I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 12, leave out

'week beginning with 5th December 1977'

and insert

'first week in December of each year'.

I should like first to congratulate the Minister on having brought forward the Bill and on reintroducing the Christmas bonus. Whatever the merits of such ad hoc payments may be—and we could have many arguments about that—the bonus is extremely popular among the beneficiaries. It will be welcomed by pensioners. As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) pointed out, a whole range of people will benefit, whether they are pensioners, war widows or in some other category, and the bonus will be particularly welcomed in such areas as Merseyside and my constituency.

However, there is a problem. A bonus of £10 was first paid in 1972 and again in 1973. The scheme was extended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in 1974 to cover about 9 million beneficiaries in more or less the same categories as those covered by the Bill. The bonus was not paid in 1975 or 1976, to the great dismay of all those who had previously received it and had considered it a regular feature of their benefits, particularly as it had been paid for three years. It was not unnatural that they should anticipate its continuance.

It was not paid on the grounds that social security benefits had been uprated and that payments were, therefore, being received in a more regular and continuous fashion than by ad hoc payments. Now the benefit is to be paid again in 1977. It was stopped in the face of great controversy, but for some reason we have decided to pay it again this year. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said only on 29th April this year, in a Written Answer, that it was not his intention to pay the bonus to retirement pensioners at Christmas 1977. He said:

"A bonus payment is bound to be arbitrary in coverage, and to exclude many deserving groups. A general uprating of benefits, such as will take place in November, is an altogether fairer method of distributing the resources which are available."—[Official Report, 29th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 462.]

I agree entirely with those sentiments. The question is: why, a few months later, are we suddenly having a massive reversal of policy and deciding that we shall now pay that bonus? On 29th April this year my right hon. Friend made out a perfectly reasonable case why we should not pay the bonus. Tonight I presume that he has a perfectly good case why we should pay it. If we are to pay it this year it seems to me that we have no option but to continue to pay it in future years.

This point is central to my hon. Friend's argument. He has asked a fair question because in April of this year I said—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said it a little later— that we would not pay the bonus. We said that against the economic background as it then was. We were still very much in the grip of the IMF position. But as the economy improved during the autumn it became obvious that the Government were in a position again to offer assistance in terms of both public expenditure and tax relief.

It would have been extremely unfair if we had made tax concessions but not taken pensioners into account. We therefore decided to pay the bonus on that basis. I hope my hon. Friend will accept that in no way was this meant to be a sleight of hand. It was an immediate response to the problems of the pensioners because we felt that we could assist.

I accept my right hon. Friend's argument. It is one of the arguments in favour of ad hoc payments of this kind. One of those arguments, which specifically relates to this bonus, is that it enables pensioners and other potential recipients to share in the general prosperity of the country. Just as other members of the community get tax rebates or productivity bonus increases, the pensioners, too, are entitled to share in this through such an ad hoc payment. That is a very considerable argument.

In a moment I shall come back to the central point of my right hon. Friend's riposte to my argument. Ad hoc payments of this kind are of crucial help to the aged, to pensioners and to the most disadvantaged and unfortunate members of our community. They are of crucial help and aid to them at a time like Christmas. They assist many who have no savings and do not have the ability to save. These people get what, admittedly, to them is a windfall which enables them to pay the heating bills about which they had been worrying, or to buy an extra present or extra food.

Such a bonus is a very effective means of giving aid directly to the people who need it most. It is extremely effective in that it is tax-free and simple to administer and goes direct to those most in need.

The amendment seeks to ensure that the bonus is paid not only in 1977 but also next year and in following years. The argument in favour relates not so much to the merits or otherwise of ad hoc payments but rather to the psychological damage that is caused by using pensioners and others as a political football. That is basically what my right hon. Friend admitted in his intervention earlier.

At the moment the situation is that we shall have the bonus this year, but we do not yet know whether pensioners will get it next year. There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty. Either the Government are determined to make ad hoc payments, in which case they must give them a place in our social security system on a regular basis in future years, or they must say that they are against such payments in principle. I accept that there are good reasons in principle for being against them. We could give the aid by other means and not use the pensioners and others as a political football, making them susceptible to the whims and caprice of any Government as they are at the moment. There is a great deal of dismay, consternation and controversy that, having once stopped paying the bonus, the Government have now decided to pay it again. If the Government decide to pay it this year it is impossible for them not to pay it in future years. The psychological blow of not paying the bonus to pensioners and others who believe that it will be maintained every year will be enormous.

I understand the difficulties created by resuming payment of the bonus this year and then giving it up again next year. But surely there is a difference between circumstances this year and next year in that next year, whatever money is available for pensioners, it will be possible to build that into the normal rate when that is decided in the spring, to take effect in November 1978. Is that not a better way of doing it?

That is what we argued in 1974 and 1975, but it did not stop pensioners believing that in those years they were diddled out of their Ted Heath bonus, as they called it. The pensioners feel that they were given an entitlement which was subsequently withdrawn. Their position may have been improved by the general uprating. But for some reason—I suspect it is to help prime the pump of the economy—the Government have decided to pay the bonus this year. It is morally indefen- sible to hold out to thousands of pensioners the hope, since the bonus is being paid this year, that the Government are putting down a marker for future years and then for my right hon. Friends to decide in future years not to pay it.

I am asking my right hon. Friends to ensure that it will be paid every year. That is the aim of the amendment. In that way the payment will not be dependent upon the charity, caprice or whim of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. The pensioners are on the edge of a precipice awaiting the announcement that they will get the £10 bonus not at the patronising and charitable discretion of future Chancellors but as of right.

I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to think seriously about the amendment and to enter a commitment on behalf of the Government to accept that, having paid the bonus this year, they must pay it every year in the future.

I have some sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). The Christmas bonus to pensioners has a particular memory for me because it was introduced in Christmas 1972, a few days after I entered this House. During the course of my by-election campaign in Uxbridge I had the opportunity of talking to hundreds, if not thousands, of pensioners who were to receive their bonus, the first to be introduced, from the Conservative Government.

It was clear to me then that the bonus was an important part of every pensioner's budgetary arrangements for that Christmas. I was sad when it was not possible to continue the bonus. There is a strong case to be made for making arrangements to ensure that the bonus is paid annually. We all know that Christmas is an expensive time for us. This is no less true for pensioners. Many of them have children and grandchildren whom they wish to visit in various parts of the country. They have additional expenses at that time of the year and have no extra way of meeting them. It is right that we should introduce the bonus on a permanent basis. There is much to be said for providing for it in the pension book and for the bonus to be dealt with annually with the pension uprating, with inflation being taken into account.

I understand that the cost of the bonus amounts to £100 million. That is a great deal of money but in assessing the costs we should have regard to the contribution made by pensioners to the success of our country, to the contribution they have made to industry and commerce and our way of life generally. We have to recognise the severe hardship they experience in meeting heating costs and the costs of Christmas. It is certainly not impossible for us to consider meeting such costs.

The Government have proposed that the bonus should be paid this year. There are hon. Members who feel that the principle should be adopted on a permanent basis. I favour that because I dislike the suggestion that the bonus is paid only when we are approaching a General Election. That is an unworthy suggestion, and I do not believe that the Minister has introduced the bonus for that reason. I believe that he has done it because he recognises, as we all do, the serious position of many elderly people in these days of hyper-inflation.

I hope that the Committee will give sympathetic and serious consideration to the amendment. I intend to vote for it to demonstrate that I believe that the Government should adopt the proposal It is sensible, humane and charitable. Moreover, it brings help to all pensioners, to whom so many of us owe so much. We would like to make this an annual affair, not to be decided by the annual whim of this House in a separate Bill.

I rise to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). It would be political suicide for the Government to leave this matter hanging in the air during 1978. Because the bonus was paid in 1974, stopped, and then brought back, we shall be accused of making the issue a political football in a General Election year, as we were in 1974. I do not want the Government to be in that position next year. I do not want them to have to be asked "Are you going to pay the bonus at the end of the year?" I do not want there to be an item in the next Labour Party manifesto similar to that which appeared in the last one saying "The Labour Government will pay another £10 Christmas bonus this year." I do not want this to be remotely connected with a General Election. If that happens it will turn the pensioners against the Labour Party. They will argue that we are doing it only because of the General Election. I want the Government to get the credit by putting this on the statute book direct so that all know where they stand.

The commitment is not that great. I submit that £100 million is not a great deal of money in terms of the size of the British economy. It is chicken-feed—equivalent to 20p a week on the old-age pension. But if we had put another 50p on the pension in the recent operation we should not have got as much credit for it, because the psychological effect of the Christmas bonus far and away transcends the monetary value of it. It was referred to earlier as the Ted Heath bonus. When I went round the constituency saying what a good job the Labour Government had done in putting up the pension, people still asked about the Christmas bonus.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not a question of this Government or any other Government getting credit for introducing the increase? It is a question of Parliament deciding that this payment should be made on an annual basis. Surely that is what we are talking about, rather than credit to any particular Government. We are talking about Parliament deciding that the pensioners shall get a fair deal every Christmas.

The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed it but in the last three and a half years I have been playing in the Labour team and not the Tory team. I have even been trying to get credit for my own Government from this year's Finance Bill, even if it has meant putting the boot in to defeat the Government for their own good.

The value of this Christmas payment psychologically, as I was saying, far and away transcends the monetary value involved. When the Bill was passed earlier today to give tax reliefs, it was only because the Treasury could not get its sums right earlier in 1977, and I have no more confidence that the Treasury will get its sums right in 1978 than this year.

We could be in exactly the same position then as we are now, with money in the kitty as a result of the Treasury getting their sums wrong, and with the need for another mini-Budget at that time.

I represent a constituency with more than twice the average number of old-age pensioners. Over 30 per cent. of my constituents are old-age pensioners. I know the value to them of even a very small sum of money. My right hon. Friend will know that this week many of my constituents are £1 worse off than they were last week. They have not achieved the full impact of the rise in the pension because they have lost the special heating subsidy which was received from the Supplementary Benefits Commission by certain people in Birmingham. They are now losing some £50 a year as a result.

I want it to be clearly on record that a sum of money will be made available next year for the old-age pensioners. If it were not for the Ways and Means Resolution we would probably have sought to change the figure of £10, but we are not here to cause trouble. We are here to exercise our rights as individual Members of the House, acting according to our conscience and in the best interests of our constituents. The best interests of my constituents happen to coincide with the best interests of the Labour Government and the Labour Party, and basically I am here to represent the constituents who put me here, the majority of them having voted Labour.

I do not see how my right hon. Friend can make a case against the amendment which can hold conviction outside the House, bearing in mind the change in attitudes of Members over the payment of the bonus over the years. There were cheers from below the Gangway on this side of the House when my hon. Friend said that this bonus was not really the right way to do the job.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper), mow a Government Whip, spoke in 1973, when the bonus was to be made for the second time. He said that he had grave doubts whether a bonus was a suitable mechanism. He thought that there should be an adequate pension, so that pensioners would not need such a bonus. He thought that paying a bonus smacked of the poorhouse attitude. That is not my attitude towards the bonus.

But my hon. Friend went on to say:

"During the past year or two my opinion has changed. I think that the bonus has come to stay. I believe that, whichever party is in power, when Christmas comes the bonus will be there, whatever the amount. It has come to stay."—[Official Report, 19th October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 568.]

He is governed now by the rules of the payroll vote, so he cannot speak in the debate, but I have spoken for him. I have quoted what he said four years ago, and there is every indication that in other circumstances he would probably take the same attitude today.

There should be no need for a vote on this amendment because I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security will give a full commitment to fighting like hell in Cabinet for a Government commitment to annual payment. We know him, but he might not be in his present job very long, and without such a commitment from him now we shall have to get it out of someone else who may follow him.

Obviously, therefore, it is far better to write such a provision into the Bill now. My experience is that it is better to write commitments into a Bill. I ask my right hon. Friend to take on board the representations made from both sides of the Committee. There may be cynicism from the Opposition Front Bench, saying one thing and voting another way, but the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) has not the benefit of a public relations firm working for her, otherwise she would not have made the comments she did about the pension increase. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) should really have been here for the Opposition.

I hope that my right hon. Friend can now say that he will accept the amendment.

