled at the same time run into hundreds of thousands, and purchases and sales rarely match in quantity. Company securities are normally dealt in "for the account", that is, all the deals entered into during the period of the account, which is usually two or three weeks, are settled on account day. In busy periods there may be as many as a quarter of a million transactions worth £500 million to be settled. The volume of work and the amount of paper generated is enormous.

Under the present system the whole settlement process is concentrated in a few days around account day. There is a very heavy peak work load and resulting scope for errors and delays, especially in periods of heavy trading, when the system occasionally reaches near breaking point.

Several years ago, the Stock Exchange set up a City working party to consider ways of alleviating problems while maintaining all the advantages of the Stock Exchange's existing dealing arrangements. "Talisman", as the new settlements system is called, is the result. The initial stages, which established a central accounting system, are already functioning. This Bill will enable the final stage to be brought into operation. The Stock Exchange hopes to start doing this early in 1977.

Talisman is designed to simplify the documentation and disperse the work load over a period by the use of modern data-processing methods. The essential feature of the new scheme is that a seller of securities, as soon as possible after his order has been executed, will transfer the legal title to a central Stock Exchange nominee company to be known as Sepon Limited, which will hold the legal title to the securities in the course of transfer. Purchase of securities will similarly involve transfer of the legal title from Sepon to the purchaser.

The intervention of Sepon will not however affect the passing of the legal title that is held by Sepon, and it will not affect the beneficial owner's entitlement to dividend, rights issues, and so on. The advantage of the new system is that the time-consuming process—and it is very time-consuming—of preparing sold stock for delivery to the buyer will be spread over a period rather than be concentrated into a few days. Also, the internal market accounting will be greatly simplified and the paper work much reduced.

The management of Sepon holdings will be the responsibility of the Stock Exchange Centre. The centre will maintain stock accounts for each jobber in each stock in which he deals, and will keep track of the movement of stocks and the transfer of legal and beneficial ownership of these stocks. The centre will also be responsible for the payment of stamp duty and for handling dividends, bonus issues, rights issues, takeover bids, and so on, in respect of shares held by Sepon, and will ensure that they are allocated to the appropriate beneficial owner.

Inevitably, the introduction of a computerised system of this sort will be very costly. It has been estimated that the total cost will be some £13 million over eight years. On the other hand, this investment will achieve considerable savings. In autumn last year, a leading firm of management consultants reviewed the computerisation programme in the light of expected increases of costs, but concluded that, even assuming very low levels of turnover, the new system would result in cost savings and provide a more efficient service.

It will, I think, interest the House to know that it is estimated that the gross savings to member firms of the Stock Exchange when the scheme is in full operation will be about £13 million a year, representing just under one-third of their present settlement costs. It is also estimated that an additional £10 million to £12 million a year will be saved by the securities business generally. Savings from the simplification of the system will greatly benefit institutional investors, including insurance companies, trade unions and pension funds.

The new settlement system will benefit all those concerned with the Stock Exchange. It will greatly reduce the amount of time members of the Stock Exchange have to devote to paper work and to settlement of bargains. This will free them to concentrate on providing a better service for their clients. Company registrars will benefit from a much more even flow of transfers for registration which will enable them to organise their work more efficiently. Investors, many of them small investors, will benefit not only from reduced costs, but from a better service. In future, they should receive their certificates more quickly and also their dividends and rights issues.

This is a very important benefit which all small investors will derive from the Bill when it is enacted, as I greatly hope that it will be. At present there is often a long delay when securities are sold cum-dividend or cum-rights in transferring those dividends or rights from the seller to the buyer. Under the new system these problems will be sorted out centrally by the Stock Exchange Centre and the buyer will therefore receive his dividends or rights more quickly. This is particularly important in the case of rights issues to which he may wish to subscribe.

To clear up one potential misunderstanding about Talisman, I should explain that it is solely a computerised settlement system. It is not concerned with computerised dealing. It thus has nothing to do with Ariel which is a computerised system of securities trading set up to enable institutions to deal direct among themselves in a limited range of securities.

The introduction of Talisman represents a most important move towards modernising and increasing the efficiency of the Stock Exchange's procedures. It will help the Exchange to continue to carry out its vital functions of raising finance for industry and attracting investors both from this country and abroad. It will enable the United Kingdom to remain in the forefront of the world's security markets.

