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

I should like to express my regret to the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan), whose Bill it is, that I have left until this comparatively late stage the putting down of this new Clause. The hon. Gentleman was very kind and helpful in dealing with Amendments in Committee, and I am only sorry that this point escaped me until after the Committee stage of the Bill had been completed.

The point is fairly simple, although the procedure behind it is rather complicated. As hon. Members no doubt know, there is a variety of different codes under which local authorities work in connection with private streets. One code is that under the Private Street Works Act, 1892. Another is that under the Public Health Act, 1875; another is that under the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act, 1890, which amends to some extent the 1875 Act. It so happens that under certain of those codes it is not possible for a local authority conveniently to adopt a street where the authority has not itself done the work. It is not impossible, because there is available a somewhat cumbersome and old-fashioned procedure laid down under the Highways Act, but this is really not to anybody's advantage.

The procedure which is used under most of the codes is a very simple and straightforward one involving the putting up of notices. In the new Clause, I propose to introduce, in respect of all codes not already covered, a provision whereby a local authority, when the work has been done to its satisfaction by someone else, shall have roughly the same power of adopting a street as it would have had it done the work itself. Put shortly, that is what this rather complicated procedure amounts to. It will, I think, be greatly to everybody's advantage and to nobody's disadvantage.

I beg to second the Motion.

The lucid explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) is quite sufficient at this stage, and I need say no more.

I very much welcome the new Clause. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said that the Bill had gone a long way before he spotted the omission, adding that it was kind of me to be kind about it; but, of course, what he said could well be taken as indicating that I ought to have thought of it much earlier. as indeed, I should have done.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this new Clause. I am sure that it will be of great advantage.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, after "charges ", to insert:

" by the proper officer of the appropriate council".

It seems to me that this Amendment, the Amendment in line 19, and the Amendment in line 22, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan), all go together. Perhaps one discussion could cover them all.

I agree, Mr. Speaker, The three Amendments go together.

These Amendments are intended to secure that when the New Streets Act, 1951, is in force in a rural district the entries in the local land charges register which are required by Clause 3 of the Bill should be made in the same register as are the entries relating to private street works charges. The fact about the rural districts is that the county councils are, in the ordinary way, the highway authority in a rural district and they are, of course, the local authority under the Private Street Works Act, 1892. The county council may delegate its functions to the rural district council and it does, in fact, often do this.

The situation then arises that if the 1951 Act is in operation in the whole or any part of the rural district, the proper officer of the rural district council will register the entries in the local land charges register for the rural district. In all other cases, the proper officer for the county will register the appropriate entries in the local land charges register for the administrative county. The effect of these Amendments is that anyone making a search in the register will find the entries relating to the New Streets Act, 1951, and those relating to the Private Street Works Act in the same register.

It will be remembered that, both during Second Reading and in Standing Committee, we discussed at considerable length the value to purchasers of property, and to solicitors conveyancing property, of being able to inspect quite simply and from a single source the situation concerning the charges and allied matters relating to any plot of land or house which it was intended to purchase. The Amendment will ensure that in the case of rural districts the person who is buying or the solicitor will have to go to only one source.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Perhaps I might conveniently say a word at this stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) has been addressing himself to three of the Amendments to Clause 3, and I should like to say a brief word about them.

The House may remember that in Standing Committee I advised the Committee that in the Government's view there were certain objections to using the land charges register for the purpose of the Clause. Briefly, those objections were that the land charges register is designed as a register of permanent restrictions and prohibitions on the use of land, whereas the matters dealt with in the Clause and which will require to be registered are, in general, not restrictions, nor are they of a permanent nature. I reminded the Committee that a report of a Committee on local land charges in 1952 had recommended that matters of this kind should not be brought into the land charges register.

The House will appreciate that from the Government's point of view those were objections of principle, and I suggested to the Committee that the object of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members might be achieved in a different way. The Committee did not, however, accept that advice, and, therefore, my right hon. Friend thought it only right to assist in the preparation of this and other Amendments which will make Clause 3 more workable than it was at an earlier stage of the proceedings. It is on that basis that I certainly recommend to the House that we should accept this and the allied Amendment in connection with Clause 3.

11.15 a.m.

The Government's objection to the Clause, although one of principle, could hardly be described as one of great national importance. The Committee, with completely free and unfettered judgment, was not persuaded by the advice I tendered to it, and I am sure the House will agree that in those circumstances it is right for us to seek to improve the Clause as it stands in the Bill.

Can the promoter of the Bill—the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan)—or the Parliamentary Secretary tell me what will happen if the officer of the rural district council does not register with the county council as he is now ordered to do by the Amendments? When persons concerned with the possible conveyance of the land subsequently search the register, if there has been negligence by the person now charged with the duty in a rural district, they will not find the information that they desire.

The answer, I think, is that there is an obligation in these circumstances upon the officer of the rural district, in exactly the same way as there is in the urban district or borough or county councils, and that that obligation has to be carried out. The same must be true a thousand times a day concerning various duties that have to be performed by local government officers. If the proper officer does not carry out this task, I take it that the normal processes of the law would apply.

I cannot say much more, because I had assumed that if and when the Bill became an Act it would be complied with by the local authorities in the rural districts as well as by the others.

I would like to remind the hon. Member that people sometimes forget and all sorts of negligence occurs. Apparently, no penalty is imposed by the Statute on anyone who neglects this important duty. I suggest that when the Bill gets to another place the hon. Member should ask whatever noble Friend of his is then in charge of it to consider the matter.

The position is broadly as my hon. Friend has described it. Speaking offhand, I am not at all sure whether it would be appropriate to import into the Bill some sort of penalty provisions for neglect on the part of a local authority. It is, however, a point that is worthy of consideration and we will look at it.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert:

"the following, whether occurring before or after the passing of this Act, that is to say".

The effect of the Amendment is to ensure that the registration of charges under the New Streets Act, 1951, is made in the local land charges register whether they have taken place in the past or in the future. It is obviously necessary that this should be done if the register is to be complete and of any use for the purposes of which we have been speaking.

This is not likely to raise any difficulty with local authorities because they must anyhow keep in their offices for administrative purposes full records of this information on the deposits which have been required under Section 2 of the 1951 Act. The whole point of Clause 3 is to bring this information into the open where it can be conveniently inspected, but it does not demand any new information. I am assured that the local authorities will not find this a burdensome task and will be able to undertake it. I draw the attention of the House to the very last Amendment on the Paper, an Amendment by which local authorities will be given some extra time in which to do this work relating to both past charges and to future ones.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, after "Act," to insert:

(d) notices served under paragraph (e), paragraph (f) or paragraph (h) of subsection (3) of the said section one exempting a building from that section;

(e) resolutions passed under paragraph (k) of subsection (3) of the said section one exempting a street or a part of a street from that section.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if it would meet your convenience and that of the House if I were to be allowed to speak now on all the Amendments in my name on the Paper?

I think so. I take it the hon. Member is referring to his Amendments:

In page 3, line 15, at the end to insert:

"and at the end of the said subsection (3) the following words shall be inserted:—

'(k) in a case where the local authority, being satisfied—

(i) that more than three-quarters of the aggregate length of all the frontages on both sides of the street, or of a part of the street not less than one hundred yards in length and comprising the whole of the part on which the frontage of the building will be, consists, or is at some future time likely to consist, of the frontages of industrial premises, and

(ii) that their powers under the appropriate private street works code are not likely to be exercised in relation to the street. or to that part thereof, as the case may be, within a reasonable time,

by resolution exempt the street, or that part thereof, from this section.

(4) Where a sum has been paid or secured under this section by the owner of land in relation to a building proposed to be erected thereon, and thereafter a notice is served under the last preceding subsection exempting the building from this section, or a resolution is passed under paragraph (k) of that subsection exempting the street or part of a street on which the building will have a frontage from this section, the local authority shall refund that sum to the person who is for the time being owner of the land or shall release the security, as the case may be.

Where the said sum was paid, and after the payment thereof but before the service of the said notice or the passing of the said resolution, as the case may be, the land in respect of which it was paid was divided in two or more parts each having a frontage on the private street in question, the sum shall be treated for the purposes of this subsection as apportioned between the owners thereof according to their respective frontages'".

In page 5, line 29, at the end to insert:

(5) In section six of the principal Act, the words "and the payment has not been refunded, or the security released or realised, under subsection (4) of section one of this Act, or under section four thereof." shall be inserted at the end of subsection (1).

In page 6, line 1, after "Act," to insert:

(a) after the definitions of "building bye-laws" and "owner" there shall be inserted the following definition—

"'industrial premises' means premises used or designed or suitable for use for the carrying on of any industrial process within the meaning of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and includes premises used for purposes ancillary to the carrying on of any such process;"

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am much obliged.

The House will have gathered that this is a very complicated Bill, and the Amendments now being considered are also of a very complicated nature. While I hope to be brief, I feel it is necessary that, for the sake of the record at all events, a reasonable explanation should be given as to what is intended.

It was a Bill introduced by an hon. Friend of mine, the late Mr. John Kinley, which became the Act of 1951, and that Act, the principal Act, made it compulsory for anyone proposing to erect a building with a frontage on a private street either to pay or to secure to the local authority a sum in respect of the cost of street works. However, it provided for exceptions to that, and they are named in Section 1 (3).

During the Committee stage of this Bill I sought to add a new Clause to the Bill which would have added a new exception to those already in the principal Act. What I proposed was the exemption of large industrial estates. Most hon. Members can envisage the kind of estate I mean, and I could not cite a better example than the great Ford estate in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). The firms on those large industrial estates invariably make themselves responsible for the making up of the roads upon the estates.

The new Clause which I proposed in Standing Committee was resisted by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan), the promoter of the Bill, and also by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure that they did not oppose it on principle, but they were not prepared to look at certain words in that new Clause, in which I used, for example, phrases like "mainly industrial." They felt that those words were not as clear as they might be. Accordingly I withdrew the new Clause then on the understanding that there would be consultations to see whether the principle of that new Clause could be written into the Bill in different words. I should like to express my thanks to the hon. Member for Hitchin and to the Parliamentary Secretary, and, if I may, to the Ministry officials also, for the assistance that they have given me. These Amendments are the result of those consultations.

We are at the moment involved in a procedural complication, and it is this. I am asking the House at this moment to accept an Amendment to Clause 3 in anticipation of what I hope the House will agree to do about Clause 5. This is, I admit, a most unusual set of circumstances, but I am afraid that it is inevitable because of the complications of this legislation.

The Amendment on page 3, line 15, is designed to put into the Bill—and into the Act—my suggestion of adding industrial estates to those exceptions enumerated in Secton 1 of the principal Act. I understand that that Amendment, in its present words, is in principle acceptable to the hon. Member for Hitchin, and, I think, to the Ministry. I am seeking to use the Bill, as the hon. Member for Hitchin is, but in a different way, to amend the Act of 1951.

I come to the Amendment on page 5, line 29. This is an Amendment to Section 6 of the principal Act, which gives the majority of frontages the right to require a private street to be made up or taken over. That Section does not operate unless in at least one case a deposit, or alternatively a security, has been given. My Amendment makes it clear that the Section will not operate unless in at least one case the deposit has been paid and not refunded or the security realised or released. It is an Amendment consequential upon that in page 3, line 15.

I come to the Amendment in page 6, line 1. This is altogether different, and introduces into Section 10 of the Act of 1951 a definition of the words "industrial premises." The Amendment applies the definition of "industrial process" in the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and it makes it perfectly clear what type of industrial premises and estates I have in mind.

My Amendment in page 3, line 15, would alter Section 1 (3) of the principal Act. It is necessary, therefore, to amend Clause 3 of the Bill to ensure that full details of all transactions shall be entered, as has already been said by the Parliamentary Secretary, in the local land charges register, which would always show, at a glance, we hope, the extent of deposits or securities given or repaid, and also the notices served, and the resolutions passed by local authorities on these matters. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that perhaps there has been a slip here in so far as it would be necessary in these matters where the local land charges register is involved that there should be some sanction, perhaps, to ensure that all these particulars are entered.

My Amendment in page 2, line 28, adds two new paragraphs. Paragraph (d) would cause the other new exceptions put in by the hon. Member for Hitchin to be entered in the local land charges register. Paragraph (e) brings in paragraph (k) which is contained in my Amendment in page 3, line 15, of the Bill to amend Section 1 (3) of the principal Act and brings my new exception into the local land charges register.

I know that it seems as though all these Amendments are the wrong way round, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that if the House agrees with that all we are trying to do then by the end of this debate the horse will actually be in front of the cart.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should like very much to welcome this group of Amendments. When the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) raised in Committee the question of industrial premises, I do not think there was a single member of the Committee who felt that the principle of what he was trying to do was anything but right. As he has said, some of us had doubts about the precise wording of the Amendment which he was then seeking to move. I think the proof of how very complicated this subject is can be seen in the fact that four separate Amendments have to be driven into the Bill backwards, like parking a large automobile in the crowded streets which we now have again.

I think that this series of Amendments fits in very well with the general purpose of the Bill, which is to tidy up and make more workable and practicable the New Streets Act, 1951. I hope that the House will not only accept the Amendment which we are now formally discussing but will also accept the other Amendments which go with it.

:I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, at the end to insert:

(c) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4):—

"(4A) Where this Act is in force in any area by virtue of an order made under this section, references in this Act to the commencement thereof shall be construed, in relation to that area, as references to the coming into operation of the order"

This Amendment particularly concerns the application of the 1951 Act to rural districts. Whereas the Act gives power to the Minister, on the application of a county council, to allow rural district to apply it in areas or parts of areas, for various reasons this has not been at all widely done. One of the effects of the Amendment will be to improve that position. The principal Act automatically applied to boroughs, apart from the Metropolitan boroughs, and urban districts in England and Wales, but it did not automatically apply to rural districts.

Section 9 enables the Minister of Housing and Local Government, on the application of a county council and after consultation with the rural district council, to apply the Act to a rural district council by order. There were initial difficulties connected with the operation of the Act, and I think I am right in saying, if I can read this into his acts, that the Minister seems to have been reluctant to apply the Act in its present form to these rural areas, and with very few exceptions the Act has not yet been operative in rural districts.

I think the reason for those difficulties has now been largely dealt with owing to the co-operation between local authorities, on the one hand, and the builders, on the other hand, and when the present Bill passes into law I hope that more applications will be made to the Minister and that he will make more orders under Section 9 (2) of the principal Act. I know that the Kent County Council has already made such an application in respect of certain rural districts of the County of Kent.

In view of the long lapse since the Act was passed, there would, however, be serious difficulties if it were suddenly to sweep into operation in the rural districts without the Amendment being accepted. Section 1 (3) of the principal Act lists ten, and with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), which we have incorporated, eleven, cases where the general requirement as to the payment or securing of sums in respect of the cost of the street works is not to apply. There are three particular cases in paragraphs (c), (g) and (h) where there is a reference to the commencement of the Act. In other words, the question whether these exceptions will or will not apply is made dependent on the situation which existed when the 1951 Act came into operation, which was 1st October, 1951, and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then.

In particular, Section 1 (3, c), which is the first of these paragraphs, provides exemption in cases

"where plans for the building have been deposited with the local authority in accordance with building byelaws before the commencement of this Act."

Undoubtedly the intention of the Act was to exempt any cases which were in hand or where the plans had been passed at the time the Act came into operation. If the Act were now applied in its present form to a rural district this intention would in many cases be frustrated, for in no case where buildings are still to be erected would the subsection apply unless the plans had been deposited before 1st October, 1951. If we are to hope that the intention of the 1951 Act is now to be fulfilled in the rural districts, we should take the oportunity of bringing the situation up to date.

There will be very serious practical difficulty in the operation of Section 2 (1) of the Act which provides:

"In any case to which the preceding section applies, the local authority shall, within one month after the plans of the building deposited in accordance with building byelaws have been passed, serve a notice on the person by or on whose behalf the plans were deposited requiring the payment or the securing under the preceding section of a sum specified in the notice."

It is obvious that the local authority could not comply with this provision where plans have been passed, perhaps, in 1954, and yet the owner would be committing an offence if he commenced to erect the building prior to paying or securing a sum in respect of the street works. This Amendment is therefore important.

There is another particular aspect to which I should draw the attention of the House and it arises from paragraphs (g) and (h) of Section 1 (3) of the principal Act. Both these paragraphs contain exemptions which depend on the extent of building development which had already taken place at the time of the commencement of the 1951 Act. In many cases it would now be very difficult to say whether on 1st October, 1951, the street was built up to the extent required for the exemptions, and the fact that it has since been built up to some extent could be taken into account only if this Amendment is passed.