I think that what has been said in this debate convinces me that I was right in 1972, and am right today, not to like the £10 Christmas bonus. Of course it is popular, and the Government have done a popular thing. It is probably right, if they had this sum of money available at this late stage in the year, that it should go to the pensioners, and that it should go to them in the form of a Christmas bonus. But it would be wrong for the Government to accept the amendment.

But if £100 million is to be made available annually, it should be made available where the need is really great. There are plenty of ways in which it could be spent urgently and where it would do a great deal of good, rather than that it should be spent in giving a £10 bonus to a very large number of pensioners.

Of course the pensioners will like it; it will give pleasure to a considerable number of people—I do not doubt that. But there are certain areas to which we as a responsible House of Commons ought to be bringing more assistance. I shall not go into detail about them, because we all know them. They lie particularly in health and social security services.

10.45 p.m.

When the bonus was introduced in 1972, I accepted it. It had been done, and it was a popular move. But I did not like it then, and I do not like it today. Governments should not be in the business of handing out largesse to certain groups at certain times of the year. That gets us a bad name, and it can be misinterpreted. I am sure that this is not being done for the worst possible reasons and that there was a sum of money available through a change in the economic tide. The Government wanted to get that out as quickly as posible, to a wide field of hands, and felt that this was a sensible way to do that. However, to do it every year would be a mistake. It would be unwise. It would not be a responsible thing to do.

No one can say that during the time I have been a Member of the House of Commons I have not been the first to want to see that less-fortunate people and those in retirement get a fair deal. They should get a fair deal, but this is not the right way for the House of Commons to go about it.

The assumption behind the amendment is that we are dealing with the poorer sections of the community. That is very doubtful. The people with whom the amendment is concerned are among the poorest, but they are not necessarily wholly the people with whom we ought to be dealing.

My second point concerns the effect of inflation. If we wrote this into the legis- lation, we should have to write in indexation somehow. As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) quite fairly pointed out earlier, to return to the purchasing power of the bonus in 1972 would mean increasing it to £21. I should like my right hon. Friend to indicate what such additional public expenditure would be if this had already been written into the legislation. What would be the reaction of the Tory Party in relation to the increased public expenditure involved in paying a bonus of £21?

My third point is whether it would be wise to do this given the fact that it would lead to considerably increased administrative costs. What are the additional administrative costs in administering this bonus over and above normal national insurance administrative costs?

Fourthly, despite those misgivings, I support the amendment. I revert to what I said earlier. If the Government can pay the enormous sums involved in the Civil List, they can afford to pay this.

I am very sympathetic towards the amendment, which I do not think goes far enough. I am surprised that we have not had a number of amendments on the Notice Paper increasing the sum involved to £15 or £20. However, I am glad that we have not indulged in "pensioneering". A number of hon. Members have shown that that is something that they heartily dislike.

I should have liked the amendment to say that the Christmas payment would be one additional week's pension. It would then overcome the difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Every year it would be index-linked because it would simply be another week's pension. When the Government were considering what the pension for the following year should be, they could take that into account. Therefore, it need not necessarily be an inflationary once-for-all payment. If the Government took into consideration when assessing what the pension should be for the following year that there was to be an extra week's payment in the first week in December, that would overcome the difficulty.

It is a time of year when additional expenses come along. In his maiden speech today, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) indicated that a large number of his constituents live from week to week with their pay packets. That demonstrates quite clearly that it is not easy for people today to save for special occasions such as Christmas.

The Minister of State recently said that he had received a deputation of old-age pensioners. I can remember a deputation I received when I first stood for Parliament as a young man. I was trying to win back a seat that had been lost by 200 votes. This deputation consisted of one man from the local old-age pensioners. He told me that he was the president, and that he had 500 members in his organisation. His members, he claimed, would do anything that he told them, and he asked me what 500 votes were worth. To me, they were worth a considerable amount, and I certainly hoped to win most of them. He asked me again what it was worth. I must have appeared very dull, because I did not really understand what he was getting at. I said that I had every confidence that the old-age pensioners would reach the proper decision, and that I was sure they would appreciate any advice he cared to give them.

That was my early experience of pensioneering, and we have had many instances of it since in this House. When the Labour Party was in opposition between 1951 and 1964, it would put down motions on the Order Paper asking for an immediate increase in the old-age pension. The Conservative Government would put down a reasoned amendment saying that the House welcomed the good things the Conservative Government had done for pensioners and looked forward to further benefits in future. The motion would be put to the House, and we would vote against it and for our reasoned amendment. Immediately pamphlets from old-age pensioners would go around my constituency saying that I, as the Member, had voted against an increase in the old-age pension. It is very difficult to explain about reasoned amendments, and this is another reason why I have always disliked what I call "pensioneering".

I welcome this suggestion that the bonus should be a permanent feature, but I would prefer it to be one week's additional pay, which would mean £28 for a married couple. I would not mind if it was taxable, which would mean the Treasury could claw some of it back. Equally, I should like to see the annual allowances and age allowance to those in retirement steadily increased so that even if the pension were taxable it would be relieved from tax by increasing the allowances by the equivalent amount.

Reference has been made to the undignified way in which old people have been treated. In April they were told that they would not be getting the bonus; now they are told they will get it. They live in a state of anxiety. It has been called psychological warfare by the Government. I would call it cat-and-mouse treatment that old people have received over the past 12 months.

I welcome the suggestion that the bonus should be a permanent feature that those in retirement can expect in the first week of December.

I welcome the return of this Bill, and have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). There are good reasons why we should view with suspicion the fact that Bills of this kind are introduced on an irregular basis—or even a regular basis—at about this time every year. We all know about the risks of turning the whole process into a political football.

Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have protested, somewhat to my surprise, that there is no suggestion of this measure being introduced for purely political reasons. But I am not sure one should expect pensioners and those outside the House to do other than suspect the motives of any Minister who introduces Bills of this nature at a time when the following year is expected to bring a General Election. I think that is true no matter which party the Minister represents. There must at least be some suspicion that these matters could be manipulated for political reasons. One slips too easily into pork-barrel politics, particularly if at one time in the year there are ministerial statements that such a thing will not happen and then later, mysteriously, because a General Election may be approaching, it becomes desirable to put forward a Bill dealing with the subject.

There is another reason why we should look to the amendment with friendliness. It is not justified to use the pension as a means of finely tuning the economy because of the advent of the latest Treasury report showing that £100 million can be pumped into the economy. One could debate many desirable ways in which that £100 million could be spent. But pensioners should not be treated as the victims of economic fine-tuning and left out one Christmas when it appears that Treasury indicators do not look quite so good. We might also see a situation where Ministers may at one time in the year say that they intend to take certain action and then, having seen the latest Treasury report, they may decide to do nothing. That kind of attitude is not justified at all.

I have in my constituency even more retired people than there are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and I know that they do not wish their extra Christmas benefits to be determined by the precise state of the economy at any given moment.

It has been suggested that this is not a sensible way of spending £100 million or of helping senior citizens. I am not sure that that argument stands up. One can argue that a bonus payment, far from being unfair, indiscriminate and ineffective, if introduced by some method at about this time in respect of pensions and other benefits specified in the Bill, is a sensible and justified provision.

A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), referred to the extra expenses which pensioners have to bear at this time of the year. They face winter expenses, fuel being the predominant one. It is no good Ministers saying "What about the action we have taken on that front?" It does not please pensioners who rely on solid fuel or gas heating to be told that there is a special bonus for those who use electric heating. That kind of statement, far from pleasing many pensioners, displeases them. That is the most unfair, indiscriminate and ineffective way of helping people with their heating bills that can possibly be imagined. It is helping only those who happen to use one fuel—it is not a par- ticularly suitable form of fuel—for their space heating.

11.0 p.m.

We must recognise that space heating is something that becomes of the greatest importance at this time of year. Lighting will be used more at this time of year. There will be a need for extra clothes. Even the amount of food that one eats should increase with the onset of the colder weather. All those factors are involved, not to mention matters such as trying to give presents to grandchildren.

There are many justifications for an increase of some sort for pensioners at this time of year. One way of dealing with the issue would be to employ a system that is available elsewhere—namely, more frequent pension entitlement adjustments. However, that is something that even the computers available to the Government seem unable to bring about, in spite of its being done elsewhere.

We must look at other methods, and when we do I suggest that Ministers take account that it is now recognised and documented that one of the features of our democracy is that we shall have a considerable increase in the number of people over 75 years old as opposed to those over 65. Another factor in favour of the amendment is that those who are most at risk and find life the hardest at this time of year are those who have had small savings. As they get older they are most likely to find that their savings, which were especially useful on occasions when extra expense was incurred, have been exhausted. Therefore, some form of bonus payment is most appropriate. However, I am not convinced that this form of bonus payment is the best way of meeting the problem.

In ably moving his amendment, the hon. Member for Ormskirk seemed to be of the opinion that if it were carried it would solve the problem. I do not think it would. One reason is that the Bill includes the amount of the benefit—namely, £10. As has already been said, in real terms £10 is already only half the value of the original benefit. If the bonus were enshrined in the Bill as only £10 we should still be having to consider at Christmas time whether there should be an uprating, and, if so, by how much. We should be back to the game of making pensioners a political football. From that point of view it may be argued that the amendment is, in a sense, defective.

The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke of administrative cost. The costs of paying the benefit are presumably similar in real terms to what they were in 1972, but the real value of the benefit is half what it was in 1972. It can be logically deduced that administrative costs as a proportion of the benefit have doubled since 1972, or slightly more than doubled. That raises a question-mark against a continuing benefit.

I hope that we can find some way of giving additional help to pensioners at this time of year. It may be that the benefit should not be the Christmas bonus in its present form. I have considerable sympathy with the amendment but I do not think that it would entirely solve the problem.

If there is one thing for which I shall remember the debate, it will be the spectacle of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) acting as a ventriloquist for somebody on the Government Front Bench. Apart from that, I shall have a nostalgic feeling as I contemplate the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). I must confess at the outset of my remarks what some will regard as an unholy alliance with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady, I am entirely with them, and if the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) chooses to press the amendment to a Division I shall go into the Aye Lobby with him and his hon. Friends.

I support in particular what has been said about the way in which the matter has been handled. I shall not go on about it as I think that hon. Members have made the point already. It seems inherently patronising and cynical for Ministers to say to pensioners, above all others, "We find that we have a little money to spare, so we thought that we would toss it to the pensioners before Christmas." That is no way to treat the pensioners. If Ministers believe that this is the wrong way to give money to pensioners, they should not do it. If they believe that it is the right way to give money to pensioners, they should put it on a more permanent, sensible and regular footing. I go along with the second of those courses.

I turn to the underlying argument—namely, whether this is the best way to pay fuel bills. I take up the strand introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). Is it not better to help pensioners by, for example, giving them an extra 20p a week throughout the year, or is it better to pay them an extra £10 at Christmas? One can vary the figures as one wishes, but the question remains whether it is better to have a small extra regular payment during the year or a slightly smaller payment each week and a lump sum, because inevitably over the years money used for a lump sum is money that will not be given to the pensioners on the regular basis.

Far from its being better, as Ministers seem to believe, to pay the extra regular sum during the year, there is merit in paying the lump sum, in this case at Christmas, because it corresponds to the psychological reality. To people living on the margin of their income, as so many pensioners are, a lump sum is much more use than a few extra pence a week during the year. Most of us who have had the happy experience of receiving a rebate from the tax man have found that it is much more fun and much more useful suddenly to receive £10, £20 or £30 than to have 10p or 20p more on our regular payslip.

The other day my children were playing Monopoly. In that game there is a card which sends a player halfway round the board. There are others which say "Bank error in your favour" or "Advance to Mayfair". It is theoretically better that the bank should never make an error, but it is fun to find that it does. The same psychology essentially applies to the pensioners. A lump sum, especially at a time such as Christmas, is more useful to them than a few extra pence a week during the year.

Therefore, I hope that the payment will be put firmly on a regular basis. I do not like the technique of the amendment. I do not like the reference to a figure. I would prefer an extra week's pension, or perhaps two weeks' pension, to be specified. It is important to solve the administrative and indexing problems. But I understand that the hon. Member for Ormskirk could not do as I suggest because of the way in which the Bill is drafted.