There are, however, some changes in the law which are necessary if the system is to be able to function effectively. These are two subjects on which amendments are necessary. One is stamp duty. This is, however, a matter for the Inland Revenue and I understand that it is discussing the position with the Stock Exchange and that any necessary legislation will be included in the Finance Bill.

Another is the law relating to companies and the transfer of securities and this is what the Bill is concerned with. All the changes are minor and technical, but they are nevertheless essential for the efficient operation of the new system. The first important amendment is to provide that, when shares or other securities are being transferred, the legal title is primarily held by Sepon. The company need not issue the certificate to Sepon. This exemption from the normal requirement is necessary because the amount of stock held by Sepon will be changing from day to day and no useful purpose would be served by requiring companies continually to have to issue and re-issue certificates. This would impose a quite unnecessary burden on company registrars. Instead, the company will maintain in its registers a running title of the number of securites held by Sepon at any one time.

Secondly, an amendment needs to be made to the Stock Transfer Act 1963 to enable new transfer forms to be authorised for use when transferring securities to and from Sepon. This amendment is made in Clause 5. I understand that the opportunity will be taken to improve the transfer forms and to make them easier to understand and complete.

These, then, are but a few of the advantages that will accrue both to the Stock Exchange and to the securities industry generally if the Bill is enacted. I have very much pleasure in commending it to the House.

I should like, if I may, to say a word or two since I wish to support the Bill, believing as I do, that it is a very reasonable measure to be brought before the House of Commons and that it should be properly debated in order that the general public might know that Parliament is giving consideration to a highly——

It being Four o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the business.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said that he supported the Bill. Therefore, it is not yet opposed business.

Unfortunately, the hour of 4 o'clock had been reached. Therefore, the Bill has been talked out.

Object.

Object.

Objection taken. Debate to be resumed what day?

Friday next.

I understand that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill is the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson).

Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) is ill and confined to bed. She asked me to act on her behalf.

Object.

Object.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment a matter which is causing grave concern in the London borough of Bexley about the state of local government in the area—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many of us have been waiting with rapt attention for this debate to begin. It is not fair to us that there should be this noise.

At the moment I do not hear any noise.

May I express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) for his customary point of order at this stage of our proceedings?

The reputation of local government in the London borough of Bexley is almost at rock bottom. Over the past few months the national Press throughout the length and breadth of the country has carried numerous stories about various aspects of life on the local council, ranging from accurate reports of the policies being pursued by the council on such matters as refusing to operate the issue of bus passes unless a payment is made by pensioners, right through to the cutting down of meals for pensioners at luncheon clubs. So bad have been the policies of the council that the London borough of Bexley has been christened by the Press, quite rightly, the meanest borough in the land.

One tragedy which has followed from the policies which have been pursued by the council is that the loyal and dedicated officers and staff who work for the borough have reached the stage where if they go to a conference, stand up to make a contribution and start off by saying "Joe Bloggs, from the London borough of Bexley", an immediate titter goes round the assembly, so bad is the reputation of the borough.

I am especially sorry that it is necessary for me to raise this matter in Parliament because, as a former member of the local authority—indeed, the first leader of the council of the London borough of Bexley following reorganisation—I share the deep concern of people in the locality about the disrepute into which the fair name of Bexley has been dragged. The residents and ratepayers of Bexley and myself are indebted to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government for being present to answer this debate. I am sure that that fact will be appreciated in the area as an indication of the seriousness with which the situation is being watched by the Department.

In November last year the district auditor found that he was unable to sign the report of the Council, and that was when the serious position of the finances of the borough first burst upon the community. The auditor, in the restrained language that auditors use, said that he was unable to complete the audit of accounts because the accounts were not in balance. In January this year he confirmed his continuing inability to certify the accounts. Therefore, the cat was out of the bag, because the Council had to be officially notified by the leadership, and the long-suffering citizens of Bexley found that they were saddled with a Council which had not only earned the area the title of the meanest borough but was well on the way to getting the twin award of being the meanest borough and the most incompetent borough in the history of modern local government.