In short, the purpose of the Amendment is to overcome difficulties in operating Section 1 (3) of the 1951 Act in the rural districts and also in the Isles of Scilly. It is obviously desirable that where those references are made in Clause 1 (3) in paragraphs (c), (g) and (h) to the passing of the Act, we should amend that to say that they will take effect from the date when the Act was made to apply to the particular rural district in question. By making it workable we shall be forwarding the principle and intention of the promoters of the 1951 Act.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Clause 5 seems to grow longer and longer as this Bill proceeds and, finally, it will probably be about ten times longer than it originally was. But each Amendment has been an improvement, and this Amendment will be of great value to rural districts. It will enable them to apply the provisions of the 1951 Act with greater advantage.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, after "Act," to insert:

(a) after the definitions of "building bye-laws" and "owner" there shall be inserted the following definition—

• "'industrial premises' means premises used or designed or suitable for use for the carrying on of any industrial process within the meaning of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and includes premises used for purposes ancillary to the carrying on of any such process;

(b)"

As I have already stated, the Amendment is the one which defines industrial premises within the terms of this Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, to leave out "one month" and insert "three months"

This is the final Amendment on the Order Paper and the one to which I referred when we were discussing my first Amendment relating to Clause 3, which provided for registration, in the register of local land charges, of charges made under the 1951 Act and other related matters. Now that Clause 3 has been amended to make clear that not only future but past transactions must be recorded in the register, I think it would be unjust and unreasonable if this House did not give the necessary time in which to do the job. I think that one month would be too short a period, and it is therefore proposed to substitute a period of three months. I do not think that this delay of a further two months will cause any material hardship to local authorities, builders or private people who, after all, have managed to survive—if I may use such a phrase—under the 1951 Act as it now stands ever since October, 1951.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I Wish to offer congratulations to the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) on the way in which he has tackled what is undoubtedly a very complicated Bill. We are now practically at the last stage of the progress of this Bill through this House, and I am sure that will be a great relief to the hon. Gentleman.

This Bill is a very different Measure from the one with which the hon. Member for Hitchin started, but I feel that he must be congratulated for the work he has done.

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

May I take the opportunity of saying how grateful I am for the help I have received from the Minister and his officials; from the Association of Municipal Corporations; the County Councils Association and other representative bodies of local authorities, and also from various industrial local authorities? This morning I weighed my correspondence and found that it weighed 2¾ lbs. Although we may think this Bill a dry and dusty Measure which is not very interesting to many people, in fact it resulted in a net weight avoirdupois of 2¾ lbs of correspondence appearing on my desk. The interest displayed by various bodies, authorities, builders, private people and others in this matter indicates that the time had come for this House to tidy up the 1951 Act. I wish also to say how much I appreciate the fact that in one morning during the Committee stage we got through such a great deal of work.

I am conscious of the fact that this Bill, as it has been amended, is a vast improvement upon the Bill as it was introduced. By giving it a Third Reading, as I hope we shall, I am sure that we shall be doing something to help local authorities and, what is more important, people wishing to buy houses and those who wish to build houses to provide what is the basic, first and most important of the social services, namely, housing. In that spirit I commend the Bill to the House.

I beg to second the Motion.

As the hon. Member who has spoken more about this Bill—with the exception of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan)—than any other hon. Member, I support the Motion.

The original Act, introduced by Mr. John Kinky in 1951, did a great deal of good for people who were at that time concerned about the expense incurred in making up roads. But, as the years have passed, it has become obvious that there were provisions in the Act which required amending. I think it a matter of congratulation that we have now produced a Bill which will meet that need. The provisions contained in this Measure will prove advantageous to everyone concerned in the making up of the roads of this country.

I wish to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on the way in which he has piloted this Bill through its various stages. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) referred to the 1951 Act which I well remember, as it was promoted by Mr. John Kinley, a very close friend of mine. I had the fortune, or the misfortune, to be successful in the Ballot immediately after Mr. Kinley with the Transport (Amendment) Bill, which was a rather more contentious Measure. I always have a feeling of sympathy, therefore, with hon. Members who produce a Private Member's Bill however lacking in contention it may be.

Speaking for the Government, I wish to thank hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee for the expeditious manner in which the Committee stage discussions on this Bill were carried through. We owe a debt to those hon. Members who serve so regularly on our Standing Committees. The burden falls very largely on a relatively limited number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and we are indeed in their debt. I also acknowledge what was said by the hon. Member for Salford, West about the cooperation of my Ministry. I am most grateful to him.

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

Unlike the Bill which the House has just been discussing, which is a complicated Measure, this is quite a simple one. Although its Title is the Litter Bill. I hasten to emphasise that it is an anti-litter Bill. Recently Parliament passed into law an Act providing for measures to be taken to penalise those responsible for air pollution. I feel that Parliament has put the cart before the horse, because it will be necessary to spend thousands, if not millions, of pounds on special equipment to take measures to prevent air pollution, whereas this little Measure to prevent pollution of the ground could be put into effect with scarcely any expenditure.

The sole object of the Bill is, as its opening sentence says, to:

"Make provision for the abatement of litter. …"

It is sought to do that by Clause 1, which would embody in the general legislation what is now a model byelaw provided for local authorities by the Home Office. Clause 5 seeks to render a person who commits an offence under Clause 1 liable to a fine of up to £10.

I should like to say at once that it is my hope that if the Bill becomes law the authorities will exercise discretion in operating it. I hope that it will be invoked only in flagrant and clear-cut cases. I understand that it is the practice in the Royal Parks, in respect of which there is a byelaw forbidding the deposit of litter, not to institute a prosecution unless the offender has been warned and had an opportunity to pick up the litter. That is a sensible practice, and I hope that if the Bill becomes an Act we shall not see a whole mass of petty prosecutions.

Of course, the Measure in itself contains no magic. It cannot possibly of itself solve the problem, but I think that Parliament can help in tackling the problem by dealing with it on a national basis and making the scattering of litter a universal offence throughout the land. I believe that it is only by making that part of the recognised law of the land that we can hope to make the public really litter-conscious and get a new approach to the problem.

One slogan in support of the Bill which I have heard suggested is, "Prosecution to stop the spitter; cannot we do the same for litter?" We ought to make the public as allergic to litter as they are now to the spitter. We ought to create an atmosphere in which people feel that the scattering of litter is something which just is not done.

The support which this proposal has evoked outside the House has been quite remarkable, as also has been the lack, so far as I know, of any opposition to its general principle, though I expect that there might be some criticism of certain of its provisions. The general proposition has had tremendous support. In principle it is supported by all the local authority associations—the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Urban District Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association, the National Association of Parish Councils, the District Councils' Association for Scotland. I could give a long list of bodies which support the principle behind the Bill. It is supported, too, by the National Trust, the Federation of Women's Institutes, the Youth Hostels Association, and many other local and voluntary bodies.

The attitude of all these organisations can be summed up by saying that in this carton age and in this age of the motor car we ought to have a new approach to the problem, for there is far more travel to the remote places. A new policy and a new outlook is required if we are to take charge of events and prevent events from taking charge of us. In the old days the litter lout did not have anything like so much ammunition provided for him as he has today. Today, in this wrapping age, in this packaging age, not to mention this bottle and can age, he has any amount of ammunition ready to hand. The time has come to outlaw the litter lout.

If we are to succeed in our endeavours, I am convinced that not only will it require, certainly in its early stages, an unrelenting publicity campaign, but also it will need an alteration in the law and the stepping up of fines. No one could deny that the problem in Britain is getting worse and that the situation in many places is becoming quite intolerable and unbearable.

We have now reached the stage where litter is destroying the pleasure and the amenities of many people who, wherever they go in the countryside in particular but also in the urban areas, find filth, mess, and refuse, deposited by selfish, unthinking people. The authorities in our more famous beauty areas, such as the Lake District and Dartmoor and the National Parks are crying out for action. They are saying that it is time that Parliament acted.

Obviously the trend in this motor age is for more and more people to visit our beauty spots which are natural magnets for millions of holiday makers. Those areas suffer terribly from the litter lout. The Dartmoor National Park Committee, in a recent memorandum, has said that it now regards the problem of litter in the Dartmoor National Park as one of major importance. According to its report, the amount of litter last summer, which was not a good summer from a weather point of view, broke all records.

We have had the efforts of many voluntary bodies. We have had the "Keep Britain Tidy Group" in which the Federation of Women's Institutes has been the moving spirit, combining together all the voluntary organisations which have been trying to tackle the problem. We have had an imaginative campaign run by the Central Office of Information on behalf of the Government. We have had a mass of exhortation in recent years, but in spite of that it seems to me that we are still losing the battle against litter.

It is the more tragic that we should be losing the battle at present and that we should be seeing our fair land disfigured in this way when it is, and should and could be, a very beautiful country It was never more beautiful than at the present time.

One of the joys of going abroad is the joy of coming home. Recently I had the good fortune to go for a short trip to France and Germany. Two things impressed me when I came back the other day to London Airport. My first good impression was when driving from the airport to London. I noticed hew much more polite and considerate London drivers are than Continental drivers. They are far better-mannered for the most part and more courteous. The other thing that hit me in the eye was the disfigurement brought about in this country by litter, compared with the situation on the Continent.

Not only does litter disfigure our land, but in this tin-and-bottle age it can be a source of danger, particularly on our seashores and beaches. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has handed me figures which are quite surprising. During a Bank Holiday weekend in the summer of 1955, more than 1,000 people were treated in the Crosby area for cuts on their feet caused by broken glass, broken bottles and tins. Litter is, therefore, becoming a very serious matter at our seaside holiday resorts.

If the Bill becomes law, I hope it will be regarded as just one weapon in the furtherance of a "Beautiful Britain" campaign; not the only weapon. Hand in hand with the Bill I should like to see an attempt by all the authorities concerned to provide more shrubs and trees particularly in drab and dreary housing estates, and more gardens and open spaces in towns and villages. That is now being done to a considerable extent on the Continent, and we should follow suit.

As well as launching a campaign to make Britain a clean and tidy place, we should attempt to make it prettier and gayer by the greater use of brighter colours and more variety of paint. That is also being done successfully in Continental countries. We ought to get away from drab and dreary housing schemes and make them bright, gay and clean. What is required is an inspired campaign, which need cost very little public money, to make Britain a still more beautiful country. The Bill could play a prominent part in such a campaign.

I appreciate one criticism against the Bill, which is that it is not necessary because local authorities already have power under their byelaws. It is true that out of 61 county councils 58 have valid byelaws and that of 83 county boroughs 58 are covered by byelaws. That means that a large part of Britain is already covered. I grant that point, but quite a considerable part is still not covered. If the scattering of litter is to be made an offence the offence should be universal. If it is wrong in one part of the country it should be wrong in every part of the country. That is the way to make people litter-conscious.

That byelaws are inadequate and have proved ineffective is the view expressed by many people in authority who ought to know. The secretary of the National Association of Parish Councils writes:

"I am instructed to say that this Association supports the Litter Bill because it believes that byelaws, though in most cases technically adequate, produce an insufficient psychological effect and so are apt to be forgotten by the public who are supposed to obey them and by the police who are supposed to enforce them."

That view has been expressed by many other authorities.

The Association of Municipal Corporations writes:

"There is, however, a widespread feeling that if we are to have any provisions on this subject at all, they will be more effective if they are national than if they are local. It is difficult to persuade anyone (including for that matter the magistrate dealing with the case or the policeman asked to enforce the byelaw) that it is wrong to throw down litter in a borough which happens to have a byelaw whereas there is nothing against it if the litter is thrown down over the borough boundary."

The Institute of Public Cleansing writes:

"Where an offence has existed for many years without local byelaws to provide an effective form of sanction, it seems to me that the law is brought into disrepute unless either the offence ceases to be an offence at all or is brought onto a statutory level, and its enforcement thereby strengthened."

The Corporation of the City of London and the Corporation of the City of Glasgow also support the Bill. It would be a real step forward in the anti-litter campaign if a mass of differing byelaws forming an unknown code were replaced by a simple and easily understood law, by the Bill becoming the law of the land.

It will be seen that under Clause 4 proceedings can be taken by various public bodies such as local authorities and the National Trust, as well as by occupiers of private land. The Clause also authorises such persons to demand the name and address of any person who is believed to be guilty of an offence under the law. The House may feel that the enforcement provisions of the Bill are wider than is desirable.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Scotland for being present. I know that other considerations apply to Scotland and that the Bill as drafted might not be acceptable under Scottish law. The private landowner should have protection. It might well be that he could arrange with the police to keep an eye open, and it might be desirable to arrange for prosecutions to be instituted only by the police in regard to private land.

I emphasise that the Bill has no magic about it whatsoever, and will not of itself cure the litter problem. It would be a useful weapon to have in our armoury. I hope that the House will think that it is a fair and reasonable Bill, worth supporting. Other democracies have tackled this problem successfully because they have been helped by legislation. It is high time that we did the same in Britain. We are attempting to tiling about a change in the social outlook and I believe we shall not get that change without a change in the law.

I beg to second the Motion.

I am sure we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) for the interest he has shown in this problem. I can never think of litter without being reminded of a cartoon I saw some time ago. It depicted a disgruntled foreign emissary landing, as he thought, from the first space ship to arrive on the moon, only to find that the British had beaten him to it. What he saw was not the Union Jack flying there but a series of old tin cans, banana peel, torn newspapers and the remains of various preserved foods.

The object of this Bill is to assist in the eradication of a national bad habit. We last discussed the subject on 2nd August, 1956, on a Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess. The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in concluding a discussion on the way in which the bad habit of spitting in public disappeared, finished with these words:

"I do not believe that it was entirely, or perhaps mainly, fear of disease which contributed to the disappearance of that unpleasant habit; it was the growth of a public opinion against it, of a public conscience against it, and we shall only really successfully get the better of the litter menace as public opinion and public conscience against litter grow.

All the Measures … to which I have referred are contributions, but only contributions, to this sole and simple solution. I think that we might take comfort from the thought that the growth of public interest in the litter menace is real evidence of a growth in public opinion against litter and in the public conscience which will eventually end this social menace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 1760.]

The object of this Bill is to carry on from there and to reinforce the strength of public opinion and the processes of education and exhortation, which are the main factors which will change the situation.

When this Bill was drafted, originally a year ago, I had something to do with the drafting. There was at that time no Government Department primarily responsible for litter. One was working in rather unexplored territory. One thing I expected to find was a great deal of criticism, but in fact, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, nothing but general approval came, plus positive support from many organisations whose main concern was that they and their interests should be adequately covered by any proposed Bill. I think, therefore, that the broad case for the Bill has been made.

I should like to devote my remarks to considering some of the possible objections. The objection in principle, as I conceive it, is the difficulty of enforcement as a whole and, in particular, the difficulty of trying to cure a general bad habit by legislation. As my hon. Friend mentioned, if the byelaws fail to be effective, why should a statute succeed? There is the further and very important point that it is undesirable to have a law, especially a new law passed with the authority of Parliament, which might be more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I think that really is an argument of despair, because fundamentally the question of whether we get rid of litter or not is a matter of national desire, intention and, of course, willpower. There is some similarity between the enforcement on a national basis of a 30 m.p.h. speed limit in built-up areas. At the beginning that seemed to be rather a difficult change in habit to bring about. Quite often it has been breached, but none the less, after an initial effort, through the years it has produced a marked change in the driving habits of people on British roads.

Below the general objection there are several technical difficulties relating to enforcement, some of which my hon. Friend has already mentioned. There is, first, the question of coverage. If the law is to be put on a statutory basis and the whole of the United Kingdom is brought into its ambit, offences might be committed over a widespread area. At the moment byelaws cover public places only, and then not completely. Private land is completely unprotected. I think that is extremely important, because the litter problem on private land is increasingly serious since more and more people travel and have access to the countryside. Visitors to beauty spots, users of public footpaths and so on, are all possible bringers of litter, and the damage and trouble which result can be very extensive.

One felt originally that a very heavy burden might be put on the police in trying to discharge any possible statutory duties over the whole area, hearing in mind that the village policeman now often has more than one parish to look after. On the other hand, quite obviously there is the equal danger that if we had statutory provisions for enforcement by persons other than the police, they might become harassing in operation. It was decided to retain the byelaw procedure and to make the Bill a statutory alternative with a higher penalty, but to preclude having two penalties for the same offence.

Then there was the difficulty of considering who should have the right to institute proceedings. The basis of the Bill at the moment is that, apart from the police, broadly speaking that right is limited to those authorities and private persons who suffer damage from litter in the sense that it is they who have to go to the trouble and expense of clearing it up.

In respect of private land, that means the occupier. In dealing with private land, we must reflect that as pressure towards any improvement in the litter habit becomes stronger in public places, the likelihood of litter being dumped on private land perhaps becomes rather greater. It is not infrequent in the countryside to find a heap of rather ugly empty tins dumped in the side of a wood, or something like that. If one's land suffers that disfigurement it means going to the trouble of sending someone to clear up that litter or doing it oneself.

The other difficulty with regard to enforcement is the matter of detection and evidence. The objection can be put forward that all litter as it lies is evidence of undetected offences, and it is open to people always to say "That is not my litter". It gives rise to the question of how one would prove a case, especially as the definition in the model byelaw which has been adopted is:

"… throws down, places, deposits and leaves …"

I stress the word "and", One needs to establish the intention to abandon it.