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is trying to mount a demo by moving the amendment. I am in favour of his demo, and if he proceeds with it I shall vote for it.

It is clear from the debate that we are all very conscious of the great attraction of the bonus. We know very well what people think of it.

However, we must also look at the background against which the bonus is being paid, and at its adequacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) pointed out that the amendment on its own does not achieve the real intention of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and many other hon. Members, including many of my hon. Friends, because if £10 continued to be paid, as it would if the amendment were passed, its value would soon become meaningless at the present levels of inflation under a Labour Government.

Way back in 1972 the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) accused us of just tinkering with the problem, and of doing so in the most ineffective way. It is a much smaller tinker this time than in 1972. Whilst I am not in total agreement with all that the right hon. Lady said then, there is more than a grain of truth in it, and we must judge this bonus against the wider background.

It is well known that we in this country have the most complicated benefits system anywhere in the world. The staff in many of our DHSS offices are almost bemused by the huge variety and complexity of the range of benefits which might or might not apply to their customers. On this occasion the Post Office is having to respond to something which is being agreed at relatively short notice.

We understand all these problems. We also know that the Department, together with the Supplementary Benefits Commission, is thoroughly reviewing the supplementary benefits part of our system. We support that review, and look forward to the findings early next year.

The past years have been full of changes to our system. In some years the Christmas bonus has been paid—in 1972, 1973, 1974 and now in 1977. However welcome, each change has been in isolation. The major common characteristic of all the changes is that they have led to the system becoming much more complicated. We have looked at this problem, and we shall continue to examine it, along with the tax credit system and the much-needed radical changes in our benefit system.

We cannot look at this bonus without looking at the other parts of the system. We can only regret that there is no sign of Government work on a rationalisation of our benefit system other than on supplementary benefits. The situation is constantly changing, and the pensioners, the disadvantaged and the handicapped are always the first to suffer. We must have a system which stands up against these changes.

Thankfully, the rate of inflation is improving. The Minister agreed in this debate that it is thanks to International Monetary Fund policy that there is a bit left over this year for the bonus to be paid. The country needs a system that will hold good under a wider range of fortunes than under a one-on, one-off system.

Let us examine the arguments for and against the bonus. In favour of it is its strong popularity—which would be even greater if it were index-linked. It helps to pay Christmas bills. But we know that it does not always come when the recipient is most in need of a boost. Administratively, it is a great burden on the Post Office staff, however gladly, they undertake the extra work. It does not always reach those who are in the greatest need. Some people are excluded even when their need is greater than those who receive the bonus.

We are happy to accept the Government's change of heart since April for this bonus. But because the system must be simplified we must look at the Christmas bonus in a different manner.

A suggestion was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson), supported by my hon Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), which is worthy of closer examination. The suggestion is for a 53-week pension year or a 52-week plus bonus week pension year. The additional or bonus payment could be paid through the usual system at the decisive time which we now regard as Christmas. That would mean that in future it could become an integral part of the pension and benefits system. If it were included in the annual upratings, all the arguments against the one-off, oft-repeated bonus and the difficulties of the "political football" debates that would continue over the size of the bonus if this amendment were passed would be overcome.

This idea has much to commend it, though it might mean that people had a little less each week during the year.

The hon. Lady has done us a favour by exposing her thinking on this matter. Does she acknowledge that her proposal is fraudulent? She wants to give the impression that the pensioner will get something extra. However small a £10 bonus may be because of the effect of inflation, it is an extra payment and not a replacement for uprating.

The hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) is quite wrong. I am saying that the suggestion is worthy of closer examination. I am suggesting that we consider introducing a 53-week pension year or a 52-week plus bonus week pension year so that the bonus is not decided when we come to the Christmas period.

There are two further reasons why we should give careful thought to that proposal. It would save a great deal of trouble for the Post Office staff. There could be a dated voucher in the benefit book. Moreover, it would delight the beneficiaries to know of the bonus not in the short period leading up to Christmas but well before.

Back in 1972, the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn said:

"Our duty … is to look far more imaginatively at the situation."—[Official Report, 20th November 1972; Vol. 846, c. 992.]

The Opposition are doing just that, considering the full needs of the elderly, the disadvantaged and the handicapped. But we are happy to let the Government's plan stand tonight, whilst keeping under constant review all needs, including the need for simplification, with a view to seeing whether we can meet them in the coming months.

The commentary by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) exposed the type of argument and support which comes from the Opposition—support not based on wanting to do anything genuinely for pensioners. They say now that they are in favour of payments of this kind, but on other occasions and on other aspects of policy they are in favour of public expenditure cuts. I think that their support can be left there, revealed for what it is.

I assure the Committee, and especially my hon. Friends, whose argument I take very seriously, that I put this Bill forward without any apology whatever. The Government's record on pensions over recent years is very creditable. One has only to see how the pension for a married couple has increased. In 1974 we came in with a pledge, a TUC-Labour Party pledge, for a pension of £10 and £16, and this we implemented in full in 1974. In 1975 the pension went up to £18.50 for a married couple, and in November of that year it went up again to £21·20. There were two upratings in 1975. Then in 1976 it went up to £24·50, and this week it has gone up to £28.

As I said earlier, while wage earners took a reduction in real terms of 6 per cent. last year—we all know the reasons and arguments surrounding that—pensioners have been protected, and hon. Members will see when the retail price index figures are published later this month that pensioners will have had an increase in real terms. We shall have done more than meet the amount of inflation for them.

I do not, therefore, offer any apology. It has been suggested that what we are doing is condescending. I did not hear the Opposition say that it was condescending to give tax relief to taxpayers. When we are in a position to make this money available, I do not understand the argument about fine-tuning and the effect it has.

It is too complicated for the right hon. Gentleman to understand.

The hon. Gentleman should declare his interest, because his stores will probably get a lot of benefit from this £10. A good deal of this money especially among pensioners, will go on food and fuel. As I was saying, there is talk about fine-tuning when we put £100 million into the economy. This £10 is giving spending power which in itself helps the economy. We all know that pensioners will probably use the money fairly soon on fuel and so forth. They will use it as they wish, but it will be spending power put into the economy, which is what so many of my hon. Friends have been urging. They want there to be more, but this will be spending power put into the economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fyfe, Central (Mr. Hamilton) asked me two questions. First, he asked what the cost of indexation would be. Instead of £100 million it would be £210 million. In reply to another question by my hon. Friend, the cost of administration is approximately £2¼ million.

It has been alleged that the Government have introduced this pension bonus as a General Election gimmick. I reject that completely. My hon. Friends know where I stand. I was interested in getting this purchasing power for pensioners. I wanted it widened even beyond pensioners. We have widened it to include invalidity pensioners, widows and other groups. As I said earlier, I should have liked it to go to the long-term unemployed if that had been feasible.

My right hon. Friend said earlier that it was not possible to identify the long-term unemployed. Is it not the case that the long-term unemployed who have been unemployed for more than 12 months are on supplementary benefit and are identifiable?

No, unfortunately they are not. They are on supplementary benefit, but it would be a colossal job to try to identify them in each office. The staff would have to do that by going through records. I have studied this matter, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept my word. I have said that this is in no way meant to avoid the question. If we could have done it, we would have done so. Unfortunately, it was not possible.

The main point raised by my hon. Friends was that this should be made a permanent feature. It should be recognised that the Bill is designed to give money to pensioners immediately. Arguments such as whether the bonus should, be paid this year or should be included in the pension and whether people would want more to go to pensioners will have to be considered by the Government.

I understand the thinking of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who moved the amendment, said that he did not think that this was necessarily the best way of proceeding, though he recognised that pensioners will welcome it. When we discontinued the bonus in 1975, there were two pension upratings in one year.

There is a slight problem. I am not sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates it, though certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) and I appreciated it earlier this year. As regards social security and national insurance benefits, the House of Commons does not have the opportunity to table and discuss amendments when upratings come forward, whereas the House spends hour after hour and day after day discussing any taxation matter that arises and we can table amendments to various tax changes, whatever the allowances may be. On the other side of the coin, it is not open to the House of Commons to have a discussion on the annual uprating of pensions or any other benefit that arises under the social security or national insurance system. This is a problem for us. We must take the opportunity when it arises on an occasion such as tonight.

I take my hon. Friend's point. He will appreciate that the Bill to index pensions covered his points because many benefits are indexed. He will agree also that child benefit is an instance of a benefit which is not indexed but on which hon. Members have expressed their point of view. These decisions are not made solely in the Department of Health and Social Security but are collective Cabinet decisions. The Cabinet took the decision on the principle of paying the £10 bonus.

The Cabinet will take the decision on future policy in this matter. I hope that my hon. Friends will take that point in the spirit that it is made. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friends do not want to confuse pensioners and start them worrying about next year when they have not yet received this year's money. I do not think that they are worrying yet. They are interested in getting the money to which they will be entitled under the Bill this year. We want them to get it as quickly as possible.

I also want to pay tribute to the Union of Post Office Workers, which has taken the difficult decision of agreeing to assist in this matter, because this causes a great deal of extra work for it members.

Obviously, next year's bonus is a matter upon which the Government have not yet decided and it will have to be looked at next year. However, I can assure the Committee that I can report the strength of feeling on this matter to the Cabinet, and also the arguments that have been presented. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friends will consider them. I hear some of my hon. Friends say that that is not good enough, but I am sure that they will recognise that I am trying to go as far as possible without in any way misleading them. I hope that hon. Members will accept that this will not prejudice any future action that they may wish to take.

Forgetting the Opposition for the moment, I say to my hon. Friends that it is certainly in the interests of our Government that we should look at this in the round. I shall take back the proposals that they have made, and if my hon. Friends wish to discuss the matter with me later they will be welcome. I assure them that their proposals will be put to my colleagues. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that I have gone as far as possible tonight and that I recognise the strength of their argument and their sincerity.

Does the Minister accept that we believe that the Government will decide to pay the bonus next year, and that that reinforces our view that this should be made clear here and now? Does he realise that we are trying to strengthen his hand just in case there is any problem with the Treasury? We feel sure that most of the Cabinet will want to pay the bonus, and we want to strengthen the Minister's hand to guard against any machinations.

My hon. Friend's crystal ball is obviously better than mine. I do not know what the position will be, but this is not the time to decide on the issue. That does not mean that the matter will not be considered seriously, but in this debate it should not be decided. Many hon. Members have spoken tonight, but there are other views that have not been considered. I want to carry the argument further so that when the matter is discussed the Government can take into account the strength of feeling that exists. I hope that we can go forward on that basis, and I therefore urge my hon. Friends not to press the amendment.

My right hon. Friend said that we were concerned to ensure that the pensioners got their bonus this year. That is not jeopardised by what my hon. Friends and I are attempting to secure tonight. Our aim is to ensure that they receive their bonus this year, next year and every year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) pointed out, if it had been possible we would have amended the figure of £10, but that was prevented by the terms of the Money Resolution. We want to take the doubt out of pensioners' minds and remove payment of their bonus from the charitable discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If my hon. Friends force a Division on this issue tonight, as they are free to do, and if they lose that Division, their aims in this direction will be severely damaged. They have made their case clear tonight. I advise them not to be tempted by the Opposition.

My right hon. Friend said earlier that the matter would have to be considered and that he would take account of our representations. But this decision is one for the House of Commons. There is no better time to take it than now. That may sound churlish in view of what he has said, but, unfortunately, his words do not go far enough. I must, therefore, invite my hon. Friends to follow me into the Lobby.

I beg to move:

That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R./3265/76 and R/1961/77 on the preservation of birds.

The proposal for a directive on this subject was made at the end of last year. The purpose was to ensure that all member States give general protection to wild birds. There was, and is, need for action of this kind. That was demonstrated by the concern expressed by hon. Members and by many members of the public last year about the mass slaughter of migrant birds that takes place in certain other countries. The Government have consistently expressed strong support for the principles of the directive, while seeking a number of detailed changes in its provisions.