It will be no surprise to hon. Members or to the people of Bexley to learn that the top leadership of the majority Conservative group in the borough is desperately seeking plausible excuses to pin the responsibility for this disgraceful state of affairs. There are two front-runners in the race for alibis. The first is illness in the finance department and a series of changes among top officials in the finance department; the second is the computer centre strike in 1974. Like all good cover stories, there is an element of truth in both alibis. The former borough treasurer of the London borough of Bexley—a most distinguished local government officer—tragically died in July 1974 after a very long illness, and it is true that a number of senior officers in the department either have retired or have left the service of the local authority.

There is no doubt that the Council was faced with a difficult situation with which it had to try to cope, but it is not unknown in local government circles for chief officers to die in office, for officers to move to other areas of employment or for serious difficulties to arise. Nor is it unknown for other large undertakings to be faced with similar problems. The difference in this case is that the political leadership of the local authority did not respond to the situation, and, consequently, what started as a serious difficulty has become a minor disaster for the area.

While the overworked and understaffed finance department struggled to cope without any direction from the leadership of the local authority, the leaders were failing to discharge their proper responsibilities and were expending their energies in such ways as cutting old people's meals and taking the front rank among the handful of local authorities fighting a last-ditch battle to preserve an outdated system of education.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) today have long-standing engagements and, therefore, could not be present in the House. Is it not fair to say that the problem about which we have read commenced in the autumn of 1973 and arose again in March 1974 when the Council was under the control of the Labour Party? That continued after the Conservative Party took control. It is fair to say that both parties when in control of the Council did not find it possible to recruit sufficient accountants. The accounts for 1973–74, which the auditor would not certify, were the accounts of the Labour-controlled council. The following year the Council was Conservative controlled.

I shall deal with that. I have no comment to make on the absence of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). All Members of Parliament have duties outside the House. It is understandable that it is not always possible for hon. Members to be in the House, although there are some occasions when it is important that they should be present.

The point that has been made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) is basically factual. However, he omitted to say that if we consider the period to which he referred, on the best estimates that have been produced so far by the officers of the local authority—the period to which he referred when the Labour Administration was in control—when the accounts were handed over there was a balance in the books of £1,900,000. By any stretch of the imagination, I do not think that responsibility for the present disgraceful state of affairs can be pinned on the former Labour administration. The present Council and the present leadership have been in power for just under two years. I cannot go along with the hon. Gentleman if it is said that management can be excused of responsibility after presiding for so long over a disaster.

The local leadership had its political appetite titillated by its victory over the pensioners. It then turned the full weight of its intellectual resources to a dream that had been conceived by some of its leaders, a dream to jerk Bexley out of the traditional pattern of local government into big business. It was a dream that involved the creating of new management structures. Henceforth it was proudly claimed that it would not be the borough of Bexley, but Bexley Limited. There were to be executive directors, management groups, new offices and new salaries. All the time that the leadership's energies were expended on these other issues, the financial chaos of the borough was slowly engulfing the affairs of the council.

Bexley Limited, the dream of the Conservative leadership, is now exposed to the risk of becoming the first lame duck in the history of local government. It is in danger of appearing at the door of my right hon. Friend with a begging bowl.

The other alibi that has been put forward is the computer strike. Again, there is an element of truth in that abili. There was a strike at a computer centre that caters for two other local authorities—namely, Southwark and Greenwich. Why have those other authorities not been exposed to the disgrace of the district auditor being unable to certify their accounts? The neighbouring authority of Greenwich, which shares the computer with Bexley, has roundly repudiated the suggestion that it has been brought to its knees as well as Bexley. There is not a tittle of truth in that suggestion.

In the local Press yet another alibi is put forward—indeed the alibi which the hon. Member for Hampstead mentioned in his intervention. In the local paper this week the most worn-out excuse of all has been trotted out. The headline on the front page reads:

"'It is not my fault', cries Conservative leader of the council."

It is then claimed that it is all the fault of the previous Labour Council. I do not believe that that excuse will carry any weight in the locality. Excuse after excuse has been exposed.

The real responsibility is clear. It lies where it must always lie in a democracy—fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the present leadership of the Council. If there is to be criticism of the previous administration, I hope that the present leader of the local authority will make a statement forthwith telling the people of the area whether the auditor is prepared to certify the accounts for 1974–75 for which he has personal responsibility.