Those are questions which the courts are perfectly capable of deciding. It would be, as my hon. Friend said, a matter of proceeding in flagrant cases and taking care that there is corroboration and a clear-cut case, such as refusal to pick up the litter when asked. That seems to me to be evidence of a wilful intention. Likewise the fact that litter has been thrown from a passing car obviously establishes the intention.

The next technical difficulty was as to who would collect the evidence. There we had very much in mind that it might be a considerable burden upon the police. Therefore, the Clauses in the Bill which authorise the local authorities or persons who are entitled to take proceedings also empower them to appoint servants or agents as litter wardens. It was thought that that might get over the difficulty of a shortage of police personnel, bearing in mind that the occasions when most vigilance and action would probably be required would be times such as bank holidays when the police would normally be very busy on other duties. The analogy for such agents was based on people like park keepers and game keepers, and also water bailiffs who are employed part-time by river boards to check fishing licences and byelaws.

Inevitably, there was the difficulty of identifying the person believed to have committed an offence. As the Bill stands, power is given for such duly authorised agents to ask for the name and address, and if that information is withheld, then a lesser offence is committed. As my hon. Friend has said, it may well be that the police could take over this duty of initiating prosecutions and that the duties of the private people and local authorities concerned could be confined to providing, as it were, a witness in conjunction with the police.

On the whole, I think that the difficulties of enforcement have been somewhat exaggerated, because one would hope that black spots and flagrant cases would be first selected. If necessary, I suggest, the police would lie up to catch offenders at the places where there was consistent trouble.

The final technical difficulty was that there might be a great burden upon the courts in that there would be brought before them numerous summonses which would waste the time of magistrates, police, witnesses and so on. That was a factor which partly determined the decision to include in the Bill the alternative methods of getting evidence and instituting proceedings. Now, however, I think the future prospect is that that burden might be considerably lessened. There is before the House the Magistrates' Courts Bill which provides a procedure whereby the police and the prosecution witnesses are relieved of the necessity to attend court proceedings if a written plea of guilty is submitted by the offender. That could make a very great difference. I suggest that it is a typically British compromise of getting the advantages without the disadvantage of the custom of having "on the spot" fining which obtains in America and other countries. Consideration was given to that method, but I think it would be rejected by the British public.

I believe it is unlikely on the whole that the litter lout, knowingly having made a mess and having been caught in the act and summoned, will travel to court and attempt to defend a flagrant case and thus incur publicity and, possibly, ridicule as well as a fine. I think that, broadly speaking, he will find it much easier to admit his guilt by letter, send a postal order and learn his lesson.

To sum up, I believe that the burden of putting this law on a statutory basis is not as great as one might think. At the beginning, certainly it would mean an effort. We should have to administer a sharp shock to restrain public bad conduct. In the first few weeks, there might be a good many summonses. I believe that in the 1900s Paris was faced with a similar problem. The chief of police gave notice that he would put all his policemen in plain clothes and prosecute people for litter offences. After about seven days of very sharp police action, Paris was cleaned up.

It might be that if such a Bill as this became law an appointed day would be a useful provision. August bank holiday might be chosen. We should then be able to make arrangements in advance and definitely brace ourselves as a nation to take this problem rather more seriously than we have so far done. It is a matter of bringing about a change in the climate of public opinion. I believe that litter is perhaps 80 per cent. the result of thoughtlessness and only 20 per cent. the result of sheer wilfulness. The mere existence of a statute against it will have a powerful psychological effect. After that, I think the public will tend to police themselves and the litter habit will be recognised as offensive and disgusting just as were some of the other habits which were frequently seen in public but have now passed away.

A clear expression by Parliament that litter is to be checked would stimulate the educational activities and the response to them. It would also stimulate the provision of means of disposing of litter. We must not overlook that. I have in mind not merely litter baskets. Perhaps motor manufacturers will think in terms of including a litter receptacle in the design of their cars. I hope, too, that, even if tailors do not produce a special pocket like the old ticket pocket for the empty cigarette carton, it may at any rate become socially correct for one to put one's empty cigarette packet in one's pocket. All these things might flow from an expression of Parliamentary disapproval of the litter habit.

However, as other countries less crowded, industrialised and wealthy than Britain have found, it is virtually impossible to control the litter menace unless the people as a whole and the Government are determined to do something about it. Uniform and certain laws on the subject, with significant penalties, are necessary to give final expression to that determination. I am sure that in Britain that decision should be taken by Parliament. Therefore, I hope the House will today decide that now is the right time for further action and that it will give the Bill a Second Reading.

I should like very briefly to support the Bill. I entirely agree with both the the hon. Members for Hexham (Mr. Speir) and Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) that we as a nation should be ashamed of the way in which we treat our beauty spots and other public places. Those of us who have had the good fortune to go to the Continent in recent years—I am thinking not only of particularly clean and tidy countries like Switzerland but of Italy, France and Germany—have found that at the seaside places one is not disgusted and nauseated and, still less, endangered by litter being left all over the place as it is in so many of our holiday and seaside resorts.

I think that much of the litter problem in this country is due to thoughtlessness and selfishness. Time and again, one sees someone in a bus queue or elsewhere in the street taking the last cigarette out of a packet and just dropping the packet, never thinking that someone else has to pick that carton up. I am afraid that people who in their own homes would never dream of dropping things on the floor and leaving them there have no such concern when they are outside their homes and in the streets.

I am afraid also that there are some mothers of children who at home would insist on tidy and clean habits and who would be very much annoyed if their children left on the floor all the rubbish with which they sometimes play, and who themselves would never dream of leaving in the middle of the kitchen floor an empty tin or bottle. But when they are out of doors they seem to have a completely different set of standards and think nothing at all of leaving about their empty paper bags, tins and bottles and all the other appurtenances of their picnics. I know that certain youth organisations do a good deal to try to inculcate tidy habits in their young members, and I am certain that many teachers in schools also do the best they can in that respect.

I think that the public has gone on now for so long regarding this matter as something which is just too difficult to deal with that nothing short of a fairly sharp shock is likely to make very much difference. One sees exhortations on posters and so forth in different places. I do not know how successful the different methods employed may be. In some London parks, one is reminded that the parks are in themselves beautiful and one is urged to keep them so. In other places, one is asked to "Keep Britain Tidy." I think that, useful as these methods may be, a short and sharp public campaign on this matter would be likely to be very much more effective.

Although I fully appreciate that to carry out such a campaign might for a limited period be a burden on the police and public authorities, I think it would be worth it. If one could make the thoughtless people who are in the great majority in this matter think, one would have won much more than half the battle. It seems to me that to pass a Measure of this kind and possibly to have an appointed day, which is not provided for in the Bill, and then to see that the maximum publicity is given to it, with effective action planned in advance, might make people really think, "Is it worth being so careless and selfish?"

I hope that in spite of possible technical difficulties in the Bill, which I am sure can be cleared up in Committee, the House will declare itself today in favour of the principle. We can then use all our ingenuity and what influence we have in thinking of the best possible methods of bringing to public notice the very strong feeling, which I am sure many people in the country as well as in the House have, that we in Britain ought to pull together to face this very long-standing problem so that we may become a much cleaner, tidier and self-respecting nation.

I should like to begin by apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) for not being in the Chamber to hear his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I am afraid that consideration of the Bill began rather sooner than I had expected.

I welcome this Measure, which I look upon as very long overdue. I remember that not many years ago I and my family were on holiday in north Cornwall and we were within comfortable motoring distance of Land's End. I happened to mention to my wife in the hearing of our children that I had been to Land's End many years before when I was a child and that I should like to go there again. My sons seized upon this—I suppose that the idea of Land's End was a romantic one to them—and they persuaded me a few days later to take them there.

I must confess that I was horrified when I saw what greeted us. The countryside there is open, without many trees, and it has a fairly flat cliff plateau. As soon as we rounded the last bend and came within half a mile of Land's End point itself, the whole of this beautyspot—it was a bright sunlit day—looked as though it had been covered with snow. It was white and glistening—white with filthy paper, glistening with bottles and tins. We were so shocked that we turned round and went straight back. Land's End on that occasion was a particular example of the sort of thing which we are now considering.

I had no doubt that there were many other places around our coast that midsummer which were similarly disgusting. In spite of what the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, I do not think that this is a peculiarly British habit. On the whole, I would say that the Continent is cleaner than these islands, but last summer I was in a part of France where, I must confess, the conditions at the seaside places seemed to be almost as had as those in this country.

British people on holiday there, perhaps.

There is one weakness in the Bill in that the penalty is only doubled from a maximum of £5, as it is under the local byelaws at present, to a maximum of £10. I do not think that that is enough. I should like to see a maximum penalty of £20 imposed for this offence if the Bill reaches the Statute Book.

In certain States of America, the penalty has been raised to £35 and fines are imposed on the spot.

We could take that as an example worth following. The Americans' general monetary values are higher than ours in most things, but I do not think we should be amiss in following that example, going rather more than halfway and making the maximum penalty £20.

I should also like the Parliamentary Secretary to consult the Minister of Education in this matter in order to make a greater impact on the problem through education in our schools. The best way of doing that is pictorially. In cur schools in these modern days many subjects are taught pictorially. It is very much more appropriate and has more impact on the child's mind than the old methods by which we were taught as children.

Before the war a certain oil company used to advertise, usually in magazines but I believe also in other media, aid the form of advertisement was a photograph of some beautiful place in the English, Scottish or Welsh countryside. In very small print beneath the photograph were the words, "The—Oil Company do not desecrate scenes like this by unseemly advertising."

I think that the Ministry of Education could follow that example and obtain a photograph of one of our London parks as it should be and a photograph taken from precisely the same angle of that same London park a day after a Bank holiday, in order to show children the contrast between how places should appear and how they in fact appear when the litter louts have made free with them. If those photographs could be enlarged to a considerable size and could include not only London parks but also other areas of the countryside which are subjected to these indecencies, and if the photographs could be placed side by side in the schools and the teachers could occasionally draw attention to them as an illustration, I think it would make a far greater impact on the minds of the children than do the present methods.

I am afraid that the trouble starts with the children. I have had this experience with my own children, who, like most children, buy toffees wrapped in paper. A toffee paper screwed into a ball seems a very small piece of paper which can do no damage, but it leads to the formation of a bad habit. If the habit starts with a tiny screwed up piece of toffee paper, the next thing that follows is an ice cream carton, and by the time the children have reached the age of smoking it has become a matter of discarding cigarette cartons. The habit gets worse and worse as they grow up.

One aspect of this problem which certainly cannot be solved by legislation but which is noticeable concerns the collection of refuse by local authorities. Quite a number of people have mentioned this problem to me in the West Country, but I do not know how it can be solved. There is evidence that on occasions some of these refuse collectors do not take all the care they should. As we travel along a country road where there are a few houses and notice the dustbins being emptied, we notice that not all the contents of those dustbins go into the vehicle which is provided to take away the refuse. There is spillage. The men on the job are probably working to a tight schedule and have not time to clear up the odd pieces which blow out or fall by the wayside. I feel that it should be impressed on local authorities that much greater care should be taken while refuse is being collected.

I welcome the Bill, and I sincerely hope that it will have a speedy passage through Parliament and will reach the Statute Book at an early date.

I am glad to add a few additional words in support of this very reasonable Bill which was introduced so ably by one of the most reasonable Members of the House—the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir). It is natural that so reasonable a Member should produce so reasonable a Bill.

I am glad that, having been fortunate in the Ballot, he selected this subject, because it has been in my mind for many years. I hoped that one day I should be successful in the Ballot, and I should then have introduced a Bill very similar to this, although perhaps rather on the lines which were patently envisaged by the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), with a few more teeth in it. When I read the Bill my first thought was that it was perhaps a little too reasonable. On later consideration and more mature thought, however, I came to the conclusion that it was a very difficult subject on which to produce a Bill which does not run the risk of unenforcibility and yet achieves the general purpose for which it is intended.

On the border of the constituency of the hon. Member for Hexham and literally on the Border, at Carter Bar, there is one of this country's beauty spots. I think it is one of the most dramatic frontiers in Europe. It is a scene of incomparable beauty, whether one approaches it from the north or from the south. The roads come up to the Border stone and the scene is so beautiful that, apart from people travelling on their ordinary daily business every car driver who drives up there stops to look at the scene. They all get out, look around and see one of the most beautiful sights to be seen in this country. Within the range of eyesight on a clear day are the Lammermuir, the Moorfoot Hills, the Pennines and the Cheviots, and the heather which is all around adds colour and beauty to the scene.

Immediately in front, however, on the little space which is the car park near the Border sign, there is almost invariably a mass of litter and paper which detracts from the beauty of the scene. It may be that the hon. Member for Hexham, who must occasionally in his constituency duties past that spot, has been induced by this social crime to think about this Bill.

I was one of those who accompanied him on a recent visit abroad, when we went to Western Germany. On more than one occasion we commented on the fact that in most of the towns, nice new clean towns in the industrial part of Northern Federal Germany, there are practically no litter bins to be seen. But there is no litter either. The streets are spotlessly clean. This may be the result of the psychological effect on the citizens at having brand new towns and having had to pay very dearly for them. The cost of these new towns has been high indeed, to the Germans and to other nations as well. The fact that they are new and that everything is bright clean and glistening may have made it very much easier for the authorities to get the citizens to refrain from cluttering up the new streets with filthy paper and so on.

That seems to me to prove that the supply of litter bins is not by any means the only way of keeping our streets tidy and clean. But they would help. I hope this Bill becomes law, and in any event, the fact that it has been before Parliament should bring this problem to the minds of a large number of people and should give the authorities reason to consider means of dealing with the problem.

Most of our litter bins are stupid, silly little tin arrangements. Some of them, indeed, are defaced by advertisements. We see them in many parts of London. They are emptied by opening the bottom part of the receptacle. In due course, the fastener or lock becomes rusted and we then have the ridiculous spectacle—I have seen it on many occasions—of a litter bin without a bottom so that any littler which is put in drops out at the bottom.

There is need for good design in street furniture. It should be possible for those who design our lamp-posts, bus stop signs and other pieces of street furniture to design an incorporated litter bin, even in concrete. This has been done in the City of Edinburgh, my own native city. It is a very clean city. I should say that it is almost the cleanest city in Great Britain, particularly in its main street. There we have a long-established practice of pleasant litter bins of imaginative design with attractive slogans on them; for instance, a pair of hands is depicted on one, with the words, "In your hands Lies the cleanliness of this city." These are attractive bins which are easy enough to open, but they are of unusual design so that children are attracted to them and want to find litter in order to have the fun of putting it into these bins.

There is also the contemporary design such as we see in St. James's Park and in Princes Street, Edinburgh, and there are other attractive designs in my native city. The authorities might experiment along those lines. Buses have too small a box for the reception of used tickets, and there is only one on each bus. If the bus authorities would place a box on each side of the platform, it would enable litter-conscious passengers who wish to alight when there is a rush and who cannot reach the one box, to have a chance of disposing of their tickets in the other box.

There are so many ways in which litter could be cleared up without legislation at all, and at very little expense. It is unfortunate, but I am afraid true, that legislation of this kind is necessary. One hon. Member has mentioned that the Secretary of State for Scotland had some misgivings about this Bill because it may not fit into the existing law of Scotland. I see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland sitting with a very forbidding look, which is most unusual for him. I cannot understand why there should be any objections to the application of this Bill to Scotland. I shall listen with very great care to what the Joint Under-Secretary of State says in explanation of those possible objections. I think it would be not at all appropriate for a Member for a Glasgow constituency to make objections to an anti-litter Bill, and I hope, therefore, that he will temper his criticisms with a great deal of thought and with one or two mind-pictures of the state of the Gallowgate and the Cowcaddens on a Saturday night.

I am delighted to support this Bill. I am sure it is not an exaggeration to say that Britain at this time is the most scruffy and untidiest country in Western Europe. The acceptance of this Bill will do something to tidy it up and to introduce a state of neatness, tidiness and cleanliness which we ought to have in this country. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will receive unanimous support and a speedy passage through all its stages.

I am sure that the force and punch which the the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) put into his remarks will not have been lost upon my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. So far as England is concerned, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) and his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) on the Bill they have produced.

It is quite easy in a matter of this kind for some ground to be lost by a fussy approach to this subject, and therefore I greatly admire the moderation and tone with whcih my hon. Friends approached the whole topic. Sometimes cranks get hold of this matter and spoil what is undoubtedly an extremely strong case. On just how strong it is I can speak with some feeling, as the representative of the largest part of what is called "London's own forest"—Epping Forest. The problem has been summed up sharply and succinctly by the Chief Superintendent in these words, "It is a terrible problem", when he was giving evidence before the Royal Commission on Common Land.