Although the proposal is on broadly similar lines to our own Protection of Birds Acts, the original drafting did not take the needs of all interests fully into account. The Select Committee pointed out that the needs of game bird management, falconry, aircraft safety, public health and even of agriculture did not seem to have been adequately considered. However, in our consideration of the draft we have sought to consult all relevant interests, ranging from conservation bodies and field sports and shooting organisations to local authorities and those concerned with aircraft safety and with falconry. We have consulted bird fanciers, food manufacturers and public health services. We have been particularly conscious that some birds can have a damaging effect on agriculture, and my colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture have been closely involved in all our discussions. I am pleased to say that, on virtually every point, we have been able to reach agreement on the amendments that should be sought to the draft.

Since last December this directive has been intensively discussed by officials in the Council's Environmental Working Group, and these discussions are still going on—indeed, the group has been meeting today, and will be meeting again tomorrow. As a result, the text has been substantially revised, and the revised Explanatory Memorandum which my right hon. Friend submitted on 8th November indicates that many of points have been met.

The group has also considered proposals from other quarters, notably from the European Parliament. There is general support in the group for the directive, and it had been hoped that it would be ready for submission to the Council of Ministers in December. This is not likely, but Ministers will probably be asked to give political guidance on a number of outstanding points. I would hope that the directive will then be ready for adoption by the Council during the first half of next year. Most of the outstanding points are discussed in the Select Committee's report, and I would welcome the views of hon. Members on them.

The first concerns the sale of dead birds, one of the few points on which there has been a difference of view in the United Kingdom. Our own Protection of Birds Acts allow the sale of any dead game birds except where there is evidence, as with wild geese, that this commercialisation may be harmful to the species. The directive is much more restrictive in the species which can be sold—an approach supported by many conservation bodies. The views of the working group are divided on this point, and a political decision may be required. The European Parliament has recommended that, with the advent of deep freezers, the prohibition on sales during the close season should be abandoned, and this is another point still under consideration.

The directive prohibits large-scale nonselective methods of killing, and this is what has concerned most hon. Members. Some countries have difficulties over this, but we do not. We share the view expressed to the Select Committee that punt-gunning and night shooting are not prohibited. While the directive goes beyond the Protection of Birds Acts in prohibiting the use of automatic and semi-automatic weapons to kill birds, we believe that such a prohibition would be generally acceptable, particularly as I understand that it is possible to modify existing weapons.

The Directive contains provisions to permit otherwise prohibited actions such as the killing of birds for special reasons, such as pest control. These derogations can be incorporated in national legislation, and there is no question of a reference to the Commission each time one is required. This part of the directive has been completely redrafted, so that derogations are permitted in the interests of public health and safety and air safety, to prevent damage to agriculture, for rescue operations, veterinary treatment and mercy killing, to protect indigenous flora and fauna, and for scientific research and rearing. This covers many of the areas of concern mentioned to the Select Committee.

The procedure for derogations is still under consideration, and we are seeking to maintain a balance between the needs of member States to safeguard their essential interests and the desirability of some Community supervision.

Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what all this has to do with the EEC? Will he tell us what the authority is, under the European Communities Act, the Treaty of Accession or the Treaty of Rome, that entitles all the legislative paraphernalia of the Common Market to legislate for Britain on a subject like this?

There is provision in the articles for this to happen. I am sure that where a matter affects all the member States, as the problem of migrant birds does, there is need for Common Market interest. Indeed, in this case there is need for international interest as well.

In particular, the needs of agriculture can be covered in this way, and the general view of the group is that a separate list of pest species is unnecessary in the directive. We have doubts about this, and in any event would continue, for practical reasons, to maintain a schedule of nest species in the Protection of Birds Acts. Falconry will also be covered by this derogation procedure, and a reference to falconry as a legitimate form of hunting has been inserted elsewhere in the directive. The interests of bird fanciers will again be covered under the derogations procedure.

The Select Committees refers to the needs of game bird management. Many of the problems have been resolved by limiting the scope of the directive to naturally occurring wild birds, so excluding captive reared game birds, and the scope of the derogations procedure is wide enough to cover egg harvesting for example, of lapwing and gulls eggs—and the taking of young birds or eggs from the wild for rearing or hatching in captivity.

It is clearly necessary to have machinery for amending the lists of specially protected species and of quarry species, and the list of prohibited methods of killing, and other detailed matters which are included in the annexes to the directive. This will be done by a technical progress committee, but that committee will not itself be able to alter the articles. It will consist of Government representatives, but we intend to ensure that all interests are consulted on its work, as has been done with the directive itself. We recognise that such changes can be controversial, and, indeed, the group is having great difficulty in agreeing the contents of some of the annexes.

I am pleased, therefore, to say that the directive is likely to emerge in a form even closer to our present legislation, and that it is likely to require few amendments to the Protection of Birds Acts. We shall, however, benefit from increased protection given to migrating birds on their way to and from this country.

I am pleased that the Select Committee's report and our own consultations indicate that there is general support for the directive. The United Kingdom has played a positive and active rôle in the discussion in the working group, and I share the views expressed to the Select Committee that this is a great and imaginative step forward in international bird protection.

I welcome what the Minister has had to say tonight on this subject. This is an interesting and very important subject, particularly to those who value our countryside. We have a wonderful rural heritage in Britain. Although we have set a very fine example in the past. I believe that we must seek to encourage others to follow that example. This is all contained in this legislation.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), let me say that as one who has sat for three years on the Scrutiny Committee looking at hundreds of instruments and pieces of legislation, some with an awful lot of nonsense, I believe that the more one looks into this matter the more one can appreciate that this is a very good illustration of harmonisation which ought to go forward.

In the past, man has been incredibly stupid and certainly utterly selfish in some countries over these matters. Therefore, the Select Committee on European Legislation on which I have the privilege to sit, had no hesitation in recommending this instrument for further debate in the House so that we could get the full support of the House in these matters. Even with the changes that have now been made. I still think that it is worth while debating the matter and asking the Minister a few questions.

The Committee is grateful to the Minister and his Department for the trouble taken in these matters. We like to think that our Committee had some influence on these matters. We had a very useful series of Comimttee meetings.

Looking at the purpose of the directive, I think that all would subscribe to it and support it. Looking at the aims and what it is trying to achieve, although it may take two years or more, I am sure that all will support it. I fear that in some areas it may be too late and it may be difficult to get back the birds that have gone and have been, perhaps lost for ever.

We welcome the fact that the member States will have a general power of derogation from the laws on taking, killing and sale, for purposes of conservation, research, teaching and breeding, and for the prevention of serious damage to crops, forests and water, provided that the method to be used receives the prior approval of the Commission. The reason I say that is simply because countries have different problems and different circumstances. We cannot all be the same in this matter. Therefore, it is necessary to have some derogations.

I think, too, that as we in Britain look at the draft directive we can congratulate ourselves as a nation, because most of the directive follows closely the general framework of the United Kingdom legislation on the protection of birds. Birds in Britain—I mean the feathered ones—have had considerable protection for a number of years. Long may that continue. I only wish that other countries—I mention Italy as one, and the Southern Mediterranean area—had the same concern that we have had over the years. I think that we can pat ourselves on the back for our legislation and for the fact that it is a pattern for the Community.

As to the policy implications, because United Kingdom legislation on birds largely accords with modern concepts of conservation the United Kingdom is likely to face fewer problems in implementing the directive than some other member States. While I think that we may not find it very difficult to carry out this legislation, I believe that other countries will find it so. I only hope that they will have the determination, and that the reports that have to be sent to the Commission during the coming years will show very clearly that they are prepared to implement these policies. They have to take these matters seriously, they must be enforced. I hope that the Commission will be fairly tough in these matters, because the constant slaughter of many lovely birds, some of which are very rare, is a real crime. The idea of shooting anything that moves, as they do in some countries, is to me, as a countryman, unfortunate to say the least.

The Select Committee received evidence from various associations. I will not read them all, but they fully co-operated with us in every way. Each in its own way played a real part. Some had different opinions, and were concerned about different things, but they all played a part and were extremely helpful. I thank them for their co-operation.

The various problems that arose in the Committee have mostly been solved. I did not know that so many people were keen on falconry. I did not realise the importance of airfield clearance. I did not know much about punt-gunning and night shooting of birds, but all these things are important to certain people.

Progress has been made in the latest draft, and I am sure that the House will welcome what has been achieved through the representations. It is important that the House should listen carefully to all these bodies so that their specialist views and knowledge can be brought to bear.

One or two points arose in particular. There is the argument about the undesirability of imposing uniform condition of bird protection throughout the EEC. It seems extraordinary that we should have hundreds of miles in which there will be uniformity. I hope that admitted derogations will be considered very carefully to cover the needs of various countries, and I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the Government will seek to bring that about.

I turn now to the composition of the Technical and Progress Committee. The draft directive in its original form proposed the setting up of a committee consisting of representatives from member States under the chairmanship of the Commission to adopt the directive on technical and scientific progress. That is important. Nothing stands still. We must be on the watch for progress in new technical matters. Therefore, this committee must sit and be prepared to make up-to-date decisions.

What is important is the fact that one or two bodies have spoken to us about assurances that in selecting the United Kingdom representatives shooting interests are not left out. I declare an interest in that I enjoy my shooting and I want to see representatives of the shooting brigade on this committee.

Then there is the restriction on the sales of dead game birds. Again we are concerned about it. The Department's explanatory memorandum sets out the restrictions which are considerably loosened by the additions to the annexe of species to be sold. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us more information about the species likely to be added.

Also, we hope that the Minister will make quite clear the position of the poulterer who buys a pheasant legitimately in the open season and sells it in the close season. Will he clarify that point?

Lastly, on the question of enforcement, I hope the Minister, if he is dealing with this matter in Brussels, will make it clear that many of the penalties are far too low or small. It is ridiculous that some of these valuable birds should be taken or that their eggs should be sold at high prices and that the penalties for so doing should be so tiny. I hope that there can be some fairly tough dialogue in that respect, and I hope that the Minister will say something on the point tonight.

I have received a letter from the Food Manufacturers Federation, which slightly surprised me. It appears that the federation is still concerned about this directive because of its effect on companies that store food. One thinks of the storage of dried milk in bulk and other material stacked in storehouse premises. Birds can easily cause contamination, and there can be bird infestation of such material. The federation feels that it may be hindered from dealing drastically with bird damage to food. I hope the Minister will make the situation clear so that the federation will be able to take sudden and drastic steps to deal with heavy infestation in a factory or store where food is being processed or made. The federation would like to be reassured on this point.

There have been many stupid harmonisation measures, including provisions on tinkers' licences, exhaust pipes and motor horns, but I believe that this measure is a worthy one. The small Committee of which I was Chairman supports the measure and also the efforts of the Government in this respect.

I find myself in a large measure of agreement with the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). He suggested that it was appropriate that we should consider the subject of birds tonight. It is certainly idiomatically proper that we should do so, in view of the fact that on this same night the Miss World contest is taking place. The young ladies involved in that industry are more able than the feathered variety to care for themselves, and that certainly applies to the PR people involved in the presentation of the contest, who look after themselves very nicely.

We are concerned about the many hundreds of species of birds that require urgent attention in Western Europe. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is one of the more appropriate forms of harmonisation. Since this directive will be of considerable help in saving our natural heritage, it is much to be welcomed.

I am delighted that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is taking a pleasant view of this development. I believe that all interested organisations are viewing it kindly. It appears that as the process of consultation developed those bodies became more favourably disposed towards the directive. That goes for responsible bodies, such as the Wild-fowlers Association.

The proposals are broadly similar to existing United Kingdom legislation, which has been most helpful. Indeed, our reserves of wild birds are envied in many parts of the world. I believe that the present situation would not have been achieved without the response and consideration given to this matter by successive Governments. The situation has improved since last year, when the House afforded favourable consideration to the amending Bill. I was grateful for the Government's helpful attitude on that occasion. The Government has maintained their commendable concern in the ensuing months.

Reference has been made to the Select Committee on European Legislation, and we are grateful for the line taken by that Committee. Members of this House were greatly concerned, if not appalled, at the evidence in recent years of the astonishing annihilation of millions of birds in and around the Mediterranean, especially in Italy. The fact that many British people were offended is obviously of great concern to us, but we probably do not realise that the massive slaughter caused concern throughout many parts of Northern Europe. There was a great deal of feeling in Britain and other countries. That should not be regarded as meddlesome interference, as millions of the birds killed were obviously on their way to our own and other countries. The slaughter seems to be senseless as there is very little flesh on the carcase of a warbler. It is rather sad that we lost so many of these small birds for such little purpose.

