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

The interest in clean rivers, as in clean air, and the removal of grime from buildings in our towns and cities which has been going on in Palace Yard and all about London, is a welcome sign of reviving public consciousness of the value of the amenities of life and also, I think, of a growing hope that, as financial conditions become less stringent, it may become more and more possible for the Government to undertake effective action in these directions.

At the same time, it is generally recognised that all these are, inevitably, rather long-term objectives, especially perhaps the objective of clean rivers, because of the immense amount of existing pollution, the result of at least a century of neglect, and of the considerable cost which will have to be borne before it is put right. Supporters of the Bill, those who want to see rivers clean again, have reconciled themselves to having to wait quite a long time. But, while we are waiting, we do at the very least want to take all reasonable steps to see that the position does not deteriorate any further.

That, in a nutshell, is the object of the Bill, which seeks, by bringing river estuaries within the same control by river boards to which non-tidal waters are now subject, to check new sources of pollution in estuaries, and so stop the existing pollution from becoming any worse.

I feel that I should apologise to hon. Members for the fact that the Bill has been in their hands for only a week. I am afraid that this is rather a discourteous way to treat the House and outside interests, such as the F.B.I., chambers of commerce and local authority associations, which are affected by the Bill. It just could not be helped, in view of the short time which, under present arrangements, is open to hon. Members between the Ballot for Bills and the first day for Second Readings. If we have not managed to frame the Bill exactly as the House wants it, I hope that hon. Members will nevertheless feel able to endorse our general objective and give the Bill a Second Reading. There will then be time for consultations to take place and improvements to be introduced in Committee.

My interest in river pollution goes back almost as long as I can remember. I have always had it in mind as something that I should like to do something about. I remember when I was young being taken for a walk beside the River Tees, below Piercebridge, and having pointed out to me a stone in the river and being told that when the water was at a certain height on that stone anyone might expect to be able to catch a salmon at a place called Hazel Dikes. That saying went back to a time when 500 or 600 salmon a year were taken in the River Tees on rod and line alone. The position now is that none are taken by any means, because the pollution of the estuary is such that migratory fish can no longer get up the river.

I remember thinking then what a pity it was—and it strikes me even more forcibly now—that so many of our English and Welsh rivers are so much less than they might otherwise be without the migratory fish, the salmon and sea trout, all of which are caught by all sorts of people in all sorts of ways, most of which I approve of, and which add interest and variety to life for those who live near a river or enjoy being by the riverside and taking an interest in the things that go on there.

Estuaries can be very agreeable places in which to bathe as well as to go sailing on, but in these days there are not many in which anybody would want to go bathing. I believe that a certain noble Lord was once so fond of bathing in the River Thames that he used to receive letters addressed to "Lord So-and-So. In the Thames, Off West-minister." That is an almost inconceivable situation now, in view of the state of the River Thames.

I have to declare what is really a countryman's interest in the Bill, because I live near a river which is polluted at the estuary, but having mentioned the interest of anglers and fishermen, which is of considerable economic importance —as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) acknowledged when moving the Second Reading of the 1951 Act—I would emphasise that the Bill is not intended to be just a fisherman's charter it is much more a Bill about public health. Much the worst polluted parts of our English and Welsh rivers are the estuaries and much the worst source of pollution in the estuaries is not effluent from trade and industry but crude sewage, discharged untreated into the tideway. I will not enlarge upon the implications—hon. Members can work them out for themselves—but it was stated in this House as far back as 1948 that 12 million gallons of crude sewage went into the Tees estuary every day and 13,000 tons of solid sewage in the course of a year. With the increase of housing development in subsequent years the position today is almost certainly worse.

As hon. Members know, an inland local authority has to treat its sewage on a sewage farm and purify it before disposal. A local authority on tidal waters, or on river estuary, can and in most cases does, discharge its sewage raw, unscreened and uncontrolled into the tideway. The effect of this upon the Tees, the Tyne, the Thames, the Humber and many other estuaries is to make them, to all intents and purposes, open sewers for the people living near and working on them, with all the implications that has in respect of public health.

I believe that this is the only country in the world which has allowed its rivers to sink into this state. Despite the fact that it drains so much of the industrial areas of France and Germany, the River Rhine is in nowhere near such a bad state, and there is a very good run of salmon up the river, as some of my hon. Friends know, because when we have attended meetings of the Council of Europe we have fished in the Rhine, although I have to admit that we never managed to catch a salmon there.