It was at one time written that Britain was a "green and pleasant land", but owing to the growth of this menace that statement is becoming less and less true each day—so much so that our national heritage is, to a great extent, in danger of being destroyed. It is a question not only of beauty being in danger but of waste—waste of money and of manpower. Each week 25 tons of litter are picked up in London parks; 20,000 man hours per year are spent collecting it from the Central London parks. If some of the people who spend their time picking up this litter were instead to look at some of the people putting it down, I wonder whether the enforcement provisions would not be very much more effective. Whether the House approves of the machinery which lies behind the Bill in its enforcement purpose or not, the manifestation of opinion shown so far has been so unanimous that Her Majesty's Government cannot fail to take notice.

The spreading of litter not only spoils beauty spots and wastes money and manpower, but it causes great inconvenience as well. It passes credulity that a Test Match played in Yorkshire has been stopped owing to the great crescendo of litter sweeping across the pitch. That has happened. There is also, of course, the element of danger. We must not imagine that the problem is confined only to seaside resorts. It is a very severe problem in Epping Forest. One can call to mind an extreme case, when a bottle was thrown out of a motor car and seriously injured an innocent passerby.

I gather that objection may be taken to the Bill on two main grounds, first, that the provisions for enforcement upon private land are ineffectual, and, secondly, that the constitution of an offence for individuals who withhold their names and addresses would not be to the public taste. It is often difficult to establish proof under the present law. It is true also that if one allows a private individual, for example, to obtain names and addresses from people, there may be trouble. But, at any rate, here is an attempt to strengthen the law. If Her Majesty's Government think that it is a wrong way of doing it, or the general tenor of opinion is that it is a wrong way of doing it, the burden of improving the situation still remains.

The law in its present state is quite ineffective. Most rural areas have made byelaws, but these are not enforced. A rather smaller number of municipal areas have made byelaws, but these are often not enforced. There is, in fact, an antique Section, which requires to be brought out of the dustbin, contained in the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, which provides for the offence of dropping litter to be dealt with. It provides also for a myriad of other offences to be dealt with. One of the things which the Bill does is to abolish the definition of "litter" in that antique Section. But how often is it enforced today? Into what state are the Government of the land allowing the law to fall, if they do not like my hon. Friend's Bill? That is the question which they must face and answer, if they do not like the machinery which his Bill provides, for the situation is becoming worse every day.

Although education is, no doubt, the most admirable way of tackling the problem, on current form it is not enough. There must be more educational measures. I understand that the Government say that a campaign is to be instituted and that little leaflets containing pictures of squirrels and so on are to be circulated. I am very fond of the squirrel as an animal; it is a most attractive little thing. None the less, there is such a thing as being too whimsical in one's progaganda, and I am not at all sure that such a method is tackling the problem in the right way. A picture of little Mary's hand or leg torn by the broken bottles would be a much more effective way of bringing home to the public just what happens as a result of this particular bad habit than the attractive whimsicality of approach suggested by squirrel pictures.

The attitude of some magistrates' courts on the subject shows that they do not fully understand the problem. They often treat the offence as too trivial and impose derisory sentences or fines. Some take the view that it is rather bad luck on a culprit to be caught and seem to think that he should be allowed to get away with it. The individual thinks to himself, "Why pick on me? It is unfair that I, out of the thousands of litter droppers, should be the person caught". I suppose it is, in a sense, bad luck to be caught; but many forms of British penal legislation are operated on that basis. How many citizens could not complain on the same footing that they had been unfairly caught for speeding or for obstructing in the street? Yet severe penalties are from time to time imposed. If I were asked why certain magistrates had imposed a severe penalty, I should say, remembering the case of Admiral Byng, that it was done "Pour encourager lesautres", because I regard it as necessary.

The attitude of magistrates up and down the country varies. I have taken some pains to ascertain what was done by benches of magistrates sitting in my constituency, where we have the difficult task of trying to protect Epping Forest. The Conservators are fighting a losing battle. In the last three years there have been thirty-one prosecutions. Of those something like seventeen have been for placing litter or rubbish. Four offenders have been fined the maximum penalty of £5; one has been fined £4; two have been fined £3; five have been fined £2. and two have been fined £1. The remaining three have been fined 10s. or less. Plainly, the bench of magistrates sitting in my constituency does not take this particular offence lightly, perhaps because it is a bench which knows rather more about the matter than some others.

I was glad to hear the hon. Member for West Lothian mention some of the practical aspects of the matter, particularly bigger and more conspicuous litter bins. If a more "contemporary" design is wanted, I am sure that people can be found to produce it. If a litter bin á la Professor Richardson is wanted, I am sure that he would be only too glad to improve the design of street furniture. It is not, however, only a matter of getting bigger and more artistic or imaginative receptacles; their tactical placing is important also. Not only should the receptacles in buses be larger, but there should be a bin provided at bus stops also. Lay-bys where lorries stop provide a capital site for suitable litter receptacles, as also do scenic spots adjoining highways. I am sure that we can do a good deal better in trains, where the facilities for putting litter away are practically non-existent. Those are a few practical suggestions.

I hope that, at the end of this day, an unmistakable expression of opinion on this subject will go out from this House to the nation, an opinion expressing strong disapproval of things as they are. I know that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary may be thinking of a case which happened in the Kensington Royal Park, when a lady was falsely imprisoned and quite wrongfully treated for combing the hair of her dog there. That was a case where the park keeper behaved with complete lack of commonsense. He was an Irish park keeper; I make no aspersions at all against those of the Irish temperament—I just leave the matter there—but he did take the lady and incarcerate her for what he thought was an offence. I suppose that that is an extreme illustration of what might happen if the law is strengthened. Of course, there are always extremes in every application or enforcement of the law. It sometimes happens, though fortunately very rarely here, that the police extort a confession from a criminal. That is very rare, but the fact that it does happen does not mean that the police have to cease their duties, any more than it means that one can just leave the law in its pristine state.

I think that this is an admirable Measure. It can, no doubt, be approved in Committee, but I hope that it will go forward as evidence of the nation's resolution to put a stop to a situation that is deteriorating every day.

I, too, should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir), who has used his good fortune in the Ballot to deal with a subject that should be ventilated in this House, and more widely considered. I congratulate also those hon. Members on both sides who have added their names to the Bill. I am sure that the desire effectively to tackle this bad habit is general throughout the country. There is a general desire to try to put an end to this practice of throwing down waste material in public places.

The practice is not, of course, confined to our beauty spots. It is quite a problem in the Metropolitan area. Despite all the efforts of the Metropolitan authorities, the provision of beautifully-designed litter bins and the like, it seems that although most people condemn the habit, most people still persist in it. I hope that this discussion today will result in more people realising that this habit should be discouraged.

The argument that the byelaw powers of local authorities are ineffective is sound. Until something is enacted by Parliament, people will not sufficiently widely realise that it is an offence. It is, after all, an offence against the community to throw waste on to public places, but I am not sure that we have not two separate problems to tackle. I should be sloath to treat the child who throws down his toffee papers in the same way as I would treat the man who leaves a broken bottle where someone may cut his foot. The general habit of children—and of men with their cigarette cartons—littering the place with paper is not in the same plane of offence as the act of throwing away a broken bottle—or of boys breaking bottles just for the fun of it. Those are two different types of misbehaviour; so I turn to my main point, that of penalties.

If this Bill goes through, I hope that the penalty Clause will be amended. An hon. Gentleman opposite, and one of my hon. Friends, seemed to suggest that the penalties should be far heavier than those provided for in the Bill. It would be a mistake to impose savage sentences, particularly on the ordinary litterer who throws away his paper, and perhaps the promoter of the Bill might consider some system of first warning the person whom I call the ordinary litterer. We do not wish the police to begin to prosecute people for dropping a newspaper in the street, but that could happen under the Bill as it is now drawn. The offender could be required to give his name and address to the police and could be prosecuted.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member was here when I was speaking. but I said that I hoped that if the Bill was enacted it would be exercised with the utmost discretion and operated only in really flagrant cases. I pointed out that in the Royal Parks it is the custom, I believe, not to prosecute unless and until the offender has been reminded of the byelaw, asked to pick up his litter, and has refused.

I quite agree that that is how it would be generally handled by the police and by custodians of parks and open spaces, but the Bill does permit a conatable—or even a private person in certain circumstances—to take the name and address of a person who throws down a carton. After all, that is a petty offence and should not be treated too severely, and the police should act as they do under some of the traffic regulations when, in most cases, they send out a written warning. Indeed, I think that some of the written warnings are totally ineffective. The police seem to have a habit of issuing a warning even when vehicles are allowed to emit unnecessary smoke from their diesel engines. I think that people should first be warned, particularly those who offend merely by throwing down paper and the like.

Whether the Bill can be altered in such a way as to deal more lightly with the lesser offences and quite severely with the more serious offence of throwing away cans and broken bottles, I do not know, but I should be happier if that could be done. Although I make these criticisms of Clause 5, I am fully behind those hon. Members who have put their names to the Bill. If they achieve no other object, they have at least furthered that education of the public which is the basic solution of this problem.

I am sure that this Bill will give local authorities the power they need to keep their streets and open spaces tidy. Although I do not want to see penal enactments put on the Statute Book without good cause. I believe that there is every reason to think that a Bill like this would, if enacted, prove of advantage to every town in the country, from the point of view both of tidiness and of saving the present enormous cost of street cleaning.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) on his graphic description of the amount of litter which is collected from open spaces, and upon his review of the fines which have been imposed on those who have been found guilty of adding to the litter in Epping Forest.

In my own constituency, which is an urban constituency, we are extremely fortunate in that we have a very generous area of open space. Southampton County Borough Council is most anxious that this Bill should be given a Second Reading. It has good reason for supporting the Bill because it is proud of the commons and parks in the county borough. Anyone visiting Southampton for the first time is impressed by the number and variety of its open spaces. Entering the county borough from the direction of London, and shortly after crossing the county boundary, one is impressed by Southampton Common, which stretches on both sides of the main road for a considerable distance, and it is succeeded by other open spaces, green parks which stretch almost down to the water's edge.

The generality of the residents of Southampton respect the commons and open spaces, and indeed there is a local society whose principal function is to guard against any encroachment upon the amenities enjoyed by the town folk. Even so, the provisions of this Bill will help to deter those who habitually scatter litter around with complete disregard for the comfort of others. It will at least bring to their notice their liability to penalty. If it does no more than to cause an offender to glance over his shoulder before throwing his cigarette packet or bottle away it will demonstrate that it is effective in that it helps to induce people to begin to realise that to throw away an empty packet or other rubbish ought not to be an automatic action, and that at least caution is required before flagrantly breaking the law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping referred to some of the difficulties about the Bill. I trust that the Bill—I believe it does—protects vacant sites from misuse; sites, for instance, from which war-time bomb damage has been cleared and which are awaiting redevelopment. Those lots, particularly in urban districts, are frequently used as depositories for all manner of litter. I am told that unless the litter is of a nature which causes it to decompose or otherwise to be likely to give off noxious fumes injurious to health in some way or another, there is nothing that a local authority can do to remedy the casting of litter upon those sites.

The residents near such a site have to put up with this confusion of litter deposited there and the consequent loss of amenity in their vicinity. That loss is due not only to the unsightliness of the litter on the site itself. There is also the possibility of the litter being blown down the road, or of tin cans rolling into the roadway.

I am particularly conscious of that because a constituent of mine came to see me only a few weeks ago to complain about this very matter of the misuse of a vacant site. She and other residents in the road where she lives are concerned not only about the eyesore of the litter dumped upon the vacant site but also about the odd collection of material which seems to fall from lorries and other heavy vehicles which are parked overnight upon the vacant site, the drivers using it as an unauthorised parking lot. The residents there complain about the spoiling of the amenities of their neighbourhood. Litter on the site is blown from it, or carried from it on the wheels of the lorries which are parked amongst the litter. Those residents also corn plain about the noise made by the lorries, which are driven off the site in the small hours.

I hope that Clause 4 (1, d) can be amended, because it seems to me that in instances of the sort that I have just mentioned the landlord or occupier is the only person who will be able to take action to remedy the depositing of litter which causes these complaints. It frequently happens that the owner is an absentee owner and is unable to collect the evidence on which to proceed; and, indeed, he may be unwilling to prosecute. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) will consider the possibility of allowing the local authority to take action, if authorised by the owner of the property so to do, because the property owner may find it too much of a burden himself to maintain a watch by which to obtain the necessary evidence, or, indeed, to institute the necessary proceedings.

I notice that the Bill defines "lands" as "land covered with water". It seems to me a useful definition. Most of us have seen paddling pools or ponds in which litter has collected, in local parks or on the commons, and when such a pond or pool is drained the litter is very much in evidence. I am sure that this definition will be most useful in discouraging people from casting all manner of litter into ponds—possibly in the first instance to see whether it floats—particularly paddling ponds. That may endanger the children, for when they paddle they may step on the sharp edge of a tin can. Anyway, the avoidance of the throwing of litter into the ponds will minimise the expense of the local authorities when draining the ponds and pools to cleanse them.

I hope the Bill will be given a Second Reading, but I have a few doubts about the imposition of the penalty, doubts which the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) expressed. I think that possibly they have been stilled by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham. I do not think any of us want to see savage penalties imposed. Nor do we wish to conjure up a vision of an irate park keeper hounding the general public. I am sure that that will not occur in fact, but I think that an imposition of a penalty on the relatively few inconsiderate people is a small price to pay for the preservation of our beauty spots and the cleanliness of our streets.

I should like to say a few words in support of the Bill, and I hope the Government will welcome it and do what they can to facilitate its passage into law. The nuisance at which the Bill is aimed is one which is universally condemned. There is no one who defends the practice of throwing litter. Indeed, if one discusses it with the general public one finds so many people condemning the practice tht one is left wondering who exactly it is who does throw all the litter about.

The trouble is partly, I think, that a great many people who condemn the practice wholeheartedly often find it more convenient to throw a little bit of litter on the ground than to go to that little extra trouble to avoid doing so. Surely that situation, in which the public as a whole reprobate the practice, but in which we have not quite screwed ourselves up to the point of forbidding this form of anti-social self-indulgence, is one in which legislation is required. Here what society really wants expresses itself in a firm, clearly defined and enforceable manner. We are not faced with the difficulties which Parliament sometimes encounters in trying to pass legislation. We are not dealing with an offence which it is particularly difficult to define. We are not faced with the problem of drafting a Measure which the courts will find it difficult to interpret.

During this debate a number of doubts have been expressed and points of detail raised, but the interesting thing is that all of them are clearly points which could be settled after reasonable argument during the Committee stage. We have this offence, which certainly is reprobated by the public, which can be dealt with by law, and a problem of drafting which presents no serious difficulties. I know that in some quarters there is a doubt about whether it is desirable to pass any laws containing penalties. But let us look at what we are proposing to do. It cannot be said that we are in danger of passing unenforcible legislation. If that is true, it is a criticism that applies with even greater force to the present state of the law.

At the moment we have a collection of byelaws which, for the very reason that they are byelaws, tend not to be enforced, and to bring the whole principle of legislation against litter into contempt. The proposition that it is reasonable that it should be illegal to drop litter in the area of one rural district and quite all right to do it in another rural district area is not one which any reasonable man will accept. If the public are even vaguely aware that that is so, their reaction is likely to be that on the whole their legislators do not particularly care whether or not they drop litter.

There are two examples which I wish to give to illustrate that locally legislated law is not adequate. At a recent annual meeting of the Ramblers' Association attention was drawn to the fact that in the Lake District the area of more than one local authority is affected, and owing to the fact that different authorities there have different attitudes towards this matter the difficulty of preserving the Lake District from litter is made greater. The difficulty of the task facing those public-spirited people who wish to keep it clear from litter is greatly increased by the fact that this is still a matter of local and not national legislation.

The other example I wish to give is taken from a very different area, from my own constituency, which, although it has a charm of its own, does not attract visitors on the same scale as does the Lake District. But it does attract a particular kind of visitor on particular occasions, for it lies between the Chelsea and Fulham football grounds. When I first began to pursue my political life in that area I was, on one occasion, travelling by underground to address an open-air meeting and I was interested to notice the vast concourse of people travelling towards the meeting place—travelling towards, but, as I soon found, not to it.

Those people came from far and near to the football matches, and whatever they talked about on the way they did not discuss the question of what were the local byelaws with regard to the dropping of litter. It would not be reasonable to expect that they would do so. The result is that the local authority in that area, the borough council, is put to an expense amounting to £400 a year on account of that cause of litter. The expense is not really the largest part of the matter, the fact that people have to be paid to clear it up; there is also the nastiness, the lack of hygiene and the lack of general respect for civilised life which is involved in having litter laying about.