I hope that the attitude that has already been suggested in this debate will not allow a weakening of the proposed position. It could mean that smaller birds receive less consideration as there seems to be some concentration upon the more unusual and exotic species.

The concern of millions has been properly borne in mind by the Community, but perhaps it is fair to make reference to other organisations. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on which I serve, has been very much involved in these matters. The political institutions of Western Europe have rightly reflected the growing pressure and great anxiety of many millions.

In common with the hon. Member for Devon, West, I am not always enthusiastic about many of the directives that we have to consider, but I believe that this one is especially welcome. That is because it is relevant to the interests of many and is broadly similar to our own legislation. It may—perhaps rightly—put a little more stress on habitat than our own legislation, but by and large it is acceptable. I am delighted that it will not require anything but minor amendment to our existing legislation.

I regard the directive favourably, especially because the Government and the Community have paid careful regard to the views of those with expert knowledge. There are many with expert knowledge in the United Kingdom. It would have been foolish for politicians and administrators to concern themselves with the matter to the exclusion of that tremendous body of expertise.

I hope that when the regular reviews take place we shall in no way depart from the splendid precedent that the Government have set of ensuring that consultation takes place with experts. I hope that that will continue. I hope that those who represent the United Kingdom's interests in future consultations will themselves be knowledgeable and will have readily available to them the considerable knowledge that exists.

One of the directive's great attractions is that member States will have to submit reports at regular intervals. They will have to subject themselves to the scrutiny of their neighbours. That places the onus upon the interested individuals and organisations. It seems that without being unnecessarily meddlesome those who are concerned with conservation will have to ensure that they keep an eye on activities throughout the Community. I suppose that this is suggesting that they be good Europeans in a conservationist sense.

The explanatory memorandum suggests that there is a possibility that night shooting will one day be specifically prohibited. I am not entirely opposed to that, but I am anxious about the definition of "night". Will that definition be in accordance with national interpretation, or is there some Community definition of which we should be aware? Secondly, will my hon. Friend offer an assurance that the use of nets, decoys and traps for recording reasons—perhaps purely for research—will not be prevented if it is carried out only by authorised and reputable persons? It is essential that we continue to maintain our knowledge of ornithology, and that sort of activity is at times necessary. My hon. Friend will do well to give an assurance in that respect.

Broadly, I agree with the species listed in the annexe, but I wonder why the red kite, the goshawk, the merlin and perhaps even the raven and the chough are excluded. In case the House suggests that I am in favour of the predator, it seems that some of the smaller and rarer warblers and the bearded tit have been omitted. There seems a possibility that the legislation for protection is weighted in favour of the more exotic.

I also regret the inclusion of one or two of the species in Annexe II, particularly the merganser and the bar-tailed godwit.

A point that may arise in the future concerns the question of a species that may be common and a nuisance in one member State, so that it is afforded no protection, but could well fly into and perhaps become resident in another member State where it becomes a rarity. There should be adequate flexibility so that the rarity can be protected rather than suffer the common condemnation that may arise from its being a nuisance in another member State.

I would not dream of asking my hon. Friend to answer those questions tonight, but I hope that he will find time to drop me a line about them. I also hope that my hon. Friend will resist any demands that the proposals should be necessarily weakened. It is essential that the species now in danger, some of them at serious risk of extinction, survive. We should accept that the basic reason for the decline of many of those species is not a change in climate or anything of that kind. It is to a large extent due to the often senseless destruction of the birds and very often the unnecessary destruction of their habitat.

I hope that the directive will be properly effective before long and that it will ensure that our future springs in Northern Europe, and certainly in the United Kingdom, will continue to witness the arrival of these migatory species which have been put at so much hazard in recent years. I hope that our summers will continue to be enriched by their colour and their song. We have a saying that one swallow does not make a summer, but a summer without the swallow would be incomplete. We must protect our natural heritage and our springs and summers. I do not think that we can do so effectively acting purely as an individual State. It is essential that the Community should take action.

The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) questioned the legal basis. There is a strong moral basis, but I believe that Articles 100 and 235 of the Treaty of Rome offer adequate justification in law. Law and good sense dictate the action proposed.

I am grateful that the Select Committee made it possible for us to have this debate, and I am grateful for the way in which the Government have tackled it. I only hope that the rest of Europe will follow the pattern that we have long established.

I support the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and Devon, West (Mr. Mills), and very much welcome the directive. It is one of the most sensible things to come out of the EEC for a long time. It is certainly a matter of great importance for the survival of nature. In Italy and some of the other Mediterranean countries the whole balance of nature has been disturbed by the enormous slaughter that has taken place.

On a recent visit to the dentist I read a colour supplement, I think of the Sunday Telegraph, of some months ago. Any hon. Member who has doubts about the directive should read that supplement, because it shows in startling detail exactly what has been going on, and presumably is still going on this autumn, particularly in Italy. There are the most ghastly forms of traps, liming and nets. Decoy birds are used to attract others in.

What is it all about? It is done purely for financial gain, at a time when people in Western Europe have plenty to eat and there is no need for this senseless slaughter. Between 100 million and 250 million birds are being slaughtered each year. I do not think that this country is suffering from the loss of the birds, because I understand that on the whole those that migrate to the United Kingdom probably pass through Spain, but there must be a dramatic effect on Germany.

The effect is also felt in North Africa, where pesticides and other means are having to be used to deal with pests that would have been dealt with naturally by the birds that have been killed. Therefore, this is a matter of great significance, and I congratulate every hon. Member who has had any part in assisting in the compilation of the directive, and particularly the very competent organisations operating in this country. We are fortunate to have such organisations as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. We lead the world in this field. One has only to go to the RSPB's annual get-together, which was held in Nottingham this year, to see how many people come from all parts of the world to attend. We are fortunate to have that organisation's advice, and that of others, and, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said, I hope that we shall continue to take it.

I would like to see the directive implemented as soon as possible. I was disappointed to learn that implementation is not expected until the middle of next year. I hope that the Minister will use all his powers to ensure that it is implemented early next year so that it becomes effective by the autumn.

There must be constant monitoring. I understand that annual reports must be presented by the countries concerned. I accept that there must be derogations. But I hope that we check that they are not bogus under the guise that certain birds are damaging to crops, for instance. This country will be honest, but I suspect that derogations might be used to avoid implementation of the regulations. We must watch that carefully.

The article in the Sunday Telegraph showed that some finches and other species were coming into Britain in dressed form for consumption. For example, thrush pâte comes here from France. We should try to prevent such imports. Are the Government doing anything about that?

I understand that there are to be two additional annexes to the directive. I believe that the fourth annexe will itemise the various traps and decoys which are to be prohibited. I am not sure what is to be in the fifth annexe. Could the Minister tell the House about it?

I am delighted to be able to speak in the House on this subject. I support everything that has been said.

I shall be brief, not least because I agree so whole-heartedly with everything that has been said by previous speakers. I was particularly impressed with the points made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr Ross). I shall not reiterate the matters that he raised with the Minister. I second him in the answers and assurances that he sought, particularly on the time factor. Implementation will require legislation in some member States. One wonders what the chances are of implementation within a time that most of us would regard as reasonable instead of its dragging on, permitting a continuation of the present annihilation of birds. I hope that there will be no waste of time in adopting the directive. It is of enormous significance to bird conservation.

I stress the extent to which the directive shows how the Community is often able to achieve internal advances that are beyond the capability of individual Governments. No amount of pressure over many years on particular member States which have been the principal offenders in permitting the indiscriminate slaughter of migratory birds has had any real effect. In spite of the efforts of all the bodies in this country—the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others—which have done so much valuable work in bringing these appalling circumstances to public and international attention, there had been very little effect before the Community itself stepped in. We have the culmination now in this very welcome draft directive.

I shall not name the countries which I have in mind as the worst offenders, but I can illustrate what I mean by relating one experience I had, an experience which may well be common among hon. Members on both sides who have tried to bring pressure to bear on the Governments involved. I made personal representations on the subject not long ago to one ambassador, and he told me that, while he strongly deprecated the practices in his country of which I complained—practices causing indiscriminate slaughter among birds, often by utterly distasteful methods such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight—he did not think that his Government would be able to intervene because of the fear of electoral repercussions which might result from interference with a popular recreation in his country.

What a frightful state of affairs that frank statement reflected! Clearly, it shows the value of having an international body such as the Community able to bring concerted pressure to bear in that sort of political situation.

The directive is modelled largely on our own Protection of Birds Act. There are certain improvements of detail, to which the Minister properly referred, but they appear to be more of a formal than a substantive nature for the United Kingdom. So far as I know, there is no immediate need for amendments to our statute law, but should that need arise, as it undoubtedly will in due course, I hope that the improvements contained in the directive will at that stage be formally embodied in our own law.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) for the way he chaired the Select Committee and brought all the interests together. I pay tribute also to the outcome of his Committee's recommendations in that we are having this important debate tonight on an EEC instrument which breaks entirely new ground inasmuch as it is liable to affect the conduct of field sports and other matters in this country. It is right that it should be considered in detail by the House.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) may well ask what the EEC is doing considering these matters—has it run out of steam on economic matters and is now turning to the protection of birds? I must admit to some disquiet about the proposals in the directive as they existed at the time of its publication in December last year. Although its originators at that time were well intentioned, the directive showed far too much influence from the uninitiated lobby in Brussels, from people such as the Friends of the Earth, and far too little thought given at that stage to the widely differing climatic conditions throughout the Community, extending from the North of Scotland to the southern tip of Italy.

Very little consideration has been given to the role of the sportsman as a conservationist. The British Field Sports Society, with which I am involved, was particularly concerned about the position of our oldest of all field sports, falconry, and we are also concerned about the position of game farming and the nonsense of the position which was first of all stated as regards the sale of dead game birds. The House should just ponder on the dangers of uninformed opinion rushing headlong into potential legislation and measures in the name of conservation and the preservation of wild life.

When this matter was debated in the European Parliament one German Member of that Parliament actually moved an amendment which would have had the effect of making duck, woodcock and even the red-legged partridge prohibited species from the point of view of being game birds.

It was very encouraging to see the United Kingdom delegation in these matters playing for once a constructive role. We are always being accused of being rather negative in Europe, and it was very encouraging to see a former colleague of ours—Basil de Ferranti—trying to make sense of this directive in its early stages. We are all grateful for the part played by Stanley Cramp, the Ornithological Adviser to the EEC, and to Professor Geoffrey Matthews.

I want to raise two brief points on the explanatory memorandum which the Minister has laid before us. I thank him and, in particular, the officials in his Department for the way in which they have dealt with the falconry problem. It is now expressly clear that falconry will continue in member countries where it has always been practised under the terms of Article 7. In conjunction with the British Falconers Club, I should like to say how grateful we are that this matter is being left without any doubts.

The hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) talked about the terrible things that some of our EEC partners do to birds of passage in particular, and I will not enlarge on that.

I turn to the all-important Article 9 of the directive which the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks. This is the part of the directive which allows member States to derogate under various headings from the specific terms of the directive as necessary. I think the Minister will agree that this article forms the linchpin of the directive.

I congratulate the Minister on obtaining it, and I hope that the agreement of other member States to a two-tier system of derogation whereby under the first-tier system provision will be made for this country to continue its well-established regulations will be firmly written into the final document. I hope we shall see no shifting from this situation, because the point about derogation is the most important part.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West dealt with paragraph 14 of the Minister's memorandum relating to the setting up of a technical progress committee. I hope that when the time comes for the committee to be set up its remit will be clearly defined. I should like the Minister's reassurance on this point.

In conclusion, it is fair to say that in some respects it is a pity that this directive, which is welcomed on both sides of the House, should be brought forward at such breakneck speed. At the beginning of this week we were not satisfied with it in its final form. We are now satisfied with it in its final form, but I would hope that if we are to see other measures on this aspect of the environment brought forward they will not be brought forward with such a rush and in such a higgledy-piggledy state. If it had not been for my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West, I doubt whether we should have achieved the agreement on consultations which at the last moment we have achieved.