Since I have got back to the subject of fish, I would say in passing that the public health aspect of river pollution to which I have referred is, in practice, very closely linked with the fishery aspect. In the matter of laying down standards of pollution, which is one of the duties imposed on river boards, the only creatures Who are really in a posi- tion to know whether a river is polluted are the fish who live in the river. Therefore, hon. Members will find that the most practical-minded river boards have set as their goal for public health a standard of pollution which experience shows to be tolerable to the fish. In this they show great wisdom, because this question of pollution can be tackled gradually, and by degrees. The fullest and most expensive treatment of sewage is not necessary in the very early stages.

I would ask hon. Members to look at the 1951 Act, which governs the present position in the matter of river pollution. This Act made provision for:

"maintaining or restoring the wholesomeness of rivers"

and it confirmed river boards as the public authorities by which this should be done. Section 2 says that it shall be an offence if a person:

"causes or knowingly permits to enter a stream any poisonous noxious or polluting matter"

but after laying down this principle a great deal of the remainder of the Act is devoted to making exceptions, so that in one way or another pollution can continue. For example, a river board may not at present prosecute an offender without the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and even when this consent is no longer required the prosecution still will not succeed if the local authority in question can show that it was not reasonably practicable to dispose of its sewage effluent in any other way.

Such improvement as there has been since 1951 has depended upon the co-operation and good will of local authorities and industry, and the tactful approaches of river boards, rather than on any sanction under the 1951 Act, because these have not yet been made fully effective.

The Act has been of great value, however, in enabling river boards to prevent the condition of non-tidal waters and streams from deteriorating by virtue of the powers under Section 7 over new discharges. I have a letter from the Wear and Tees River Board which says:

"It is largely on account of Section 7 that we have been able to control new pollutions in the non-tidal streams and about 250 consents have been issued. As new outlets and new discharges are made in non-tidal waters the Board is enabled not only to prevent any extension of pollution, but also to bring about a gradual improvement in a most effective way and it is undoubtedly a most valuable tool in the hands of river boards. In general the local authorities and traders"—

I ask the House to note this—

"in the non-tidal areas have been most co-operative and have resolutely tackled the sewage problem."

In view of that letter and many other communications I have received from river boards, with which I will not trouble the House, I have no doubt that the Section 7 powers of the 1951 Act in regard to streams really do work.

This brings me to Clause 1 of our Bill, because it is this power of control over river pollution in non-tidal waters that we are asking the House to extend to cover the tidal reaches of rivers. Hon. Members may wonder why this was not put originally into the 1951 Act. It is true that no general power was given in that Act. All that can happen is that under Section 6 the river boards can apply for the extensions of their control to tidal waters by means of an order made by the Minister.

I think that there were a number of good reasons why the 1951 Act stopped short where it did. At that time, Parliament was almost certainly influenced by the country's financial position, and both the Government and the House were in a mood to go canny about any proposals to embark on extensions of capital expenditure. It was also true that in 1951 river boards were in their infancy, having only been constituted in their present form by the River Boards Act, 1948, and it was still a question whether they would exercise their powers with a due sense of responsibility. Since that time, they have triumphantly passed the test of a high degree of public responsibility in the functions which they discharge.

The order procedure under the 1951 Act was adopted, with the unfortunate result that pollution in tidal waters has been growing ever since, because only four orders have been made under Sestion 6 of that Act. If the House wonders why more have not been made, I do not think that it is because my right hon. Friend or the Ministry have been awkward or averse to making an order. It is simply that the preliminaries under Section 6 are so lengthy and cumbersome and involve so many consultations, a Ministerial and a public inquiry, that the process just does not get under way.

I do not want to weary the House with a lot of quotations, but I have correspondence from the river boards and a great deal of evidence which confirm this point of view. Here it is perhaps appropriate that I should mention the safeguards to local authorities and others which are writen into Section 7 of the 1951 Act and which will be continued in the Bill. In the first place, there is the constitution of the river boards themselves which, as hon. Members, know, have a representation from the local authorities in the areas over which the boards have jurisdiction of up to three-fifths or two-thirds of the membership of the board. The local authorities, therefore, have direct representation and a say in river board policy.

Secondly, under the Bill a river board may not unreasonably refuse its consent to a discharge. The word "unreasonably" is in the Bill as it is in the 1951 Act. As to what is or is not reasonable, it is the Minister who has the final say. That is provided for in Section 7 (10) and the Minister may direct the board to vary or revoke any condition imposed by it. There is a further safeguard in Section 7 (9) of the principal Act that any local authority sewage works which has already received loan sanction from the Ministry is excluded from conditions imposable by a river board.