I am sure that we all believe that the matter cannot be dealt with by the passing of laws alone. As I have said, and I believe that it is also the opinion of all hon. Members, I consider it is important to pass a law to make quite clear that this matter is to be taken seriously. But the passing of that law must be supplemented by constructive educational measures to deal with the problem. That was said of the matter dealt with by a Departmental Committee, on which I had the honour to serve, which dealt with the problem of litter in the Royal Parks. Hon. Members who have referred to the desirability of having model bins may be interested in the report of that Committee which describes and contains a picture, of what we considered to be a very good model bin which, without being garish, none the less attracted sufficient attention. There are also a number of other matters concerning the problem of educating the public to a proper frame of mind which the Government might study with advantage and consider how far the recommendations relating to the special problem of the Royal Parks could be made applicable to the problem of litter.

I believe that by a combination of an adequate and workable piece of legislation and proper propagandist and educational methods, we can rid our country of something which is a disgrace to it, which everybody reprobates and for which none of us so far has found a proper remedy.

My intervention in the debate now is not in any way intended to discourage my hon. Friends or hon. Members opposite from expressing their views on this matter. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland proposes to intervene shortly to discuss one or two points which particularly affect Scotland. If, as I hope they will, the speeches which we have heard this afternoon stimulate public interest in the avoidance of litter, both in the countryside and in our towns and cities, this debate will have served to help all of us who are anxious to solve this problem.

As a measure of the increasing public interest in this matter, we might consider the space devoted to it by the Press. During an Adjournment debate on this topic last year, it was stated that in 1952 the Press gave 11,000 column inches to the question of litter. In 1953 there were as many as 14,000 column inches, and last year the figure went up to 30,000. It is true, as has been said, that there are many agencies which in various ways have tried to cure people of the litter habit. They include the Ministry of my right hon. Friend, the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Education, local authorities and voluntary organisations. Many local authorities are active regarding publicity and in the provision of litter bins.

The Ministry of Works has campaigned to improve the position in the Royal Parks. I have taken note of the suggestions made today for various improvements which might be effected in the matter of propaganda. It is also true that some very valuable educational work has been done in the schools throughout the country, especially with younger children. As for sound radio and television, my right hon. Friend has in preparation a propaganda film on this subject which we hope to show on television about the time of the Whitsuntide holidays.

The anti-litter campaign has also been running since the time of the Festival of Britain, and it has been intensified this year. We are now issuing from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government the Red Squirrel poster. I took note of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay), who was not particularly enamoured with the effectiveness of this poster and would have preferred something more gory or more graphic depicting a little girl who had been injured as a result of the littering of broken bottles.

There is also the "Keep Britain Tidy" group, which was set up under the direction of the National Federation of Women's Institutes, and I should like to acknowledge the very useful work which has been done by that group. The National Parks Commission, too, has been very active. Only yesterday I looked at some of its publicity material, which is admirable and most suited to the surrounds in which it is displayed. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend intends to do all he can to stimulate public interest in this matter. In spite of some doubts which have been expressed in the House this afternoon, I think that education and propaganda are already having a good effect, at least on the younger generation. I am myself occasionally reproved by my own children, and I do not complain in the least.

One of the points which we discovered in the Departmental Committee is that, by and large, children are all right in this matter. Unfortunately when they get a little older they seem to relapse.

I should say that that is perfectly true. The younger generation has a far more finely developed social sense in this matter than the adult population.

We have had some very interesting speeches on the Bill and I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) on his excellent speech by way of introduction. My right hon. Friend will give the most earnest consideration to all the suggestions which have been made in the debate.

Perhaps I may say a few words about the Bill, which is, after all, the subject of the discussion. The Bill would make it an offence to create litter in any place without lawful authority, and it applies to the scattering of litter both in public places and on private land. As the House knows, the Local Government Act, 1933, contains a power to make byelaws

"for the good rule and government … and for the … suppression of nuisances",

and this is the power which is most widely used to control litter in public places, including, of course, open spaces to which the public have access for the time being. In addition, there are special provisions for byelaws in relation to National Trust land and the nature reserves. The national park authorities and local authorities may make byelaws under the National Parks Act, too, while the parks regulations provide for the litter nuisances in the Royal Parks themselves.

The first question to which we must address ourselves is this: how far does byelaw control extend in public places? The fact is that out of 61 county councils in the country no fewer than 60 are on record as having made byelaws against litter; out of 83 county boroughs, 59 have made byelaws; out of 318 boroughs, 235 have made byelaws; and out of the 28 Metropolitan Boroughs, 25 have been responsible for anti-litter byelaws. I think the House is bound to agree, therefore, that byelaw control, although, as the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, not complete, is at least very widespread throughout the country.

It may be said that these byelaws are not entirely effective, because, of course, we still have litter, but I am not clear what reason there is to suppose that a new Statute will be substantially more effective than the existing byelaws. I have heard the observations made by hon. Members in the debate but I do not think I have heard any argument addressed to that point.

The principal change proposed by the Bill in respect of public places is that whereas under the Local Government Act, 1933, the maximum penalty is £5, the Bill would increase the maximum penalty to £10. As it is, the fines imposed by magistrates throughout the country usually vary from about 10s. to 40s., according to the nature of the offence; and, of course, magistrates take widely divergent views about the various offences which come before them in court. There was a recent case in Dewsbury in which a man was fined 10s. for depositing litter in a public place and in which his defence was that he did not see the litter basket because he was leaning on it.

In London, magistrates have tried cases in respect of the Royal Parks and the fines imposed have usually been very modest, ranging from about 1s. to 10s. The difficulties of enforcing the law in the Royal Parks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping said, constitute a headache for those concerned. I am told that the maximum penalty imposed for this offence in the Royal Parks in recent years has been about 40s.

It has been argued that if the maximum fine were to be increased from £5 to £10, magistrates generally would be encouraged to impose more severe fines. I do not want to be dogmatic about this, but it seems to me that even if the Bill were to become law in its present form, magistrates would still ask themselves what punishment fitted the offence. With all respect to opinions to the contrary which have been expressed this afternoon, it seems to me that the fact that Parliament had increased the maximum permissible fine to £10 would not necessarily lead magistrates throughout the country to impose more severe fines than they impose at present.

I know that all right hon. and hon. Members are incensed at the sight of a national park or a park or a beauty spot or even a road which has been fouled by little pieces of paper, cigarette packets and broken bottles, but how many of us would feel like prosecuting a person who had thrown away an empty cigarette packet and proceeding to impose a stiff fine?

Is my hon. Friend a magistrate?

No.

I am. How does my hon. Friend know how magistrates' minds work? I can assure him that he is on the wrong track.

I wish my hon. Friend had elaborated the ideas she has in mind.

I will do so if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

I think I understand the way my hon. Friend's mind works, although perhaps not all the time. It is a matter of elementary psychology, on which I think we all agree, that we are all far more repelled by the sight of extensive litter than by the individual who is responsible for it by his individual acts.

During the debate there have been references to experience in continental countries. Various hon. Members have said that the litter problem is nothing like so great in France, Germany and Switzerland as it is here. In many parts of Switzerland the police have powers, by police regulations, to impose fines on the spot for these offences. I am informed that in Germany also there are police regulations and summary fines, but I am sure that the British public would never tolerate a system of fines on the spot for offences of this sort. If this House were to make any move in that direction there would be violent expressions of public opinion against it.

The general problem of enforcement is the real difficulty in the Bill. We all know that many thoughtless people throw away bits of paper as a matter of long-standing habit. Even the most civilised among us now and again throws something away, sometimes quite thoughtlessly and unwittingly. I go so far as to say that the hon. Member of this House who never, throws away a bit of paper or a cigarette packet, or something like that, is a very rare bird indeed.

Who is to be detected and fined for this sort of offence? We all know that it is purely a matter of chance who is detected and subsequently fined. It is a matter of bad luck and the odd man out of the million whom some vigilant person happens to catch in the act of depositing litter. I find it difficult to believe that a Statute enacted by Parliament which, in the very nature of the case, must penalise in a hit-and-miss fashion, in a fortuitous way, is likely to be acceptable to public opinion. I am prepared to admit that there is the same difficulty under the byelaws; but the Bill would not make that any better, and that is why the Government believe that education rather than enforcement will produce the best results.

The difficulties in connection with private land are very much greater. The occupier of private land or his authorised agent presumably has to catch the offender in the act of leaving litter. Obviously, the odds against this happening are quite astronomical; but suppose somebody is caught in the act, then under the terms of the Bill the occupier has to demand the name and address of the offender. Suppose that the offender refuses to give his name and address—it would not surprise me if quite a number did refuse—what can the occupier do?

He has no power of arrest, and heaven forbid that he should have. Theoretically, he could go to the police and ask them to make further inquiries; but I want to tell the House that, in the considered view of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that is a duty which ought not in any circumstances to be imposed upon the police force. Therefore, the Government's view is that the provisions relating to private land are very largely unenforceable, while those that relate to public land will not appreciably alter the present position.

I recognise, having said that, that many hon. and right hon. Friends on both sides of the House zealously and sincerely support the Bill, but it is the firm and considered view of the Government that the problem cannot be dealt with adequately by creating a new class of offences, only a very small fraction of which would ever come before the courts, and that it is undesirable to add provisions to the criminal law which cannot be effectively enforced and which would, therefore, tend to bring the law into disrepute.

It is common ground between both sides of the House—and I am sure that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will be with me here—that those of our laws which are the most respected are those which are manifestly right—

I shall speak for myself in a few minutes' time, I hope.

—which are manifestly right and which deal with substantial and recognised offences and which, more- over, are well enforced. I do not believe that British public opinion will tolerate Statute laws which are vexatious or trivial or which can be enforced only once every Preston Guild.

Whether or not the Bill will secure a Second Reading this afternoon, I do not know. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and myself seem to be somewhat in a minority. I am sure, however, that minorities are very often right, as the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) knows. I am sure that if the Bill—a Bill which makes it a criminal offence to leave a piece of paper in somebody's back garden or somebody's field and which gives numerous persons the right to demand names and addresses under penalty—had been a Government Bill, many of my hon. Friends would have expressed their astonishment and incredulity that a Conservative Government could be so insensitive to the claims of individual liberty—

Surely my hon. Friend is aware that the Local Government Act, 1933, under which byelaws are made, was a Conservative or National Government enactment and that the state of the law as it is at present under the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, provides that if someone puts a bit of paper on the ground that is an offence for which he may be fined £2; and that, alternatively, under the Local Government Act, 1933, the byelaws prohibit the deposit of litter? Surely my hon. Friend knows that some of this was brought in by a Conservative, or largely Conservative, Government?

That is an entirely different proposition from the Bill now before the House which extends the principle to private land and which, moreover, gives large numbers of ordinary civilians the right to demand names and addresses and which imposes fines upon people who are not prepared to comply with the demands of private individuals. That is a principle which is totally inacceptable to the Government.

Has my hon. Friend considered the analogy of the gamekeeper and the water bailiff with river boards, who are specifically appointed for limited duties and who have responsibilities which are recognised by law and by the public?

Their duties are in a very narrow scope indeed. That is an entirely different proposition from the Bill under which all occupiers of private land or their authorised agents are entitled to demand this information from private citizens and, in default of getting that information, to take proceedings against those individuals.

I recognise that it is only natural that some hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House should want the Bill even if only for the reason that it achieves a certain propaganda by legislation. I put it to them that before they go into the Lobbies they should consider whether they are more likely to achieve their aim through the medium of a Bill of this description or through the processes of education and propaganda. I do not believe that the Bill, if it were to become law, would make any appreciable difference to the present position. I certainly believe, and this is the view of the Government, that if we vigorously pursue education and propaganda efforts in this field, we, shall succeed as time goes by in reducing substantially the dimensions of this nuisance.

We have just heard a speech from the representative of Her Majesty's Government which would justify, over the range to which it could be applied, the repeal of all laws which impose a penalty. They are all uncertain. All sorts of uncertainties arise, even in the law of murder. It may depend upon the prosecuting counsel whether an accused person is convicted or acquitted. I never heard such nonsense as this from the Government Front Bench.

Hear, hear.

The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of education. We have had a law since 1847 which the Minister admitted today to have been largely ineffective. He says, "Carry on with education". That is not the real problem. The people who are educated are all right until they escape from education.

Take what happened during the Coronation. It was admitted on all hands that the only place where no litter was left was that from which the organised school children had been viewing the procession. Take what happened in the places reserved for Members of Parliament and compare the litter position with what happened with the children. The difference was commented upon at the time. We cannot leave this matter in that way.

I am very happy that I have received a request from the South Shields Town Council to support the Bill. By the next post I received a request from the County Councils Association to do the same thing. So rarely do those two separate bodies send me a communication to the same effect that I am happy today to have no searchings of conscience when I give my hearty support to the Bill.

I recall a cartoon I saw in Punchbefore the Second World War, in which a lady, who obviously belonged to what we then used to call the "nouveau riche", was sitting near a very expensive motor car and surveying the relics of a sumptuous repast which she had had at some countryside place like Newland's Corner. Looking at the champagne bottles she was saying, "At any rate, they will know we were not common trippers". It will be recalled that during a tour by an English cricket team in the West Indies a complaint was made that at one stop spectators threw bottles on to the pitch. I asked Mr. Peter May what he thought of the proceedings. He replied, "The pity was that the bottles were empty".

Do not let us think that this matter is confined to a small section of the population. I would like to be able to photograph Epsom Downs this afternoon and again on Friday of next week after the Spring Meeting. It will not be school children who will be responsible for he difference, which will not be confined to the open Downs. Tattersall's, the Paddock even, will show indications that, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) said, "the British have been here." I was very glad to note for once that he used a word which included Scotsmen in what was supposed to be condemnation.

The Minister says, "Byelaws have been passed by nearly all the county councils and county borough councils and approximately five-sixths of the municipal boroughs, and yet this evil has only diminished very little, if at all". It is clear that if we are to deal with the matter it will have to be enforced by some authority capable of enforcing it.

What possibility has a rural county council of enforcing the law? I recollect what happened on the Dorking by-pass in Surrey. One afternoon the county engineer was travelling along the road and he saw a lady digging up one of the small trees. He went up to her and said, "Madam, do you know that that is public property?" She replied, "What's your grouse? There's another one over there for you". Fortunately he was empowered to take the name and address. She declined to give it and so he took the number of the car. By that devious route the lady was discovered, was brought before the Dorking bench—I say this in the presence of the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Touche) that he may know he has a zealous bench—and she was fined the maximum.

I do not think the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay), who spoke of the fine that had been imposed by a bench, indicated there was any slackness on the part of the magistrate. I cannot imagine that even he, in his desire for heavy penalties, could do other than admit that these offences differ in gravity and that while it might be right to impose the maximum penalty in one case, a penalty of 10s. might be right in another, having regard to the means of the defendant. It might even be heavier in its effect than the maximum penalty in the first case.

The trouble for the local authorities is that the police will not regard themselves as responsible for the enforcement of the byelaws. When byelaws of this description are suggested, it is general for the Home Office to inquire what arrangements the local authority will make for their enforcement. In public parks there are keepers who are generally in uniform. The parks are mainly frequented by local people and the park keepers are known to them as persons with authority there. I imagine there is little difficulty about getting names and addresses of offenders in public parks and not much sympathy for people who have landed themselves into trouble when they decline to give their names and addresses to the uniformed servants of the local authority in such cases.

As the Parliamentary Secretary rightly said, in other places it is understandable that people might decline to give their names and addresses to an ordinary civilian not in uniform who demands it. There was the case of a Duke of Norfolk who some 70 years ago was trimming the hedge of Arundel Park and a by-passer asked him the way to Arundel. When the Duke told him the way the questioner handed him 2d. as an emolument for having supplied such useful information. There is nothing to distinguish the owner of land.

I was surprised to find that in Clause 4 (1, d) prosecution with regard to private lands is restricted to the occupier. I do not want to get involved in small Committee points, but I should have thought that the owner as well as the occupier ought certainly to have the right to deal with litter deposited on private land. I am not quite sure how far after putting in subsection (1, d):

"as respects any place being private lands, the occupier of such lands;"

paragraph (f) would bring in the police force. The paragraph says:

"as respects any other place, the local authority or (if the place consists of lands to which the public have rights of access) any member of a police force."

I should have thought that all the objections raised by the Parliamentary Secretary were Committee points.

This morning there has been a general expression of approval for the transfer of this class of offence from byelaws to statute law. That, as I understood it, was the principle involved. I think that was conceded by the hon. Gentleman when he gave the list of county councils, county borough councils and municipal boroughs which have adopted byelaws. The public having found the inefficiency of that method of dealing with the problem, we have to consider whether it should not be transferred from byelaws to statute laws, with the police having of necessity in certain circumstances the duty of enforcing the law. I do not believe that in the counties, or even in some county boroughs, outside public parks this matter can ever be dealt with unless that is made one of the duties of the police force.

When I was in my constituency on Saturday evening the market place had just closed down. There was a strong wind blowing, which was taking the litter left after the market had closed right across a churchyard, in which are the tombs of some very famous men, including the inventor of the lifeboat. That was making the place look miserable, unkempt and a disgrace to the community. Although the authorities responsible for the maintenance of the churchyard devote a great deal of care to seeing, apart from those times when it really cannot be protected from the effects of the winds of heaven, that it shall be a place of beauty in which people can, with advantage, walk and see some of the memorials that are there.