I strongly support the proposals contained in the directive, but it wanders a good way from the Treaty of Rome and the EEC. It is difficult to see what relevance it has to the EEC at all. It seems that the authors of the document and those handling it had a bit of a job fitting it into an appropriate article of the Treaty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) said that Articles 100 and 235 were the ones that he thought covered it. That was so in the case of the original draft of the directive, but that was a little odd, because Article 100 is the one that enables the Community to issue directives in a proper manner as affecting the establishment or functions of the Common Market. I am not sure how that could be held to lead to such a directive. Therefore, when it was revised one of the changes was the removal of the words "Article 100" and the insertion of "Article 43", which deals with common agricultural policies, provides for a conference of member States on agricultural policy and provides for proposals for the working out of the common agricultural policy itself. It also provides for a marketing organisation and deals with certain raw materials. I am not sure how those matters could give rise to such a directive.

I am a supporter of the proposals but my worry is that, trouble having been taken to get the directive right, if when it comes to the crunch someone opposes it in any one of the countries of the Community, it might fail in the courts for the reason that it does not genuinely flow from the Treaty of Rome. It is, of course, an entirely environmental directive rather than an economic one. Quite apart from the legal questions about under which article the directive fits, I have some reservations about the EEC bringing such a directive forward. There is certainly no shortage of other things for the EEC to do which are perfectly within its field and which it could spend its time considering, including the common agricultural policy—which everybody agrees is far from satisfactory. Of course, there are other international bodies a large number of which provide ways for various nations to agree on conservation measures, not only in the EEC but much more widely, and not only for birds.

Above all, the boundaries of the EEC, whatever economic and political sense they may have, are not recognised by the birds. I live near Slimbridge, which is in the constituency next door to my own, and birds—particularly geese and swans —fly there from places well outside the EEC, regularly and in large numbers. At certain times of the year the resident birds must feel a little like we do in Parliament Square in the summer, because it is difficult to see another local about.

However, at least we can unreservedly welcome the fact that discussion on the directive has led to greater European co-operation between the various organisations concerned with these matters.

In following my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, it is perhaps particularly appropriate for me to mention the new field sports organisation that he has recently helped to set up. It is also noteworthy, in looking at the proceedings of the Select Committee, which was so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), to see how close the agreement was on this occasion, as quite often, between the conservationist organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and the field sports bodies such as the Field Sports Society and the WAGBI for Shooting and Conservation.

The directive is highly desirable, but constitutionally most dubious.

I should like to utter a word of caution. I am as keen as any hon. Member on bird preservation, and I should like to see the directive given much more force. I should like to see harmonisation at least of the contents of this regulation throughout Western Europe. But we must remember that not all of us in this House are always keen upon harmonisation of legislation. There have been occasions when we have taken the view that proposals from the EEC did not fit in with our British ideas.

It would be optimistic to think that by this House accepting this directive a similar welcome will greet it elsewhere in Europe.

I know that a number of hon. Members have tried to avoid the subject and not be beastly to the Italians, but it is possible to be beastly to the French as well and, no doubt to the Greeks and Spaniards, too, when the Community is expanded. There is a quotation about Latins making lousy lovers. I do not want to be racialist about that, but it may be true. It certainly is where birds are concerned. Of course, I am being facetious, but we must accept that countries where the hunting of birds is a traditional sport will regard the directive as an interference with their way of life. It is sad to have to admit it, but we must not be too optimistic about what we are doing.

If we cannot have harmonisation in this area we must accept that migratory birds will be preserved in this country but that their fate is to be slaughtered elsewhere in Europe. We must hope that the United Kingdom bodies associated with the protection of birds will do even more to extend their arguments into Europe.

I come back to the question of our legislation. Obviously we hold the lead in Western Europe for the preservation and protection of birds. But even our legislation lags behind the facts of life in an inflationary society. For proof of that one has only to look at the determination displayed by egg collectors in the history of the ospreys at Boat of Garten, and one has only to consider the money that can be made out of birds, bird skins, eggs and all the rest. Most of us would accept that fines imposed in this country are in many cases derisory because we are dealing with an activity which in many ways is big business.

Falconry has been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) said that it was an ancient sport. I have a number of falconers in my constituency. Ancient it may be, but I find it rather messy and I prefer to see it at a distance. But when one considers the value of a young falcon illegally taken, exported, smuggled and all the rest, one must accept that we are dealing with people who are criminals but are dealing in a big business. Small fines have very little effect on such people.

We have to think in terms of extending from this island the sort of sanctions that we hope will be imposed in Europe. I suggest that that will take a considerable time. There will be considerable difficulties in getting the rest of Europe to accept the attitudes that we accept on this island.

Of course, I welcome the directive. I should like to see it have more force, but that will take some time. I hope that that time will be shorter, but do not let us be too optimistic about the effects of the directive.

I was one of those who voted for the United Kingdom to enter the European Economic Community, but I do not think it was present in the minds of those who did so that at some stage we would be seeing the EEC taking over the legislative functions of this House. In fact, that is what is happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) referred to the purported justification for this interference in the powers of this House as Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome, which he explained, and another article. A third article probably covers this subject: Article 235, which is designed to secure the objectives of the Treaty of Rome in so far as those objectives are not covered by the article concerned. This is an example of the sort of powers that exist for harmonisation. If one can have harmonisation on the protection of birds one can harmonise on anything, including, for example, firearms legislation.

How does it come about that we in this House are prepared to give up the right to control the way of life in this country and all matters concerning the way of life of our citizens to some institution beyond the seas which purports to control us and have superior authority over us? It does not have that superior authority, and we should say that this directive does not apply to British institutions because it is this House which has power over these matters and we are not going to give up those powers.

I welcome the directive. Like a number of other hon. Members on both sides, I applaud the fact that it recognises that the birds of Europe are a common heritage and that their preservation is a problem which can be tackled only by international action. This is exactly the sort of problem that the European Community should be trying to tackle. It is only through international institutions that we shall ever be able to deal with the problem of preserving birds that migrate across international frontiers.

All debates on EEC matters revolve around the question of national sovereignty. There is always the danger of interfering in the affairs of other countries. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) is right in saying that the draft directive will not be received with the same enthusiasm in Italy as it has been received here tonight. Certainly, in Italy the trapping of birds is a very live political issue, and politicians wax very eloquent about it.

On the other hand, the trapping of birds in Italy causes great concern in many countries. The methods used are often indiscriminate, and when indiscriminate methods are used one can foresee that often rare birds will be trapped along with masses of other birds. When a bird is trapped by lime, it is only afterwards that one may discover that one has trapped a very rare species. Often flocks of birds such as finches will contain several species, and netting may result in the destruction of a very rare species.

It has also been shown that in some instances, such as that of the red-backed shrike, which is now becoming very rare in this country—we have fewer than 100 breeding pairs—one of the causes of the decline has been the killing of such birds in Italy. What happens to birds in Italy certainly affects our fauna.

I am glad that the directive places upon individual Governments the obligation to preserve habitats and to create the environment in which particularly rare species can be preserved. Some would argue that this is better than having fines. I am not sure that this is the case. Having a suitable habitat or suitable environment will not alone deal with the problem. If we are to have effective preservation measures it is also necessary to have a system of fines and one that takes into account all the changes in the value of money.

I noticed recently a case mentioned in the papers in which people had attempted to sell a peregrine falcon for £2,000. Even under the latest change in legislation the maximum fine that could have been imposed is £500. It is difficult to get information about the prices prevailing in the market because people are naturally reluctant to disclose the details of what goes on. There is little doubt that fines do not bear any relationship to the prices actually obtained in the market for birds illegally taken.

I have one or two points to make about the species in the annexes. It is surprising that the chuff is not in Annexe 1. It seems to be disappering from large areas of Europe and the population has certainly shrunk in certain areas of this country. I would have thought that the red-footed falcon was perhaps a candidate for inclusion in Annexe 1 as well as the great skua, although that breeds only in the Shetland Islands. Looking at the other annexes it seems strange that the wood pigeon is classified only as a game species since I would have thought that there was an argument for classifying it as a pest species. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) might be interested to know that in the annexe dealing with game birds it is only the male capercaillie and the male black grouse that are classified as game birds. Despite the fact that they are polygamous birds, I cannot see the logic for that distinction.

I reiterate what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said about Article 9. While I appreciate the arguments that have led to some modification of the powers of derogation, if this is to be meaningful it is essential that some powers should remain with the Commission. If that does not happen we shall find that the directive will be passed by national Governments but nothing will be done in individual countries to create the reservations and habitats necessary and which, according to the directive, national Governments should take action to create.

Apart from these small points, I warmly applaud the details of the directive and commend it to the House.

I apologise to the Front-Bench speakers for being unable to be present at the commencement of the debate. With the Miss World contestants busy outside it is indeed a night for the birds. The important points have been well made by hon. Members. I want to reiterate three of them.

First, I am sure that we are all agreed that the principles behind the directive are excellent, well argued and cogently placed before the House, but the concern must be whether they can be implemented and whether the principles can lead to a really effective contribution towards conservation. In this connection, although there may not be countries which are party to these discussions at this stage, I ask whether there have been discussions particularly with Spain, in view of the vast importance of the Spanish hinterland to migratory birds and their preservation.

Secondly, the question of the authority of the Commission to offer directives in this field was raised, and I think the House should recall the importance of maintaining a balance of nature within our environment. Agriculturalists would certainly argue that the preservation of bird life has a most important bearing on pest control, even though there are many modern methods of trying to improve yields and reduce pests. Nature's predators are sometimes the most effective in dealing with many of the problems of our farmers.

Thirdly, the international application of this matter is obviously very important and quite consistent with the way in which these conservation measures have been tackled in the past. The United Kingdom has been a signatory to a number of international obligations. A recent one was the Ramsar Convention on the Preservation of Wetlands. I have yet to see the Government following that up, or any decisions from the Department of the Environment which favour it.

We have had discussions with the hon. Gentleman's Department on the Tees-mouth project and on the Somerset wetlands, which we are not entirely satisfied have been given the true status of preservation which their rarity requires. This is a very sound way of proceeding, because we cannot preserve our heritage in isolation here in the United Kingdom. Bird life is an international heritage and it is only by international agreement that we can make some real progress towards solving some of the problems of preservation.

We have to bear in mind that the pressures towards conservation rest largely upon the backs of voluntary bodies, and tribute has been rightly paid in the debate to those—led, I suspect, by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and by the sporting interests, which have all played their part in this. But as we look to the future of European conservation we must wonder whether we shall obtain some support from voluntary bodies in other Community countries. In Italy there is not only the greatest slaughter of wild birds on migration. It is also the country with the least number of voluntary conservationists. There number—they do a remarkable job of work—is about 60,000, whereas in this country the RSPB has several hundred thousand members in the field, all helping to raise both money and enthusiasm to protect the wild heritage which we enjoy so much.

In debating these issues we must recognise that the contribution we can perhaps most effectively make is to encourage the establishment of voluntary bodies to take forward the legislative proposals which are before the House and to translate them into effective action, which so often means merely watching developments to make certain that actions are not taken by Governments or other interested parties which ignore the importance of maintaining a balance in nature and conservation.

It is good to have a directive of this kind, which has wholehearted support on both sides of the House, and I am sure that we all wish it well.

I too, should like to applaud the hard work which has evidently gone into this directive. In the course of the debate the truth has gradually emerged as to what this is all about. I think it is a question of ganging up on Italy.

I can claim to have been present at the death of the last Italian woodcock. This happened in a pinewood in Ravenna not far behind the Eight Army Front in March 1945. My childish recollections of Italy are most vivid for the shops one saw in places such as Milan, where the game dealers had whole slabs covered with tiny birds which were eagerly bought by the inhabitants. I think that, in doing what we have done, we have to consider that there has grown up in Italy a certain vested interest in this sort of thing, and that we should perhaps try to make practical suggestions on how to deal with it.

I want to turn the Minister's attention to Sturnus vulgaris, which is in Annexe II. It is a serious problem in this country. It is doing serious damage to our forests. So far as I can see, the Government are doing nothing about it. I do not know what the practical problems are, but perhaps the Government could try using helicopters to see whether they would be of use in dealing with the problem. Perhaps Sturnus vulgaris, if it could be dealt with in quantity, could be exported to Italy and appear on the slabs of the game dealers of Milan and elsewhere. In that way, we might get more co-operation from the Italians in dealing with this legislation.