The purpose of this debate is to seek to clear the air by inviting the Minister to confirm one or two points. First, can he confirm that the district auditor has not found any evidence of fraud in his examination of the books? It is vital that this point should be made clear by a statement by the Minister.

Secondly, are the assets of the local authority sound, are the loans to the local authority secured adequately, and can my right hon. Friend join with me in assuring all those bodies and individuals who may have money invested with the local authority that they need have no fears whatever and that loans are secured against the authority's assets?

Thirdly, will my right hon. Friend give some assurance to the staff that if the unions, particularly NALGO, find that they have to make representations to him should the local authority seek to make yet another excuse by trying to blame the situation on the staff, he will listen carefully to those representations and take such steps as may be open to him to protect the staff from any unjustified allegations?

Fourthly, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will not hesitate to exercise his power to hold an extraordinary audit should future circumstances justify?

There are one or two other matters to which I should like to refer in passing, because if there are not changes in the direction of policy in Bexley, I may have to return to this matter on another occasion. My first question under this heading concerns secrecy. In my view, there is an attempt to deny full information to the people of the borough. The leadership has set up an organisation called the leaders conference. That means that no member of the opposition can sit on that body, and I understand that matters relating to the future of the borough are discussed there and do not reach the light of day.

The second item concerns access to documents. I understand that some members of the local authority have requested that documents be made available to them and have experienced difficulty in obtaining access to documents. Thirdly, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the majority group has changed the Council's standing orders leading to an automatic truncation of debate so that matters of major importance go through "on the nod". Indeed, only this week at a Council meeting an increase in rents to tenants went through without debate because of the operation of these secretive, steam-rolling standing orders imposed by the majority party on the authority. These are matters to which I may have to return if there are no changes in the foreseeable future.

I end by appealing to the majority on the Bexley Council. I have always taken the view that men and women who offer themselves for public service do so because they have a genuine desire to serve the community. The majority group should recognise that it has made a hash of Bexley's affairs. It is useless for that group to call for action to deal with the situation unless it is prepared to make changes in the Council's policy and in the collective top leadership of the Council. For goodness sake, let them put their house in order.

To my fellow citizens of the borough, I say that they should not lose heart or pride in their local community. Let them remember that the Council is only the temporary custodian of the borough's affairs. A new day will dawn when under a new Council the reputation of Bexley will be restored. Bexley will once again be able to hold up its head as a worthy, competent and compassionate authority.

The test of a good constituency Member of Parliament is that he is prepared to draw to the attention of the appropriate Minister serious misgivings that he has concerning matters within his constituency. The second test is that he is prepared to look at these serious misgivings in the light of their effect upon national matters. In both these tests my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved) has come out extremely well. He felt, and rightly so, that it was his duty to put these points to the House and to the appropirate Minister, and I am glad that he has done so. It was for that reason that I decided it would be as well if I answered this debate myself. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words.

My hon. Friend asked a number of questions, and before I deal with the general matters that he raised which relate to the borough of Bexley it might be appropriate to deal with those. First, my hon. Friend quite properly asked me to give an assurance that the assets of Bexley are secure and that lenders have no cause whatever to worry about payment of their interest or capital. I am glad to give that assurance. All the loans are by statute secured on all of the revenues of the authority. That is a matter of some importance. However, I am glad to tell him that he need have no worry.

My hon. Friend was also concerned about the protection of staff—that is to say, if the question arises whether members or officers are to blame for the affairs at Bexley, whose is the ultimate responsibility? It may fairly be said that the real responsibility must rest—as it must rest with the Minister in the similar case of difficulties arising in a Department—with the elected members of the Council, in other words with the Council. Section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972 states that

"every local authority shall make arrangements for the proper administration of their financial affairs and shall secure that one of their officers has responsibility for the administration of those affairs."