I know the difficulties which confront the Government in this matter. Once he had the communication from his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary saying that the police could not be expected to shoulder this burden, of course, the Parliamentary Secretary was bound to tender to the House the advice he gave. I hope the House will realise that this is a Private Member's Bill and that the Government will not suffer any serious disadvantage from being reminded that on occasion the House likes to be slightly in advance of the Government. I shall not say how far in present circumstances that gets us in any sphere, but I cannot think that hon. Members who have spoken in this debate so far today can reasonably accept the advice the hon. Gentleman has tendered to them. I hope that the Bill will get a Second Reading.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) said that the subject of litter reminded him of a certain cartoon. It always reminds me of a story of an incident which, as related to me, apparently occurred in Cheltenham, but which might have occurred anywhere in the country.

It was of a motorist taking his wife shopping. After she had got out of the car, he parked it and sat in the driving seat, where he took the last cigarette out of a packet and tossed the empty packet out of the window. A moment later the empty packet appeared at the window again at the end of an umbrella. At the other end of the umbrella was a very fierce-looking lady who said, "You dropped this". The man said, "Thanks very much. I do not want it". "Nor does Cheltenham", she replied in stentorian tones. If all citizens were like that lady there would be no need for the Bill, but unfortunately there is a need for such a Bill.

There is also a need for education and for a very great deal of persuasion, particularly of the kind suggested by the excellent Report of the Committee which considered litter in the Royal Parks of which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was a member and my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) was Chairman. I am very glad to support this Bill, particularly as I represent part of a borough which suffers from this litter problem, especially at this time of the year. It did so last Saturday, will do so again tomorrow and even to a greater extent on 4th May, when the Cup Final takes place, and 11th May, when the Rugby League Final takes place.

I shall take the advice of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not take photographs of Epsom Downs today and in a few weeks' time. I think I shall take photographs round Wembley Stadium tomorrow to show how formidable is the problem there. I believe there is a local byelaw, but it needs the force of a statute such as this and the opinion of this House in no uncertain terms to make an improvement in that problem.

A short time ago one of the escalators at Charing Cross Station was out of action, as probably a number of hon. Members discovered. Walking up the stairs, I found they were absolutely covered with small pieces of cellophane litter. I suppose it was no one's job to sweep the escalator because, when it was working, it automatically swept itself as it worked round and the pieces of litter would fall from it. It seems extraordinary that people walking up an escalator should be so untidy as to drop bits of paper, cellophane from cigarette packets or sweets, and so on. A real campaign is needed, and this Bill should be a great help and inspiration if we are to solve this problem.

I was sorry that my hon. Friend lie Parliamentary Secretary adopted a rather defeatist attitude, although I appreciate his difficulties. A warmer welcome of the Bill from the Government would have done a tremendous amount of good. I remember that when the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) was Minister of Works in the Labour Government I asked some Questions about litter in the Royal Parks. The right hon. Member took the view that prosecutions are unpopular. Of course they are, any prosecution would be, but we have to make the dropping of litter unpopular if we are to cure this nuisance. I do not think we need be mealy-mouthed about prosecutions. I fully appreciate the point which has been made that a small child who drops the wrapping from a sweet is committing only a very minor offence, but someone who drops a tin which has been opened by a tin opener and has a jagged edge is committing a very serious offence. So, also, is a person who drops a bottle.

Apparently in New York a very serious view is taken of the matter. I have here a letter which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South received a year or so ago from the Commissioner of the Department of Sanitation, New York, which says:

"Depending upon the offence and on which section of the sanitary code it comes under, fines range from one dollar to perhaps 500 dollars in extreme cases. Gaol sentences are also possible."

I am not suggesting that we should ever go to anything like that length, and, indeed, the Bill is a protection against savage sentences of that kind, but it shows how far another great democracy is prepared to go to stamp out this very difficult problem.

The Report dealing with litter in the Royal Parks mentions the results of an experiment which were carried out at the Hyde Park Lido at Whitsun a year or so ago when not only were litter bins provided in considerable numbers but loud speakers were used to draw the attention of the public to the untidy habit of throwing litter about. Use was made of Mr. Gilbert Harding, on a gramophone record, to persuade people not to drop litter. This is what was said:

"This is Gilbert Harding, not talking rubbish this time but talking about rubbish—about litter. Are you enjoying yourselves? Well, I certainly hope so. But what about the newspapers, the sandwich wrappings the cigarette packets, the lemonade and ice-cream cartons? For heaven's sake don't leave them about. Use the litter basket, won't you'? There are plenty of them. Do please use them."

Such action as that on such occasions or on any ceremonial occasion when large crowds gather would help greatly.

Apparently, of the 132 lb. of litter left in the Lido that Whitsun, only 6 lb. were collected from the ground, the remainder coming from the bins. That shows that persuasive action of that type helps to an enormous extent. I do not believe we can succeed with legislation alone. We must have persuasion and education, but we must also have legislation. I hope the Bill will be given a good majority this afternoon and that it will reach the Statute Book.

It might be for the convenience of the House if I speak for a moment or two about the position in Scotland. First, I should like to join in the congratulations extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I would also thank the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) for the valuable suggestions that he made and for a constructive speech of the type that we expect from him when he speaks about Scottish affairs.

We in Scotland fully share the anxiety expressed in the House today about the extent of the litter nuisance. We have many attractive towns, large and small, and great areas of beautiful countryside which attract a very large tourist trade, most highly valued in Scotland. It is a disgrace that these attractions should be spoilt by the inconsiderate vandalism of those who thoughtlessly throw away their waste paper and other kinds of rubbish. One has only to visit during the weekend any of the popular resorts near the big towns—the beaches, loch-sides and picnicking spots in the country—to realise just how unpleasant are the effects of this anti-social conduct. As has been said, the amount of rubbish lying about some of our towns must horrify visitors from abroad, especially those who come from countries where there is no such great untidiness to offend the eye.

We must be grateful to the many voluntary organisations of all kinds which are campaigning against the litter menace. I agree with my hon. Friend that in the long run this menace will be overcome only by public education, in which the voluntary bodies are so actively engaged. Many of our Scottish local authorities are conscious of their responsibilities, and by exhortation and advice, by the provision of receptacles for litter, and by their efforts to remove quickly such litter as has been dropped, they are doing much to improve the situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) said that if the Bill were enacted it would have the same effect as the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. I could not follow him as far as that. I cannot visualise there being signs or policemen in every possible spot where litter might be dropped.

We have today heard many speeches pointing out how badly people behave by dropping litter. I thought I might have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South, whose constituency, I think, covers the Norfolk Broads, or part of them—

My constituency approaches the Broads; it scarcely "covers" them.

I thought that I might have heard from my hon. Friend a word of praise for the thousands of families who go on the Broads every year and stop at the side of the river overnight. Anyone who knows the Norfolk Broads as I do, going there year after year, will know that one can draw up in the evening at a mooring left by someone that morning and find either no litter at all or, where that is not possible, that the litter has been put away neatly in the reeds, the result being that one reaches a mooring which is in such a state that one might be the first explorer to find it. If the public would get the habit of looking around before they leave to see whether they have left anything behind, much of the litter nuisance would be avoided.

The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said that people do not drop litter in their homes and she wondered why they should do so in public places. She reminded me of an experience which I had many years ago when I was employed in a place of public entertainment. We built seats at the back on which the older folk could sit, but we found that the young people stood on those seats to see the entertainment, with the result that the seats were useless because they were dirty. We could not stop that action by employing policemen or attendants. Finally I had the bright idea of putting up a big notice which said "You may stand on these seats if you stand on the chairs at home". After that the seats were kept perfectly clean and clear. The conclusion is that the solution is not in the use of policemen or attendants, but in presenting to the public the facts of the case in a way that they can understand, and I believe that we can do much more by education than we can by enacting statutes.

I am bound to add that we doubt whether the Bill could be expected to make any marked contribution to the solution of the Scottish litter problem. So far as it deals with public places, it largely duplicates our existing law. Under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, in burghs outside our cities, and under local Acts in the cities, it is already an offence to drop litter in any public place.

Looking at Clause 3 of the Bill it might be thought that this statutory prohibition relates only to streets, but in fact "street" is defined in the Burgh Police Act to include

"Any harbour, railway station, canal, depot, wharf, towing path, public park, links, common or open area or space, the strand and sea beach down to low water mark and all public places within the burgh."

So the prohibition is already comprehensive, at least as regards public ground.

Outside burghs, county councils may prohibit the deposit of litter in public places by byelaws made under Section 300 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. I am glad to say that our Scottish county councils have recently been invoking this power more freely. In the past year, seven have made anti-litter byelaws, and such byelaws are now in force in 13 Scottish counties.

These byelaws also usually apply to all public places in the county. In addition, byelaws prohibiting litter are in force for many particular areas in our towns and counties. That is recognised to some extent in Clause 3 (2) of the Bill, but the list of byelaw-making powers given in that subsection is by no means complete. It does not include, for example, certain Sections of the Public Parks (Scotland) Act, 1878, or of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Acts, 1892 and 1903, or anti-litter byelaws made under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951.

The hon. Gentleman said that seven county councils are now invoking these byelaws. Can he tell me if Dunbartonshire is one of them because, as regards Loch Lomond side, if it is, they do not seem to be very effective? I mentioned Carter Bar in my speech, and on consideration I think that the place where the litter is, is just on the Scottish side of the border plate and therefore in Roxburghshire. Has Roxburghshire any such byelaws? They seem to be ineffective, whether it has or not.

Dunbartonshire has the byelaws.

Carter Bar is the highest point of the Newcastle-Jedburgh road where it crosses the Cheviots from Northumberland into Roxburghshire. Roxburghshire, I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman, is one the counties without anti-litter byelaws under Section 300 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. But I do not think we ought to imply that the cleaning up of the Scottish side of Carter Bar is a simple matter of just making byelaws, although I agree with the hon. Member that there ought to be byelaws. He will realise that there is the problem, especially on a lonely summit such as this, which is remote from the nearest village, of detecting the offender and securing his conviction.

As I was saying, the main effect of the Bill in public places would apparently be to make it for the first time an offence to drop litter in the landward areas of the 20 counties, one of which I have mentioned, which have not so far made anti-litter byelaws. It seems very doubtful whether the Bill would make any significant advance in this matter. These 20 county councils may at any time make anti-litter byelaws, and more county councils in Scotland have recently been tackling this problem. We may hope that it will not be long before public places in all counties are covered by byelaws.

Arising out of the question asked by the hon. Member for West Lothian, I hope that Scottish counties will note that they are very much behind the English counties, all but one of which, as my hon. Friend has told the House, already have byelaws.

I should like to pay tribute to the 13 counties which have made byelaws, and to name them. They are Berwick, Clackmannan, Dumfries, Dunbarton, East Lothian, Fife, Kinross, Midlothian, Moray, Perth, Renfrew, Stirling and West Lothian. I trust that when this matter is next debated, if a question is asked of the Minister, he will be able to read out a longer list.

The second effect of the Bill, so far as it applies to public places in Scotland. is to increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £2 in the burghs under the Burgh Police Act, or £5 in counties under byelaws, to £10 everywhere. I am advised that that would necessitate the rather odd procedure of duplicating existing penal provisions. In principle it would appear to be wrong to provide by Statute that certain types of conduct should constitute an offence, when they have already been declared by or under another Statute to be an offence.

If the Bill is given a Second Reading that aspect of it will certainly require close scrutiny. Also, as the hon. Member for Hexham recognised, the enforcement provisions of Clause 4 would have to he most carefully examined, and I am quite sure would have to be overhauled in respect of Scotland. We do not have the English system of private and police prosecution. Criminal proceedings are instituted in Scotland almost invariably, whether at common law or under Statute, by public prosecutors. Thus Clause 4 (1) would certainly need reconsideration.

The enforcement difficulty is also relevant to our consideration of the Bill as it would affect private grounds. I thought that it might be argued that the Bill would still be helpful in relation to private ground even if the House took the view that to apply the provisions to public places was unnecessary because the dropping of litter in public places was already sufficiently covered by existing legislation. But as I have said, we in Scotland could not contemplate giving power to the occupier of private land to take proceedings against somebody who is alleged to have dropped litter on his land.

There are also serious objections to empowering private persons to take names and addresses. That being so, all that the proprietor could do would be to report an alleged offence to the police, and if it appeared to the public prosecutor that there was sufficient evidence, proceedings could he taken. The police would have no right of entry to private property unless they happened to see an offence being committed. It seems, to say the least of it, doubtful whether provisions of this kind could lead to many prosecutions. Only in the relatively rare case where the offender was seen to drop litter and could be identified, for example through the number of his car, could proceedings be taken; and in Scotland, the evidence of two witnesses would be required to secure a conviction.

I realise the feeling of the House in this matter and I think that I have said enough to indicate that if this Bill is given a Second Reading its application to Scotland will require the most careful consideration in Committee. Much of it is, I am afraid, ill-adapted to fit into our Scottish legislation and legal procedure.

Having said all that I should like the House to feel that if it decides to enact this Bill we in the Scottish Office will go on as we do now, giving every support to the effort to get the Scottish countryside cleaned up and our visitors given a more pleasant time. I myself have had experience of broken bottles on Loch Lomond side—I have had my own foot cut—and I know exactly how difficult it is to prevent this litter habit.

I must, I think, tell the House of one experience I had that made me litter-conscious. It occurred when I had a boat on Loch Lomond. The House will remember that before the war one could buy cardboard plates which, theoretically, saved washing up. One had one's meal and then threw the plates away. I used to go into a quiet little bay on Loch Lomond—nobody had discovered it but ourselves. I had a meal from these cardboard plates and then threw them over the side into the bay. For the whole of the rest of the season, whenever I looked over the side into the limpid waters of Loch Lomond there were those cardboard plates glaring up at me as if to say, "Why did you throw us here?" There they were and I could not get them away.

I am sure that all in the House will have had the experience of bringing to the notice of the people the importance of this subject; and I think that I should finish on a note of thanks to our Press, which so very wholeheartedly supports our efforts to keep Britain tidy.

I had not intended to intervene in this debate when I entered the Chamber. I am certainly no expert on Scotland and Scottish law. but I have felt moved to say that I am glad that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave the Bill a somewhat warmer welcome than did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The Joint Under-Secretary led me to hope that today the Government representatives will not vote against the Bill but will allow it to have a Second Reading, and that the necessary examination in Committee, which I am sure the promoters of the Measure fully envisage, will proceed, and that detailed discussion may improve this Bill, as Bills often are so improved. I do plead with the hon. Gentlemen representing the Government, if they need further persuasion, to let the Bill have a Second Reading.

Their argument has been based mainly on the ground that there are already byelaws which are pretty good, and that, in the long run, as the Joint Under-Secretary has just said, one can effect improvements here only by education. Evidently the number of byelaws is growing. Let us hope that after this discussion in the House other local authorities will be moved to enact the byelaws, as they are empowered. Having listened to most of the debate, however, I still feel that that is an insufficient safeguard on which to rely. We have had these byelaws now for a very long time. We have had an active process of education for as long as I can remember, but it seems to me that the littering and desecration of our countryside, and even of our towns, is growing, not less but greater as time goes on.

Gone altogether are the hedgerows of England that I used to know as a boy when one travelled about in horse-brakes and that kind of thing. The honeysuckle and the meadowsweet have gone. They have been destroyed by the onset of the motor car; and the increasing reliance on the motor car for pleasure and enjoyment is spreading over the countryside larger numbers than ever of people leaving litter. They, very often, are the chief villains of the piece, because the pedestrian and the cyclist do not go so far afield. But into the countryside and on to the seashore are going these motor cars, taking with them, apparently, an occupying population—if I can use those words—which is impervious to the continued education done, above all, by the B.B.C.

The B.B.C. has done a splendid job in that respect. But the litter is there to prove that there is little or no improvement. It should be remembered, also, that the population is increasing—the numbers of malefactors are growing. As has been said already, the children are all right—they are under continuous process of education and reminder in school—but the adults do not seem to show improvement.

If the Government had said today that they were going in for a huge new campaign of education, I might have felt more reassured, but they did not. They said that they were to have a film. That is well and good, but something very much more than a film is needed. What is needed is a tremendous drive by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, by the Home Secretary, by the Minister of Works—by every Minister conceivably connected with the solution of this problem.

In spite of all that, however good the campaign of education, I still feel that a more effective and rigorous enforcement of a tighter system of law, possibly for a short period of years, would be more valuable. It seems to be the only thing to do. We are in a desperate situation. It might well be that if the Bill became law and its provisions were properly enforced for a time, with reminders to the public of their duties and obligations—that they are, in fact, destroying their own heritage—it might be effective, and we might then be able to slacken the pressure. At any rate, I hope that the Bill will get its Second Reading.