There is another bird that I much dislike in Annex II—Steptopelia decaoctoa, a comparatively recent immigrant. I am rather shocked to see that it is a game bird in only some of the countries of the Community. Is it not possible to get some harmonisation here? The countries which do not seem to treat it as a game bird are quite small. Surely it is possible to bully the small countries in the Community and make them come into line and have it recognised as a game bird all over the Common Market.

Talking of Italy, it occurs to me that the Vatican City is a member of the EEC. When I was in Rome this year, I did not observe any doves hovering even over St. Peter's Square. We should inquire whether shooting takes place by cardinals out of Vatican windows.

I add my praise to an excellent piece of work, and I hope that the Government will take seriously their obligations under Article 2, because it is so very relevant to the whole problem of Stanzas vulgaris.

I thank all those who have spoken for their contributions. This has been one of the most pleasant debates on Community legislation that I have ever taken part in or attended. Rarely can any Minister have had such a pleasant ride. It may be because the "shooting brigade" is here—and I do not mean the usual shooting brigade which attends Community debates.

This is not just a question of the House taking note of a Community directive but of Ministers taking note of what the House says, and I assure hon. Members that I shall do so. I shall not go into detail on the species that have been mentioned, particularly by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More).

We shall examine all the points that have been made in the debate.

The only note in the debate of the usual Community character, was that about the articles. I accept that Article 100 is not relevant in this case and that there are doubts about Article 43. But I am advised that Article 235 of the Treaty of Rome allows the Community to do anything relevant to its functions with the agreement of all of its members.

We in this House have always accepted that environmental concerns are a proper area of Community authority, and much of the work done in my Deparament—on air pollution, for example—is, as the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) said, a very important part of the harmonisation process.

The hon. Gentleman said that Article 235 covers this matter in effect. But I understand that it provides a blanket permission to do things subject to the rules for achieving the objectives of the EEC. As far as I am aware, the objectives of the EEC as stated in the Treaty of Rome do not include harmonisation of the environment—and Lord preserve it from ever becoming one of them.

For this evening's debate, at any rate, I shall take it that the House has already debated a number of matters concerning the environment. With all the points that have been raised, I do not know whether we should be discussing that at present.

The hon. Member for Devon, West raised a number of matters. He asked whether it was right to attempt to apply common standards throughout the Community. We believe that there are certain common principles of bird conservation, such as the general prohibition of the killing or capture of birds with a limited number of clearly defined exceptions—the prohibitions that I have mentioned. Birds migrate from one country to another. Last year—and this year as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) pointed out—there was great concern in this country and in others, including Italy, about the mass slaughter of migratory birds that takes place. This directive provides a means of enforcing these common principles on all Governments in the Community, and I have no reason to believe that the Governments in the Community have any fundamental objection to it.

The derogations procedure provides the flexibility needed to take account of different national problems, though I take note of what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) about not allowing too much, perhaps, to national derogation. However, the feeling in the group at present is that all of it should go to national derogations, with a sort of retrospective look at them by the Commission. I shall note what the hon. Gentleman said on that point.

Of course, it is desirable to extend the principles beyond the limits of the EEC. We are already involved in discussions in the Council of Europe and with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature about further conventions on this subject. We hope that Spain will take part in the conventions. However, these are some way off, and we cannot yet be sure how effective they will be.

I am convinced that it is right to start at the Community level. Then we can use the directive as a basis for these wider discussions, as our own Acts have been used as the basis for this directive.

On the question of representation on the Technical Progress Committee, I think that representation of all the interests—the Friends of the Earth, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and the shooting brigade, as it has been called tonight—would be unworkable. We consider that Government representation is the only practical way of proceeding. However, it is our intention to consult all relevant interests over the work of this committee, just as we have consulted on the directive.

On the sale of dead game birds, I can only repeat that there is a difference of view on this point in the group. Some of those we have consulted would like to see the number of dead game birds that can be sold severely limited to traditional delicacies, such as grouse, partridges and pheasants, as the Commission has proposed. They argue that many species can stand shooting for sport but not shooting for sale. This difference has been mirrored in the discussions in the working party, where some 60 species have been proposed for addition to the particular schedule. I can only say that we shall consider carefully the views expressed in the House this evening on the ongoing discussions and in particular when the directive comes before the Council of Ministers.

On the point about sales in the close season, we in the United Kingdom believe at present that the ban on the sale of dead game birds in the close season should be maintained, despite the advent of deep freezers. Without such a ban the temptation to ignore the close season is that much greater. However, it is clear that many of our partners, in indeed, the European Parliament, do not agree with this view. Fortunately, it is likely that the directive will allow member States to keep more stringent provisions of this nature in their own legislation. One again we shall consider carefully the views that have been expressed.

On the question of deficiencies in the existing legislation, raised by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder), my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) and others, it seems likely that some amendments will be required to the Protection of Birds Acts as a result of this directive. When we deal with that, we shall certainly take the opportunity of considering whether other amendments to such Acts, such as increases in penalties should be proposed at the same time.

I realise that enforcement is a problem. It is a problem for us and it is probably even greater for the Italians, but increasingly there is public support and education in this field. This is having an effect in this country. We believe that international action of this kind will provide that pressure in other countries.

A number of different ways of dealing with derogations has been proposed and we still have to agree on a final form of the procedure. However, whatever procedure is adopted, we intend to ensure that we are still free to deal with the problems of public health and safety, aircraft safety and agricultural pests, and the needs of falconry, aviculture, rearing and veterinary educational and scientific work in a proper manner. Indeed we have taken a leading part in the group establishing these needs so that they are fully taken into account in the directive.

Reference was made to a letter from the Food Manufacturers' Association. It is thinking in terms of the first of the draft directives. We are fully aware of the need for food manufacturers to deal with public health problems caused by birds. As I said in opening the debate, the article dealing with derogations from the directive has been completely redrafted and now specifically allows derogations in the interest of public health and safety.

The Federation is one of the bodies which has been consulted on the directive, and the position was explained by my officials at a meeting on 12th October at which the Federation was represented. If it is still worried when it considers the revised memorandum, I shall look at it again. I do not think the Federation will have any need to be worried.

I am grateful for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Hardy). He has apologised for having left the Chamber; he had to be in Yorkshire very early tomorrow morning. At times his speech was quite poetic. He asked me to define the word "night ". I do not think one could ask anyone in this House to define "night" —we never seem to know whether it is night or day. There is no intention to prohibit night shooting, there is no reference to it in the directive and no definition, so I shall not try to define it. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of species, which I shall deal with later. The list in the annexe is far from agreed upon, but I shall look at the species that he mentioned.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight talked about effectiveness before next Autumn. Normally there is a two-year period for implementation by member Governments, and we, with our parliamentary programme as it is, will need another year before we can get amendments on this matter through the House, the hon. Member mentioned Annexe 5, which lists types of research that member States are required to carry out in the directive.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) congratulated the Government, and I am grateful to him. I know that he will not congratulate us on Wednesday when we are talking about otters. I know that the Belgian presidency is very keen to get this before the Council of Ministers on 12th December, but I am afraid that it probably will be discussed for the political points to be raised, then referred back to the working party. We welcome all the speed that we can get on this matter.

I have mentioned the point about penalties which the hon. Member for Clitheroe raised. I can certainly assure him that in the Department we looked seriously at this point. He has mentioned wetlands. We are in difficulties here. One of my problems is that I deal with applications for mineral planning and also with areas of outstanding natural beauty, and invariably I find that they are in the same place.

I should like to thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, especially at such a late hour. I assure them that we shall take note of all that has been said in the discussions.

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of accommodation for gipsies. The last time the Minister and I clashed, if I may use the word, in an Adjournment debate was two years ago. We have a distinct improvement on the then situation, since we are beginning this debate four hours earlier.

I am sorry to drag the Minister back to the realms of reality from discussing vatican cardinals, polygamous birds and other delightful bird species. However, if I may now become serious, we are in this debate dealing with a national problem. We all have this problem in our constituencies, but I shall attempt to approach the matter on a national basis. I shall quote examples in my constituency to decorate the national picture.

I know that the Minister has spent much time on this subject, particularly since April of this year. He has travelled the country and held consultations following the publication of the Cripps Report. Therefore, it is fitting that this debate should take place so that we may hear the Minister's views.

Let me at the outset, give some figures and the Minister may be able to give the latest figures when he replies to the debate. Following the Caravan Sites Act 1968 there are now 133 local authority sites, which means that there are pitches for 2,131 caravans. That means that this is a sufficient number to accommodate only one quarter of the gipsy population. That leaves about 6,000 gipsy families on the loose throughout the length and breadth of these islands, and that underlines the extent of the problem. Therefore, in spite of all the action and efforts since 1968, local authorities can still cope with only a quarter of the gipsy population.

On a local level, I wish to refer to my Division of Leominster, which in essence is North Herefordshire. In the old county of Herefordshire there are no sites at all. There are some sites in Worcestershire, but the old Herefordshire County Council did not take the necsessary decision. The new authority of Hereford and Worcester has still taken no decision on the issue.

We have a stalemate situation typical of the position in many other areas in the country. Because many authorities have not provided sufficient sites, or in my case no sites, they are unable to move on gipsies or travellers generally. They cannot do so because of diktats laying down that such travellers are not able to be moved elsewhere because that would create problems in other areas, particularly when there are no sites for them to go to in the first place.

The rest of the statement is that for many gipsies there is just nowhere legally they can go.

The net position is that those travellers are on the highways and byways of Herefordshire, as they are in most other counties. The problem is gradually mounting, and yesterday the subject was featured at Question Time when transport matters were being dealt with. One hon. Member complained bitterly about the state of a lay-by in his constituency, and he was backed by hon. Members from both sides of the House who had similar problems.

I should like to give a couple of examples showing that there are two points of view on this subject. I shall use my own area for the purpose. We have in our area a body which has carried out much valuable work, called the Hereford Travellers Support Group. That group has conducted a recent census, which is not complete since the group is still working on it. It appears that about 40 families are being moved on continuously with all the attendant problems in the old county of Herefordshire.

On the other side of the coin, among my constituents are many long-suffering residents in various villages and places where gipsies tend to dwell and on from which they are not moved. One example —this is something of a jewel as it combines just about all the different entities of the problem—is Bishopstone, which is very close to Hereford.

At Bishopstone there is one family and its caravan. The family has been there since January 1976. It has been there with the mother and father and various members of the family ever since. It has not moved out during that time, and a tremendous amount of effort has been exerted by the highways department because it considers the caravan to constitute a road hazard. Similar efforts have been exerted by the social services department and the local district council. We have all the elements in this example.

There have been numerous meetings between all the bodies I have mentioned to discuss the presence of the family. The extent of the problem can be mirrored by the fact that the family was four or five months ago offered a house by the district council. It was not merely a house, it was an old school building that had a hardcore surface so that the family could live in the house and have caravans parked on the hardcore surface. The family refused the offer because it thought that the school building was too far from Hereford. It was some six miles further out than the position that it was occupying at Bishopstone.

The offer was made four or five months ago and still the social services department is going around wringing its hands in anxiety. The highways department is "going spare" because of the road hazard that the caravan constitutes. The district council is fed up with the whole thing. That is typical of the administrative indecision, difficulty and expense that is involved in the whole problem.

It happens that my constituency borders on my hon. Friend's constituency. Salop County Council has established a site for gipsies within three miles of my hon. Friend's constituency. It has been an example of two difficulties. First, there has been intense opposition locally. That arises from the fact that the gipsies are not under any proper authoritative control. Secondly, there is a category of gipsy—my constituents call its members Irish tinkers—for whom the right solution would be reportation to Southern Ireland. Will the Government face this situation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that his constituency suffers considerably from the problems. I do not know the exact geographical situation, but fortunately his constituency is perhaps a little near Ireland than mine, or the part of Ireland from whence comes the sort of gipsy to whom my hon. Friend refers. Therefore, he gets a greater extent of the truly troublesome element of the travelling population with which we are dealing. I know that from my reading of the local Press, part of which I share with my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will deal with his point.