I think that experience has shown that there has not, in practice, been any question of abuse of Section 7 by river boards as applied to streams, or that they have been unreasonable in their requirements. This has been a valuable control, but that it would be still more valuable if applied generally to tidal waters and estuaries. There is no doubt that inability to control pollution in tidal waters under the 1951 Act has continuously hindered river boards from implementing the main intentions of the 1951 Act.

I should like to give the House two more short quotations from letters which I have had from river boards. The first comes from the south-west of England. The clerk to the board writes:

"For some time past, my Board has been concerned with the practice of a certain local authority of taking its cess pit emptier to the bank of a tidal section of a river within the township and decanting the contents over the river bank. This emptier covers a large rural area and makes several journeys a day for the purpose of disposing of its contents which comprises a very filthy and in itself very polluting waste. Representatives of my Board recently met representatives of the local authority on this question, particularly as the discharge was being made at all states of the tide with the result that solid masses of this black, toxic liquor were being washed up and clown the river.

The Board had no evidence to prove that it was actually toxic to fish within the terms of Section 8 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, and as the local authority was in no way concerned to be co-operative in the matter, my Board at the present time has no alternative but to accept the situation."

I do not say that that is typical, but it is one example of the difficulties with which the river boards are faced.

The writer of another letter, from the north of England, states:

"It is considered, speaking generally, that conditions in the River Humber are degenerating and will continue to do so unless the Board have control over new discharges. The number of large industries discharging quantities of obnoxious effluence into the Humber is increasing … in addition a number of new sewerage works are being provided for parishes adjoining the Humber in the Board's area. The effluence from such works is being discharged or is proposed to be discharged untreated into the River Humber."

As long as these discharges are uncontrolled, the difficulties of obtaining an order under Section 6, applying Section 2 of the Act, so as to deal with existing discharges will simply go on building up from year to year, because each new discharge creates a vested interest which sets up an additional potential opponent to an order applying Section 2 of the 1951 Act. That is really the argument for doing what it is our wish to do under the Bill.

I come now to Clause 2 and the Schedule. Hon. Members will have probably observed that whereas I have been talking about our intentions in regard to estuaries, the words in lines 11 and 13 of the Bill refer to

"… tidal waters and parts of the sea adjoining the coast of a river board area within which Her Majesty's subjects have the exclusive right of fishing …"

There is an important reason for that discrepancy. In the first place, although I believe that all hon. Members will know what they mean by an estuary, in bringing in the Bill we have not been able, in the time available, to produce a definition of an estuary which would satisfy the lawyers or be considered sufficiently unambiguous to go into a Statute.

The difficulty is to define how far the estuary extends seawards. It is all right the other way. The difficulty is a very real one. Therefore, we have included all tidal waters all round the coast, and in Clause 2 and the Schedule we have laid down a procedure by which the Minister could exclude from the scope of the Bill any tidal waters over which he thought it inappropriate that river boards should have jurisdiction.

The trouble about that is that it at once provokes a conflict of interests between river boards and the local authorities in districts such as, for example, seaside resorts which are not by any stretch of the imagination on a river, and which would resent the idea that they should be subject to control by a river board. They would, of course, be subject to that control during the period between the passing of the Act and the making by the Minister of the excluding Order.

This is a point on which hon. Members may have received letters, and I should like therefore to deal with it as fully as I can. No one is saying, least of all the coastal resorts, that the pollution of the sea by crude sewage or any other kind of effluent is not wrong. It is simply that the idea of intervention by the river board as the controlling authority is a thing to which coastal resorts take a certain exception. It might help the House if I referred to a letter which I have received from Sir Harold Banwell, secretary of the Association of Municipal Corporations, which I have had his permission to quote.

"If the proposal is confined to those rivers and estuaries now subject to existing Orders and to other rivers and estuaries in the way I have indicated below I do not think the Association would object subject to the necessary safeguards in favour of local authorities for which I understand you intend to make provision. It seems to me however, that in trying to effect the purpose of the Bill at one stroke you have not found it possible to define 'estuaries' and you have therefore brought in the whole of the coastline. This, f suggest, is contrary to the broad intention of the present legislation relating to river pollution. The Association could not possibly accept the suggestion that river boards should obtain jurisdiction over the whole coastline and over seaside resorts. I appreciate your difficulties in defining 'estuaries' and I suggest you might either have to define the areas in question on a map or have a Schedule to the Bill limiting the extent of the estuaries in the manner in which the Minister limits them when making Orders under Section 7 (17). There may, of course, be other ways of achieving this of which I am unaware."