I want to add my support to this Bill. While I have been listening to the speeches that have been made, and particularly to those made by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Joint Under-Secretary of State, I have been turning my mind to psychology. The two representatives of the Government spent practically all their time congratulating the local authorities on the possibility of their extending the system of byelaws and trying to make them more effective, and saying how wonderful the local authorities were because of the methods they have used to deal with litter.

The fact remains that, in the main, it is the local authorities that have come to the conclusion that the byelaw system is ineffective, and that they would like this Bill. It is very bad psychology on the part of Ministers not to recognise this great change in the attitude of the local authorities. I am empowered to speak for my County Borough of Tynemouth, which does want this Measure.

The general procedure on the part of Ministers of the Crown is to say, "You must not interfere with local Government." They say that if local government has decided that something is right, no Minister of the Crown—and certainly no back-bencher—can have his or her way, because the local authorities know what is going on in their locality, and they are the people who have to judge. It is not Ministers of the Crown that deal with litter, it is not the Home Secretary, or Government Departments, or civil servants advising Ministers; it is the local authorities on the spot, and the local authorities are satisfied that the byelaw system is outdated and out-moded and really not effective.

I cannot speak for the English local authorities, but I can tell the hon. Lady that the Association of County Councils in Scotland has specifically said that it does not want this Bill.

But I notice that my hon. Friend included Berwick in the list of local authorities that he read out. Berwick is not in Scotland. I am not prepared to say that it is in England, but it is certainly not in Scotland. I think it would be extremely difficult to have one law dealing with Carter Bar on the Northumberland side and another law dealing with Scotland on the other side. Therefore, I prefer to support England, and of course, thank goodness. I am not responsible for Scotland.

My local authority wants this Bill. The County Councils Association in England wants this Bill, and for once it would be a very good thing to allow England to triumph over Scotland.

While on the subject of Scotland, may I point out to the Minister that the District Councils Association of Scotland wrote and said that they support the principle of this Bill?

That goes to prove that the Ministers have been trying to put across a "phoney" opposition.

My next point also concerns the matter of psychology. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government comes here and starts to interpret the minds of magistrates. Let me give him one piece of information. As he has said, quite rightly, there is always the matter of luck, and some people would be prosecuted for dropping litter and others would not be prosecuted. But some people are prosecuted for leaving their cars about the street and other people are not, and that does not seem to deter the Minister of Transport from trying to deal with the matter sensibly. We cannot eliminate luck in life. That is one of the principles that I always argue when supporting the Conservative Party philosophy.

I wish to make an observation about the minds of magistrates. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is not a magistrate, perhaps he does not know how magistrates' minds work when they are on the bench adjudicating. I would just give this piece of information. It matters tremendously what is the total maximum fine which can be inflicted. Taking it by and large, magistrates are very reluctant ever to impose a maximum fine because they always fear that a worse case may arise, and if they have already imposed the maximum fine they have "had it" in the worse case.

Therefore, if the maximum fine is £5, a lower range of fines is imposed in case somebody tips all the waste paper baskets of the House of Commons on to the top of Carter Bar, and if the maximum fine has already been imposed there will not he a suitable fine to impose in that case. Therefore, when my hon. Friend moves to have larger maximum fines, it is in order to give magistrates more room for manœuvre.

May I say that one purpose of extending the fine is to cover the case, which I do not think has been mentioned, of, say, a firm of contractors which has a lot of waste it cannot get rid of, which for a consideration gets a driver of a tip lorry to take away by night and drop on—

Carter Bar.

Yes, on Carter Bar or on the local common.

I am making this intervention on behalf of my local authority, but as I happen to be a magistrate I thought it would be a good opportunity, since I do not often have a chance to lecture Ministers, to say that it is rather unwise to try to interpret the psychology of magistrates without knowing how their minds really work. I can only say, from the point of view of being a magistrate, that it is a very good thing to be able to impose large fines, while giving plenty of time to pay, so that one rubs in the fact that people have committed an offence.

In my constituency, I have two local authorities. We have the most magnificent stretch of sand and wonderful beaches in Tynemouth and Whitley Bay, and I have always longed to put on record in this House how furious I get with people who put broken bottles on the sand for other people's children to cut their feet. For that, if for no other reason, I shall be grateful if the Bill gets a Second Reading. If the Parliamentary Secretary and the Joint Under-Secretary would like to come to my part of the world, I am sure the local authorities will give them a luncheon and will explain why the Bill should get on to the Statute Book.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will forgive me if I do not follow her in her border skirmishes between Scotland and England. I have to spend my holidays in Scotland sometimes, and I should not like a less warm welcome than I usually get. I am also obliged to my hon. Friend for explaining the psychology and mentality of magistrates. I shall remember it the next time I have appeals from them.

This Bill deals with one of the nuisances of this country. Of course, there are other nuisances as well. For instance, when people put up advertisements with pictures of beautiful film actresses or young men to advertise a certain product, other people think that the pictures would look better if beards and moustaches were added, and they proceed to do so. That is a nuisance, of course.

People who leave litter around the place are much worse offenders. If one approaches this country from abroad, whether by air or by train, one realises two things. One is that, generally speaking, it is a very beautiful country, and the other is that there are a large number of people in it. Therefore, there is a tendency for people to visit the countryside, and unless we are very careful, a lot of refuse and rubbish will be left lying about, and the natural beauty of the countryside will be spoilt. We all want to avoid this.

We do not want to throw people into prison to ponder over their terrible crime of having thrown down empty cigarette packets. It is not only the beauty of the countryside which is spoiled. I can remember the time when an hon. Member of this House threw an egg into the middle of the Chamber. He was not fined. We only have to look on the opposite benches below the Gangway, where we can see a certain amount of litter which has been abandoned by hon. Members who last sat there.

Many of us could do with a good deal more education in these important matters. That applies not only in Scotland but in England, at the seaside, in the beauty spots, and indeed in the towns and villages, be they ancient towns and villages or modern manufacturing towns.

What is the remedy for this old trouble, which is now getting worse? It is getting worse because we have a larger population who travel more. We are very glad that the population should do so, but they should remember their duties when travelling. The remedy lies, first, in education. But education by itself is never sufficient, whatever its object. One always has to add the words "… and if you do not do what you are told, you will be duly punished". One or two such punishments and suitable advertisement of the punishments would have a deterrent effect upon those who may be thinking of sinning.

Why do the London Passenger Transport Board and British Railways post announcements to the effect that a certain passenger, whose name they are kind enough not to mention, was fined a certain sum and ordered to pay the costs for attempting to travel on the railway with the intention of avoiding paying his fare? It is done to discourage others; and I have no doubt that it has the desired effect. If one were to put up, in various places where litter was likely to be left about, notices saying "Remember your education; and, incidentally, two people were fined so many pounds, and ordered to pay costs, for leaving litter here—Don't you do it", one would reinforce the strength of the education previously imparted to people at some stage or other in their lives.

Modern packaging is responsible for much of the increase. Some forty or fifty years ago, cigarettes were rarely smoked in this country, and, if they were, they were certainly not supplied in the modern type of package which, when finished with, is nonchalantly thrown down and left for somebody else to pick up. The practice of picnicking, with paper-wrapped sandwiches, etc., had not taken such a hold on the population as it has today. All these things tend to disfigure the countryside.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred to the condition of the Epsom Downs after the spring race meeting. My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) referred to the state of Wembley after the Cup Final. One need not go very far for other examples. The smaller race meetings, the lesser known beauty spots, the ponds, lakes and sea shores of this country, all provide evidence of the disfigurement and danger which faces us when we follow after those who have left litter.

What is the remedy? For over a hundred years, a remedy has been sought by passing public health Acts and giving powers to the local authorities. I am not criticising the local authorities in any way, except perhaps those which have not taken advantage of the powers; but where general prohibition is enforced by local byelaws, there always are different byelaws with different wording, providing for different penalties, yet all intended to achieve the same object. As we have heard today, if one drops litter on one side of the Carter Bar one commits an offence, and if one goes farther on and crosses the border into Scotland one does not. Is that sensible? Surely, it is not.

We must try to ensure that everybody knows what the law is or, at any rate, is in a position to be able easily to ascertain it. If different wordings are to be found in byelaws as one goes from one district council area to another, then the law must come to be regarded, as Mr. Bumble one said, as "a ass". The law should be codified in a Bill. I do not say it should be codified as in this Bill, but it should be codified in a Bill, and then made known throughout the country.

I do not want to deal with the provisions of the Bill as though we were in Committee, but there are one or two comments I should make. Clause 1, which uses general words, is well drafted. To say

"so as to create litter or tend to create litter on or in any place"

is quite sufficient for the purposes of the Bill. But when one comes to the interpretation Clause, there is a great deal to criticise. I have never heard it said that "land" could include land covered with water. If I were to tell my friends that I was going for a day's fishing on land, they would probably think that I should not catch very much.

It depends on what the hon. and learned Gentleman was fishing for.

But apparently I could hope to catch something if I were fishing upon land, according to the definition in the Bill.

If a bottle is thrown into a pond, it has reached the land by the time a child steps upon it and cuts its foot. That is the point.

I see what my hon. Friend is driving at, of course; he is referring to litter deposited into ponds, lakes and rivers, and when one thinks of the bottom of such places one ignores the water on top. But the provision might, in my view, have been better drafted. That is all I am saying. To say that

"'lands' includes land covered with water"

at any rate raises a smile, and I merely mention it as one of the respects in which the Bill requires amendment.

I do not agree that private land owners or occupiers should not be given the duty to take names and addresses of those who commit offences. If a person is unfortunate enough today to have a collision in his car, serious or slight, with somebody else, there is a statutory obligation upon both parties to exchange names and addresses. If one or other fails to do so, he can be fined. I have never heard that the Section of the appropriate Road Traffic Act providing for that procedure has led to any difficulty in enforcement or has created hardship for the population of the country. This Bill tries merely to provide for a similar procedure. We heard from the right hon. Member for South Shields the story of the lady and the borough engineer of Dorking, I think it was. These matters sort themselves out in the end. If there is an odd, difficult person, he is generally found and caught.

I would go further and say that the power to prosecute in this instance should not be left entirely to the occupier but that those who have the duty of enforcing public order, namely, the police, should have the power to prosecute even where an offence takes place on private land. They already have that power in other circumstances. If I commit a serious crime on private land, for instance if I cut somebody's throat on private land, I cannot say, "This is a private matter and the police must not take action". They would naturally take action, and I think they should do so in this case, too.

We do not want to be continually compelling people to attend the magistrates' courts merely because they have left an empty cigarette carton where they should not have left it, although we want them to be punished for the offence. In the last few days we have given a Second Reading to the Magistrates' Courts Bill, which I hope will reach the Statute Book, which will exactly fit this type of case. Under it, those who do not wish to dispute the facts can avoid attending the court by writing to admit them, although subsequently they will have to pay any fine which may be imposed upon them.

I agree with the principle of the Bill and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading. Nevertheless, I hope that those who are members of the Standing Committee will give the matter careful consideration, because there are many Clauses and subsections which require careful amendment and in some cases deletion.

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

The purpose of the Bill can be stated very briefly. It is very straightforward. Its purpose is to abolish the necessity of endorsing a cheque unless it is desired to negotiate that cheque.

Right hon. and hon. Members who are fortunate enough to receive cheques from time to time will know that before they can pay them into their bank accounts they have to turn them over and sign them on the back—that is, to endorse them. For the individual cheque which is received every now and again by the individual person, that is not a very great labour, but many hon. Members will be concerned in commerce, industry and the professions and they will know that many hundreds of cheques may be received in an office every day and may require endorsement by responsible people in the office. The time spent in commerce and industry in merely endorsing cheques runs into fantastic amounts.

All that the payee of the cheque is doing by endorsing it in that way is to convert the cheque into a stealable security, because he thereby makes it a bearer cheque and it remains a bearer cheque between the time it leaves his desk endorsed and the time it passes across the bank counter into his bank account. He does nothing for the protection of himself by endorsing that cheque. In fact, he is turning it into something which can be stolen and cashed. What he is further doing is providing bank clerks at probably two banks—the collecting and the paying banks—with the job of examining the endorsement to see whether his signature appears to be—merely appears to be—that of the payee of the cheque.

There was a Departmental Committee set up on this subject. I shall refer to it in a little more detail later, but I now quote one sentence from its Report. It was referring to this effort of endorsing cheques and said:

"It seems to us that this effort is being expended in relation to the provisions of a Statute framed to meet conditions very different from today's and that there is justification for the belief that the work is often unnecessary."

So far as I can ascertain from the statistics, some 95 per cent, of the trading transactions in this country are settled by cheque. About 780 million cheques are drawn each year. That is a figure which is rather higher than that given in the Report to which I have just alluded, but I have drawn it from a more recent document, the Ninety-Ninth Report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Inland Revenue for the year ended 31st March, 1956, in which the proceeds of the Stamp Duty on cheques are stated. By simple mathematics one reaches from that the figure of 780 million cheques drawn each year.

About 4 per cent. of those are bearer cheques. That means that some 750 million order cheques drawn to payee or order are drawn each year and require endorsement by the payees. Less than 3 per cent. of those cheques are negotiated to a third person. Something over 97 per cent. are paid direct by the payees into the payees' banks. So we get the figure of 730 million cheques endorsed each year for no real purpose, as I shall endeavour to show in a moment. All those cheques are examined at least once by bank clerks who turn them over to see whether the endorsements appear to be the names of the payees as stated on the front of the cheques, and five-sixths of them have to be examined twice, not only by the collecting bank but by the paying bank when those two are different banks. So we get the fantastic figure of bank clerks turning cheques over 1,340 million times a year. On about 1 per cent. of those occasions, on 13 million occasions a year, the cheques are returned to the payees for confirmation of endorsement.

The calculation of man-hours spent on that a year is no fewer than 2 million. If we had that sort of waste of time from strikes we should be extremely disturbed. That 2 million man-hours lost in a year is lost amongst bank clerks. I am speaking at the moment of the time spent by the banks upon this work. That means an expenditure of some £1 million in wages a year for bank clerks to turn cheques over to examine endorsements. A similar number of man-hours must be lost amongst people in business and the professions in signing their names on the backs of cheques. What a waste of time all this is—responsible executives solemnly signing cheques to convert them into stealable bearer cheques in order that some 2 million man-hours of bank clerks' time be spent in seeing if the signatures appear to be those of the payees.

In 1949, a Mr. G. O. Papworth wrote an article in The Banker with the potent title "Endorsements must go". As a result of that article, the Federation of British Industries asked the Committee of London Clearing Banks to review this procedure of endorsement of cheques. That Committee set up a sub-committee to review the matter and to report. The sub-committee reported at the end of 1950, I understand, in favour of the abolition of endorsements with certain exceptions.

In 1954,I had the privilege of introducing a Private Member's Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule to endeavour to abolish endorsements on chequer. Although that Bill died a natural death with the end of that Parliament in 1955, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer had already set up a Departmental Committee to examine the proposition and to see whether it was possible by legislation to bring about abolition. The Departmental Committee reported in November, 1956, and the present Bill is a result of the Report of that Committee in favour of the abolition of endorsements on cheques.

In the Appendix to its Report, the Committee set out a draft Bill. It adopted a method by which abolition could be brought about, using the special crossing which a collecting bank always applies to a cheque when it receives it. Hon. Members will have noticed that when their cheques have been paid and are returned, a rubber stamp has been used across the front of the cheques. On careful study of that very valuable Report, however, and on the best banking and legal advice I could obtain, I thought that there was a more straightforward method, as is contained in the Bill for which I seek to obtain a Second Reading.

If the House will bear with me for three or four minutes, I should like to explain the reasoning of how I came to this straightforward solution. One has to go back to the early nineteenth century for the history of the endorsement of cheques. In the early nineteenth century, for example, if Mr. Brown drew a cheque payable to a Mr. Smith and the wrong Mr. Smith got hold of the cheque and the bank paid the wrong Mr. Smith, Brown could say to the bank, "You have paid the wrong person. You ought not to have debited me." Indeed, at that time he would have been perfectly right. He would have had a claim against the bank for wrongly debiting him.

Therefore, as a matter of banking practice, the banks required that cheques should be endorsed, the endorsement turning a cheque into a bearer cheque, when the bank could say, "No matter whether this has been paid to the wrong payee, it is a bearer cheque. We have paid the bearer of the cheque and, therefore, we are protected." So far so good.

If, however, the person presenting the cheque—the bearer—had forged the payee's signature on the back of the cheque, that was no endorsement; it was merely a nullity for the purpose of negotiating the cheque to the bank. Two Statutes therefore, were passed during the nineteenth century—Section 19 of the Stamp Act, 1853, and Section 60 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, which protected banks against forced endorsements of cheques. The result of all that is that the endorsement is now no protection whatever to the drawer of a cheque that the right person will get payment of it. The only purpose is to protect the banks. What the Bill endeavours to do is to give that protection to the banks without all this waste of time of endorsing the cheques. That is what is done by Clause 1, which says that if a banker

"in good faith and in the ordinary course of business"

pays a cheque drawn on him which is not endorsed,

"he does not, in doing so, incur any liability"

by reason of the fact of the cheque not being endorsed.