The Caravan Sites Act 1968 has run out of steam. The Department realises that perfectly well, and that is demonstrated by the fact that it asked Mr. Cripps to consider the matter and report to it. The fact is that the Act has run out of steam and is not sufficient of an answer. The Cripps Committee reported in April 1977. It was a good report that was well presented. The Minister sent it to myself and other Members who he knew had a gipsy problem.

He then said that he would begin consultation. That was in April 1977. The hon. Gentleman has been around the country. We are now behind schedule in that the Cripps Report recommended that there should be a quota for county councils that should be settled by 31st October. We are already in November, and we are behind schedule.

I gather that the Minister—I hope that he will be able to fill us in on this—is still consulting and travelling around the country discussing the problem that we know exists and to which, dare I say, we know the answer. The answer is money, and that is probably part of the hon. Gentleman's problem. He has our sympathy in that respect. However, I am dealing with priorities and I hope that I shall be able to urge this priority upon him. The Cripps proposal on the money that would be necessary was—this is the great fear in the present economic situation—a 100 per cent. Exchequer grant towards the capital cost. I am sure that the proposals were made after a great deal of consideration and with a certain amount of wisdom, because of the stalemate that we have reached.

The local authority position as a result of the recommendations is understandable. I press upon the Minister the need for action. Having read a report saying that there might be a Government grant, very few local authorities, particularly in these times of financial stringency, will hazard their arms and spend their own money when they think that central Government will help them out and that central Government are about to take a decision.

That is the reason for the urgency. I stress that the Minister must make up his mind, because there will not be much more progress with the status quo. Local authorities have been squeezed over the rate support grant, particularly in the rural areas. It is not enough to say that running costs and loan charges for sites are eligible for the rate support grant. That does not answer the problem any more than it does for even more central issues for the shires. I think particularly of transport. Some counties even have difficulty in coming up with their part to match their supplementary grant from the Government. That is the state they have reached in following the Government's guidelines.

The Government called upon the counties to cut back, and they have done so. Here perhaps I may make a party point. Conservative county councils are cutting back—unlike some Labour-controlled councils when we were in Government. Most of the county councils are Conservative. They are controlling public ex- penditure on behalf of the Government and doing it very well.

The political difficulties are considerable, and I do not under-estimate them. Let us now be bipartisan about this. One of the Minister's hon. Friends told me tonight of the efforts of a Labour county council, West Glamorgan. The position there mirrors the difficulties of the county and the district councils, which are responsible under the 1968 Act. The county wants to do something about the matter. The district murmurs that it will help and then finds political difficulties and because it has no direct responsibility, it then says that it does not want to know. In the case of West Glamorgan the leader of the county council had stones thrown through his window because of his efforts to do something about the problem. That mirrors the problem throughout the country.

For the future, the Government must decide and must take action. The problem is urgent. One way or another the necessary money must be made available, and the duties of national and local government must be made clear. Those are the central points.

Maybe we shall have to go for less expensive sites. Maybe we shall have to be less doctrinaire about the problem. The Minister has seen the various sites. There was a great ideal, which has been shot down by the Cripps Report, that everybody should be settled on a de-luxe site, that the children would go to school and everybody would settle and be happy for ever more. Most gipsies and most members of the travelling population do not want that. If they do, they will not admit it.

The matter must be approached gradually. The gipsies must be stopped first, and then we can see how we go from there. The main thing is that they must have somewhere to go. The quota system must be fixed.

The political difficulties are considerable, and they are causing distress, squalor, ill-feeling and violence. There is a great fear that those problems will increase unless something is done.

I firmly believe that the responsibility rests primarily upon the national Government, whichever party is in power. It is easier for us here to do something than for the leader of a county council who is liable to have stones thrown through his window. I dare say that we shall have stones thrown through our windows, but it is easier for us to deal with what is a national problem. Not only is it easier, but it is our duty to do so.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on raising this matter and on his courage in taking on this sensitive issue. I am sorry that I was unable to visit his constituency, although I was asked to go there. I visited the worst areas and it will give the hon. Member no joy to know that there are areas with worse problems than those in his constituency.

The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) intervened to complain that gipsies are not under authoritative rule. One of the problems is that the gipsy way of life is not conducive to authoritative rule.

I have been consulting local authorities since April, with breaks during the summer. The time for talks has not been that long. I have asked groups of local authorities and counties to try to get together to sort out between themselves what each area's quota should be, how many gipsies there are, and who should cater for them. That is a difficult job, but some areas are doing it.

Many council officials and councillors realise that this is the way to tackle the problem. But I have no powers without fresh legislation to make them get together. Councils must ask themselves whether they are prepared to allow their ratepayers to suffer because of illegal sites without doing anything about them.

Not a single site exists in the Leominster constituency. Unfortunately, that is only one example of the situation that exists generally throughout England and Wales. According to the latest information there are 157 local authority sites in England and Wales offering accommodation for 2,531 gipsy caravans. This means that about three-quarters of a gipsy population of between 8,000 and 9,000 families have no alternative but to camp illegally.

In Hereford and Worcester there are three official sites, all in the area of the former county of Worcester, accommodating 42 caravans. It is difficult to know the total number of families in the county because there is considerable seasonal agricultural work. There are probably at least 110 families regularly living in the county but without legal sites and at times during the summer there are likely to be many more.

County councils have been under a statutory duty for more than seven and a half years to provide sites for gipsies residing in or resorting to their area. The unauthorised encampments on which the great majority of gipsies are compelled to reside are the nub of what has come to be described as the gipsy problem. Whether one calls them gipsies, didicois, or Irish tinkers, the problem is there. It is no good my saying that I am only dealing with the Romanies.

I saw many of these sites on my travels this summer—on roadside verges in the country, in clearance areas such as in my constituency and on roadways in the cities. With no services and no management, conditions on such sites rapidly become squalid, an unsightly nuisance for local residents and miserable for the gipsies themselves. Much criticism of gipsies is based on the impression created by these illegal sites, but what would our houses and gardens look like after a few weeks if we had no water, no sanitation, and no refuse collection?

I have seen for myself that adequately equipped and properly managed official sites present a very different picture, not only those which are newly opened, well equipped, and rather expensive, but older sites, more or less adequately equipped, which demonstrate that material shortcomings are less important than good management. On these official sites gipsies have generally settled down well and been accepted locally. I have also seen the usefulness of temporary stopping places with minimal faciilties, some used only in winter.

But I regard the provision of well equipped sites as the best way of tackling the major problem. Only by adequate provision of satisfactory official sites, equipped to cater for varying gipsy needs, can those appalling illegal sites be eliminated. It is ironic that such provision is held up by local opposition based on experience only of the illegal sites, so that people are tending to perpetuate the very thing that they loathe.

I suggest, therefore, that local authorities owe it to their ratepayers to break out of this vicious circle and get rid of these eyesores not by pushing gipsies on to the next authority's doorstep, but by providing official sites.

rose—

I have not much time. I might be able to give way later.

I am aware that this advice is not new. As long ago as February 1962, in a circular to local authorities, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was saying:

"Moving people off one unauthorised site and leaving them to find another is no solution, and no answer to the human and social problems involved. These can only be resolved by the provision of proper sites, in which the caravan families can settle down under decent conditions, and in reasonable security. This is probably the only effective way of preventing the persistent use of unauthorised sites, continuing trouble, and hardship."

That circular 15 years ago drew the attention of authorities to the power to provide sites conferred on them by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

The failure of these repeated exhortations of this kind to produce significant results led to the enactment of Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968—a Private Member's Act which had the support of all parties—which gave county, county borough and London borough councils a duty to provide caravan sites for the gipsies residing in or resorting to their area.

The Act came into force in April 1970, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, its effects have been disappointing. There was a gradual increase in the annual rate of site provision between 1970 and 1974, largely because the county boroughs had this quota which was given to them and they thought that if they got it, it would save them a lot of trouble, as it did. Now we have a situation where the vast majority of gipsies have no legal stopping place.

It was the Government's concern at this situation, with its increasing threat of violent confrontation, that in February 1976 led my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Planning and Local Government to ask Mr. John Cripps to carry out a study of the effectiveness of the arrangements to secure adequate accommodation. The report was published in April this year.

The hon. Member referred to the advice which we have given, and also to the Cripps Report. But advice is not a policy in itself, as the hon. Gentleman said. Government policy is, as it has been for all Governments for years, to secure the provision of enough sites by local authorities. To an individual authority the idea of moving on gipsies from its area into that of another authority may seem attractive but the neighbouring authorities and their residents, not to mention the gipsies themselves, are bound to resent it.

Government advice against indiscriminate evictions was never to be taken as a pretext for doing nothing positive and then blaming the Government for the consequences. It is not simply a matter of leaving the gipsies alone. Our advice also asks authorities to do what they can to alleviate the conditions on an illegal site until they make it a better site.

I have referred to the Cripps Report. One of its major recommendations is that the Government should seek statutory authority for the payment of Exchequer grants to cover the capital cost of sites at a rate of 100 per cent. for a period of five years. We are considering this recommendation very seriously. The hon. Gentleman will, I know, appreciate that I cannot say more about that now. I hope that we shall be in a position to discuss it with the local authority associations before too long. I need hardly say that there are difficulties about the introduction of new grants—new money —in the present situation.

It must be remembered that authorities are already getting substantial financial support from the Government, since loan charges and running costs for gipsy sites qualify for rate support grant. The Exchequer bears well over half the recurrent cost over the country as a whole. Grant is based nationally on that. Some counties are doing nothing about it while collecting the cash.

The problem is far from being entirely financial. Authorities have had the statutory duty of site provision since 1970. Members of both major parties would claim that financial constraints have not been on during the whole of that period, but progress was inadequate even at times when restraints were not on. Some counties—the old Herefordshire was one of them—never provided a single site. I suspect that the slow progress in site provision is due as much to public opposition as to lack of funds.

I have spoken about the Cripps Report's recommendation on finance. There are a number of other recommendations in the report. I am hoping to reach the point of decision as soon as possible and I know that the Government's response is anxiously awaited by county and district councils, by residents, and by gipsies themselves.

I think there is a danger that everyone is concentrating on the recommendations —as the hon. Gentleman has done—and is forgetting the report itself. Right at the beginning John Cripps puts the whole problem in its proper perspective by pointing out that it concerns a minority, numbering fewer than 50,000, in two countries With a combined population of 49 million. So in terms of individual local authorities the numbers are small indeed in housing terms.

Gipsies are widely criticised for camping illegally, but the report shows that the loss of their traditional stopping places has largely resulted from a variety of new legislative measures, with one exception not directed against gipsies but having the incidental effect of making them illegal campers on the sites that they and their families had used for many years.

John Cripps has made it very clear that, like any other cross-section of the population, there are gipsies whose behaviour is not acceptable to their neighbours. This may amount to no more than a knock on the door by a gipsy asking for water, but even that can be very frightening for an elderly person or someone who is alone in the house. Much more serious situations can develop, involving violence —on both sides. It is, of course, these incidents that hit the headlines in the local Press and lead to public condemnation of the entire gipsy population. I ask hon. Members and the public in general to look again at the Cripps Report, which seeks a better appreciation of the gipsies' difficulties, without in any way glossing over the problems caused by the behaviour of some of them.

I believe that we need to bring about a much better mutual understanding by house-dwellers and gipsies alike, of their cultural and social conditions. In that way we can help to get rid of the roadside and inner city encampments that are the source of so many probems.

I realise that it still difficult for those in local authorities who, in the interests of housedwellers and gipsies alike are struggling to improve the situation. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has added himself to their ranks tonight if he was not already there. They are constantly opposed, criticised and shunned by their colleagues for their efforts. Only last week, at a conference about education for gipsy children, John Cripps spoke again about the loneliness of these workers, particularly local authority officers and members. I am begnning to think he should have included Ministers.

Though the Department has always seen its role as essentially an advisory and co-ordinating one, I am anxious to put all the pressure I can on county councils and find financial help if I can do so. The Department has been increasingly active in recent years. We have an advisory officer on gipsy encampments. He and his staff spend much time troubleshooting and I believe that they are a great help in that way. The hon. Gentleman sought Government money for gipsy sites—