My hon. Friend asked me to confirm—it is most important that I give a clear answer to this—that the district auditor has found no evidence of fraud at Bexley. I am happy to confirm that there is no suggestion whatever of fraud. That makes it all the more interesting to find out what has gone wrong at Bexley. What appears to be wrong at Bexley is that the work of the treasurer's department is woefully in arrears, so much so that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the accounts for 1973–74 have not yet been closed, those for 1974–75 have not yet been balanced and those for 1975–76 have not been written up to date. Therefore, the authority cannot estimate what the rate fund balance at 31st March 1976 will be. As a result, it is having to provide a rate balance in case it has nothing in the "kitty". My hon. Friend asked whether in those circumstances—and these are important circumstances—I would be prepared to consider the possibility of an extraordinary audit.

I think that I ought to state the circumstances which in my view would justify an extraordinary audit. Those are cases which indicate fraud, loss or deficiency, unlawful expenditure and the like. I have to say that I do not regard a failure by a local authority to produce accounts promptly as something that would give rise to an extraordinary audit. I shall try to explain that shortly. But certainly, should circumstances justify it, should it be proved, or should there be any doubt at all, that circumstances would justify an extraordinary audit, within the framework that I have tried to enunciate, I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking.

When the affairs of a local authority such as the London borough of Bexley are in the sort of state that they are—though I am bound to say, thankfully, that it does not happen very often—it is natural to think in terms of an extraordinary audit. The position at present is this. The auditor is already at work. He is already dealing with the 1973–74 accounts, and he has started work on the 1974–75 accounts and is at present awaiting final accounts for that year. However, as the 1974–75 final accounts do not exist, this means that Bexley cannot estimate what balance it will have at the end of 1975–76, so it has to budget as if it has nothing at all. An extraordinary audit would be looking only into those years, and that is exactly what the district auditor is at present engaged in doing. In effect, therefore, an extraordinary audit on such a basis would be a nullity. It would add nothing whatever to what the district auditor is already dealing with.

I said a moment ago that the situation was somewhat unusual. I think that it may even be without precedent, although I am not certain about that. At any rate, it was sufficient for, as far as I can see, a vigilant local Press to consider and to be critical about. It has also reached the national Press, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, and the national Press has been extremely interested in the affairs in Bexley. Therefore, the question whether there should be an extraordinary audit requires a wider explanation rather than a purely technical explanation.

The first question is whether it is practical. Local authorities have a duty under the Local Government Act 1972, which really presents much the same provisions that were in the 1933 Act which preceded it, to do three things above all: first, to keep accounts—that is in Section 148; second, to make arrangements for the proper administration of their financial affairs—that is in Section 151; and third, as inevitably follows, to make up accounts yearly to 31st March—that is in Section 155.

The Accounts and Audit Regulations of 1974 require

"that the responsible financial officer shall ensure that all accounts are made up and balanced as soon as practicable after the date to which those accounts are required to be made up."

The question I have to ask myself—it was perfectly fair of my hon. Friend to ask me the question—is what sort of guidance I would give to a responsible authority and how a responsible authority would behave. Exact views may vary. That is inevitable. However, I think most Ministers would agree that it would be helpful to have some idea of what is likely to be in the "kitty" at the end of a financial year before starting the next financial year.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no power whatever to force Bexley or any other borough or authority in the country to complete accounts. The words that I read were:

"all accounts are made up and balanced as soon as practicable after the date to which those accounts are required to be made up."

There is no definition of "as soon as practicable", because, as I have said, I doubt whether the point has even arisen previously. It occurs to me that one day the courts—not, I imagine, in this instance—might have to rule upon what "as soon as practicable" means. But certainly it would be responsible that the accounts should be made up so that the benefits of knowing what those accounts are and of being able to budget for the following year are in existence as quickly as possible.

I have dealt so far with the practicalities. I should like now to deal with what I believe to be the principle which should govern the Minister's view of a situation such as the Bexley situation. My hon. Friend rightly put three points to me. The first was whether I did not think it wrong that the majority party should change the standing orders. He gave examples of what he felt to be wrong in the way that the standing orders were being treated. On this I would disagree with him. Standing orders are a matter for the local authority, and it is up to the majority party to make what decision it will upon this. Of course, what its judgment may be is another matter. On that, however, I think that my hon. Friend in his zeal goes a little too far.

On other matters that my hon. Friend has raised, I am not so sure. I have always been a great believer that local authorities should conduct their proceeding as openly as possible. When my hon. Friend uses the word "secrecy", I do not want to get involved——