A small point arises in that the Clause says that he shall not incur that liability by reason of the cheque not being endorsed. What if the cheque is endorsed but endorsed irregularly? In fact, that is not an endorsement at all in law, so that to speak of absence of endorsement covers irregular endorsement and the banks will be protected.

Clause 1 deals with the paying bank, the banker who pays out on the cheque which does not have an endorsement. It is also necessary to give protection to the collecting banker and to preserve his existing rights; that is done in Clause 2.

This Bill has a fairly long history not only in law, as I have tried to explain, going right back to the early nineteenth century, but also in the present conception of abolishing endorsements on cheques. Over the past few years the matter has been fully aired in the Press, and I have myself been in contact with all responsible associations of professional men, businessmen, accountants, bankers and so on. There was only one objection of any substance which I encountered in this connection. It was that by abolishing the necessity for endorsements, we might be doing away with the useful practice of receipts being endorsed on the back of cheques.

To have a receipt on the back of a cheque which will act as an endorsement as well is a practice which has grown very much in recent years. That is made unnecessary by Clause 3 where it states that a cheque:

"which appears to have been paid by the bank on whom it is drawn is evidence of the receipt by the payee of the sum payable by the cheque."

The Clause refers only to unendorsed cheques. Back in 1800 there was a case, Egg v. Barnett, which decided that an endorsed cheque was a good receipt so that we need deal only with the unendorsed cheque, making it evidence of the receipt of the money by the payee. For the benefit of those who still wish to continue the practice of the receipt endorsed on the back of the cheque, may I refer to the report of the Committee on Cheque Endorsement and to an undertaking given by the Committee of London Clearing Bankers. On page 20, in paragraph 89, of the Report reference is made to the problem of endorsed receipts. It states that the Committee of London Clearing Bankers:

"have stated that, while the banks could not undertake to examine receipts on cheques without limit as to number and regardless of circumstances, they would be willing in principle to continue this work by arrangement with customers in suitable cases. This means that, although there would be no statutory sanction for the signature of receipts on cheques, drawers who, by arrangement with their banks, issued cheques with receipt forms on the back, could in practice secure the signature of such forms. Collecting banks would not accept such cheques without signatures, nor would paying banks pay them, and the banks would be able to distinguish them by some identification on the front, for example the capital letter 'R'."

The banks are still willing to continue that service to their customers if asked to do so, and at the same time they will not have to turn over each cheque to see whether it is one of those with a receipt endorsed on the back, because they will distinguish from the front whether or not it is one of that kind.

Clauses 4 and 5 deal with two anomalies in existing banking law to which the Departmental Committee referred. I do not think I need go into those in detail. Hon. Members who have read the Report of the Departmental Committee will recollect these two points which are mentioned in page 23. They are two anomalies, and this is a good opportunity of disposing of them.

I should like to say, without offence to other hon. Members, that this is not a Bill produced out of the pigeon hole of a Government Department. It arises from a demand spread over many years by commerce, the professions and industry that the endorsing of cheques represents a really useless waste of time, and that the practice should be abolished. The principle of the Bill has been through the mill of examination by these bodies in commerce, industry and the professions, and many different ways have already been considered of achieving the object. I think that in the Bill the most straightforward way has emerged.

It is particularly important that a decision be reached very soon. About a year ago the banks appointed a committee to consider to what extent banking procedure could be the subject of automation and to what extent electronic devices could assist banking. That committee recently reported in favour of the application of automation to banking. I understand that the bankers have now asked the electronic device designers to prepare some designs of machines for making banking subject to automation. If those designs are already being prepared by electronic manufacturers, it is important that, if there is to be a simplification such as the Bill suggests, it should be made quickly before the designs of those machines are perfected. I have confidence, therefore, that the House will give this simple little Bill—simple, but one representing a great saving in time and expense—a Second Reading.

I beg to second the Motion.

I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) not only on his luck in the Ballot and the pertinacity with which he has attended the House on Friday afternoons to try to ensure that the Bill gets a Second Reading, but also for preparing it and for the evidence which he gave before the Departmental Committee. I am sure that the Bill will save so much time that it is one which the House ought to pass without question. It will save time not only for banks but for offices, all businesses and private individuals. I would quote an extract from the Committee's Report which emphasises the point about time saving which my hon. Friend stressed so much. One of the witnesses before the Departmental Committee said:

"As Secretary of this Company I spend 15 to 30 minutes daily endorsing cheques. This irksome duty was formerly done by the Managing Director who delegated it to an ordinary Director who in turn delegated it to me. I often delegate it to my assistant and I am contemplating delegating it to the office boy which proves the unimportance of this work."

That experience of a businessman ought to ensure that we give the Bill a Second Reading without question.

I sometimes wonder whether the witnessing of signatures on documents could not be whittled down to a great extent. I doubt whether it is a real safeguard. If somebody forged a document presumably he could get it falsely witnessed, with false names and addresses being used. I know that the point is not within the scope of the Bill but it is another example of a practice which is worth looking into.

I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and that my right hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will, unlike the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on the Litter Bill, give it his enthusiastic support.

I am happy to observe that the Bill does not alter the position of special endorsements on cheques but is only to deal with the ordinary endorsements of the cheque made out to a named person. I should be very sorry to think that we could not endorse the backs of our cheques as we wished at any time.

Hon. Members may recall the famous cheque drawn by Mr. A. P. Herbert, who was a Member of this House. He wrote it upon a menu, put a twopenny stamp upon it and drew a picture on it so that the bank clerk would recognise it as his. I believe he was astonished when the clearing bank debited it to his account.

There is no magic in the paper or the form on which the cheque is written. If an uncle receives a cheque from a debtor and wishes to give it to his nephew or niece as a present he only has to write, "Pay so and so" and he can add any words of commendation that he likes. He can say, "Pay my affectionate nephew, whom I have always liked and who is still at school, the sum named on the face hereof." The nephew or niece has to endorse it, under the old law. If the original drawer of the cheque were so unwise as to draw it without having the funds to meet it he could get out of his difficulty by adding the words "sans recour". Though Norman French, those words are still good in the language of this country and if the uncle wrote them, he could not be sued upon the cheque.

My hon. and learned Friend reminds me of the story of the gentleman who wrote out a cheque on the back of a cow and took the cow to the bank. The difficulty arose when he was asked to endorse it.

That is perfectly correct. I think it was a cheque drawn in favour of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and it made things rather awkward for them. In the case mentioned by my hon. Friend, the difficulty was to persuade the cow to turn over in order to put the endorsement on the opposite side of the cheque to that on which was the name of the payee. The difficulty was insurmountable, so the drawer was unable to pay his Income Tax on that occasion.

I am all for maintaining the old form for special endorsements so that cheques can pass from hand to hand. We are now considering the ordinary cheque which the ordinary person desires to pay straight into a bank, which is the case with the vast majority of cheques.

I must say that I was very surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) told us the number of cheques which were so handled every year. That only shows the necessity for this Bill. He began by saying—I took down his words—that the first thing one does is to turn over the cheque and endorse it. That is the second thing one does. The first is that one looks at the cheque to see how it is made out.

Some cheques are made out to limited companies or to individuals, some have the initials and then the surname, some the surname and then the initials and sometimes the surname is wrongly spelled. It does not matter so long as the endorsement agrees with the name of the person or organisation to which the cheque is made out.

One first finds to what name the cheque is made out, then looks to see that that is exactly copied on the back, and hands the cheque to the bank clerk, who has to do exactly the same. He has to look first to see how the payee's name is drawn and then to see that the endorsement is the same as the name on the front of the cheque. It is surprising how often people merely sign their name on the back of the cheque without seeing what form of name has been used on its face.

Often the cheque has to go back for further endorsement. It does not matter how many times it is signed—"John Smith, J. Smith, J. A. Smith, Smith, J. A., or Smyth"—provided that somewhere in the long catalogue the name is the same in the endorsement as on the face of the cheque. That is rather like a crossword puzzle. I do not like crossword puzzles—

Shame.

I still do not like them.

It is to put an end to that process that this admirable Bill has been introduced.

I wish to refer, not only to the position of those fortunate enough to receive cheques and pay them into a bank, but to the bank clerks who have to deal with these endorsements. I have described the functions they have to perform on presentation of every cheque. Bank clerks are one of the most respected and valuable branches of our civilisation. They have to be not only extremely honest, but highly trained, very courteous and very efficient. They perform a very useful, although often unsung, service in our civilisation. Adoption of this proposal would relieve them of a great deal of unnecessary work. If for that reason alone, I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.

Another class of person will also benefit. That class is in firms which receive large numbers of cheques every day. They might be for big sums or small sums, but at present all of them have to be endorsed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) said, the signature very often has to be done per procuriam. Often a rubber stamp is used to get over the difficulties. All that has to be gone through, and takes a long time.

This is a very useful Bill. It will assist to a small but important degree the commerce of this country, and will assist individuals who have to deal with cheques. It will not make fraud or dishonesty one little bit easier. I hope that this archaic relic of the past, which is totally unnecessary, will be swept away and that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.

I am sorry to bring a word of doubt into such complete unanimity in a very small House. I have read and considered with great care the Departmental Committee's Report and so forth, and I am bound to say that in my view it is based on a theory which I do not believe is justified in fact.

It is based on the theory that a large number of persons are kept busy by either merely endorsing cheques or looking at the endorsements on the back of cheques as if they were isolated business transactions. They never are. Those who deal with cheques are invariably people who keep books. Anyone who goes into a bank and pays in a cheque knows perfectly well that the person who looks at the endorsement takes the cheque across the counter, turns it over, glances at the endorsement, and then makes the necessary entry in the book. I just do not believe that thousands of hours are going to be saved to anyone by the Bill.

I agree that there has been a very substantial demand for the Bill, but. I believe that the basis on which the Bill has been introduced and supported is radically wrong. I do not believe that there is the waste of time alleged in connection with cheques. On the other hand, I believe that there is a certain amount of protection for all of us and for business in the fact that a cheque must be looked at carefully before it is entered into a book or an account.

Old-fashioned as I am, I still believe that our fathers and grandfathers would not have invented this method of dealing with cheques unless there was a good deal to be said for it. I believe that the safeguards which are involved for business and individuals in the fact that one has to look carefully at a cheque and must consider for a moment or two, before one passes a cheque, to make certain that it is properly endorsed, or before one endorses it, have been, and still are, a substantial protection.

I suppose I ought to say that I am a member of a London committee of the Scottish Bank, and, therefore, to some extent I have a very distant interest in the matter. I know there has been a certain demand for the Bill on the basis that it will save time, but, frankly, I believe that that has been very greatly exaggerated. The House ought carefully to think about the safeguards existing in the present practice before making a change.

Unlike my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), I wholeheartedly support the Bill. It comes at a time when the whole basis of economic thought, and, in step with that. Government legislation, is freeing business from all sorts of restrictive practices and bits of red tape. I would put the practice of endorsing cheques on the same basis as the other bits of red tape.

My right hon. and learned Friend said he was old-fashioned and did not like the idea of abolishing a safeguard. I would remind him that identity cards were introduced for a particular reason, but when they came to be abolished all sorts of people said, "We shall have no protection. Our savings bank accounts will be robbed and rifled by imposters and no one will be able to check whether the man coming in to draw the money is the real owner of the savings bank book or not". Yet I have not heard of any increase in the amount of fraud carried out at the expense of people with Post Office Savings Bank accounts, or at the expense of the Post Office, as a result of the abolition of identity cards.

I must say that I know certain people who still feel safer with their identity cards—I cannot think why—because they feel that they give them some sort of protection. It is a protection which seems to me to be of the same order as the superstitions of the jungle.

It has also been said that it does not take up an enormous amount of time to have this system of endorsing cheques. There again, I cannot really agree. To begin with, the, endorsement itself has to be made. I think that point was rather overlooked in what my right hon. and learned Friend said. As was rightly pointed out a little previously, the cheque has to be meticulously endorsed with exactly the same name. It is often written wrongly on cheques. I know that to my cost. I have a name which nine times out of ten is spelled wrongly. For the benefit of anyone reporting what I am saying, I will add that the correct spelling of my name is with the penultimate letter "a" but on nearly every cheque that I get the penultimate letter is "e". So, painstakingly, I have to write out the name on the cheque which is spelled wrongly and then write out my name with the correct spelling. I do not see what great protection this gives my bank or anyone else.

Assuming that my hon. Friend's name has been spelled wrongly and assuming that there is another client at the bank whose name is that which has been spelled wrongly, how does the bank know into which account to pay it?

There is some little protection for the bank because in fact I write on the back of the cheque both my name and the name of the other customer.

That is if my hon. Friend had endorsed it properly.

My hon. Friend realises that he probably has to fill in the paying-in slip on the bank's own form and banks do pay some respect to their own form.

I should like to continue by saying that the time spent by the customer at the bank is obviously very important. This is particularly true of large firms handling a very large number of cheques. This is equally true of the time spent by the banks. I cannot see that the time spent by a bank can be justified at all as an economic proposition when the whole trend of accounting as it is today is towards much greater mechanisation, both in the making of entries, the keeping of entries, the analysing of entries and all the rest of it. By having this extra and antiquated system injected into our banking procedure, we are keeping a great many people employed—and it must add up to quite a lot of time—who could be doing better things.

If I may say so—and I hope with the approval of hon. Members sitting opposite—whereas I do not always agree about the difference which is held by some economists between productive labour and non-productive labour, I do very strongly hold that there is an extra benefit conferred upon the community if we can reduce the amount of administrative work that is done compared with the actual amount of time spent in making stuff, producing stuff, improving stuff and so on. We see in the City today and in the large commercial centres throughout the country huge office staffs. This ratio has, I think, been steadily growing, certainly since the First World War, and probably since the 1870s.

A lot of the time is spent in not doing really necessary work or a necessary job for the forwarding of production and really constructive administration. It is done because it has grown up to be a tradition to do it. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) will know better than many people in the House how much work of this sort is done for no other reason than that it happens to have been done before. When the financial experts go into a firm they invariably find that many people working on forms and doing other things which are merely an inheritance of the past. I should like to add my voice in support of the Bill.

On these occasions, it is usual for Ministers to congratulate their hon. Friends who bring in such Bills. That sometimes degenerates into a mere formality, but I should like to say a very special word of congratulation to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). He has studied this subject most carefully and has shown the most admirable persistence in putting his views before the public, before this House and before the Government. To day he has succeeded in bringing in this Bill.

In his admirable speech, he disclosed his very great knowledge of the subject. The simplicity with which he put his case disguises the fact that the law about endorsement is extremely complicated. It was for that reason, and as a result of representations that he made, that the Government decided to set up this Departmental Committee, under Mr. Mocatta, to study the whole matter. On behalf of the Government, I should like to express our most grateful thanks to Mr. Mocatta and his Committee, who examined the whole matter with the greatest possible care. Anyone who has read their Report will see what a thorough, painstaking and deep-thinking inquiry they made.

My hon. Friend has not adopted, as he said, exactly the solution which was propounded by that Committee, but I can say that the Government believe, not only that he is right in the general purpose of his Bill, but also that the method he proposes is, in general, the correct one. We have, of course, considered the points so ably put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), which might be held to militate against the Bill, but after setting up the Mocatta Committee and receiving its Report, we believe that those objections are not really strong enough to outweigh the general advantages that would accrue to the country if this Bill became law.

On the subject of endorsement, I quite agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) says. People always spell my name with a "u," and I find it extremely irritating to have to write my name out twice, once rightly and once wrongly.

Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine what is often done with my name?

I hesitate to speculate, but I hope that we can count on the hon. Gentleman's support as a result.

As my hon. Friend said, this Bill has the support of many professional bodies, and, in general, of the banking world. What he did not mention is that it has also the support, as I understand, of the staff associations; of the Central Council of Bank Staff Associations and of the National Union of Bank Employees. These are the men who spend part of their lives, at least, performing what must be the very stultifying business of examining endorsements, not because the endorsements are really a safeguard, but merely to see whether someone has endorsed a cheque exactly as his name was written on the front. They find that a stultifying business, and very rightly they are in favour of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the House will give it a fair wind.

As I say, the Government are in favour of the purpose of the Bill, and they are also in favour of the general method of approach of my hon. Friend, but, as I have pointed out, this is a very complicated legal matter, and the general endorsement that I have given to the Bill should not be held to include every word of every Clause. It may be that when we get to the Committee stage it will be right to make certain minor Amendments in the Bill which will be for the purpose only of making it better and more watertight.

We think this is a right development. We think it is in the national interest. We think the Bill is in general on the right lines, and we are extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and to his seconder the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) for so ably moving and seconding the Bill.