I thought that a helpful letter from the Association which has a very natural interest in this matter. I appreciate the force of its argument if only because, to a layman in these matters like myself, an estuary is an estuary, a river board is a river board and a bathing beach is something which in most instances is quite different and which does not necessarily have any connection with either.

I realise that what happens, now we have brought this Bill to the House in its present form, must be a matter for the House and not for the river boards or the A.M.C. or anyone else. But I wish to say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that if the House will endorse the principle of what the Bill seeks to do about estuaries, and will give a Second Reading to the Bill, we will undertake to introduce Amendments during the Committee stage to define the estuaries which we mean to deal with, because we are simply concerned with trying to do something about the cleaning-up of estuaries and we are not trying to build up an empire for the river boards all along the coast at the expense of local authorities or anybody else.

Nor, it is fair to say, is there any disposition on the part of river boards to want to go in for empire building. They have a perfectly legitimate interest in the pollution of coastal waters deriving from the Long Title of the 1951 Act and from their fishery powers. But the House may feel that this wider question is one in which we do not want to get involved in this Bill. I hope, therefore, that the House may accept what we propose, and that the Minister will be able to approve our intention and give us his assistance in carrying it out, especially with regard to the definition of estuaries.

As a matter of fact, we are hopeful of being able to find a satisfactory means of defining an estuary. The Fourth Schedule to the Coast Protection Act, 1949, managed to define that part of the coastline which is not an estuary, and it seems that we might very well proceed on similar lines and specify in a Schedule two points on opposite banks of an estuary and draw a line between them and arrive at a solution in that way. These things can usually be done if the House desires it. I should like to acknowledge the help which I have received from my hon. Friend's Ministry so far, which has led me to hope that we shall succeed in reaching a solution.

I hope the House will approve this Bill. I do not believe that it is one which will be found to do violence to anyone's legitimate interests. If anything, it obliges those who have to use river estuaries as drains or sewers to do so in the future with a proper consideration for the interests of other people who value our rivers for other reasons. I believe that it simply sets a modest standard of responsible behaviour which, I hope, will commend itself to hon. Members, and in that belief I respectfully ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

I beg to second the Motion.

May I be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) on the initiative he has taken, following his success in the Ballot, and may I say to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that it is most appropriate that this debate should follow the debate we had last Friday

I do not think that there is much need for me to speak about the details of the Bill. We have had a lucid explanation from the hon. Member for Harrogate. He spoke with persuasion and moderation and I think I can assume that the Bill will be accepted by everyone. If there are difficulties about the implementation of the principle, as the hon. Gentleman has said, it is a matter with which we can deal in Committee. As the case for the Bill is thoroughly established I believe that I can follow his precedent and explain personally why I am delighted to have the privilege of seconding the Motion.

During the summer there was a good deal of apprehension and concern in my constituency which, although it is an industrial constituency, has a seaside resort, about the state of the beaches at Roker and Seaburn. We are the victims of the rivers Wear and Tyne. There was concern not only on amenity grounds, but on grounds of public health, and this was a talking point during the recent General Election. I therefore carried out some research and I was happy to find eventually that in one of the policy statements of my own party—"Leisure for Living"—there was this statement.

As I am endeavouring to be noncontroversial I will omit the introductory sentence, but the statement went on:

"The Government has also steadily refused to allow River Boards to tackle the problem of river pollution in tidal areas. In consequence, many of our rivers and streams (and to an increasing extent our coasts and estuaries as well) are a national reproach, grossly polluted, dangerous to health and destructive of amenity. This must surely be a false economy, and a Labour Minister of Housing and Local Government will launch a vigorous drive on this urgent problem."

Then, no doubt with an eye on the Liberal vote, there follows a quotation from The Guardian:

"Millions who think that they are bathing in the sea around the British coast in summer are, in fact, bathing in diluted sewage. It will cost money to undo the harm that generations of national bad housekeeping have wrought, but bad habits ought not to be condoned because they are apparently cheap."

My somewhat partisan researches stopped at that point, but I was relieved to know that I could pledge myself that we should take legislative action—

If the hon. Gentleman would read the Conservative election manifesto he would find a similar statement there.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has anticipated me. I was satisfied to know that, in the case of the return of a Labour Government, we were committed to deal with this problem. Happily I was subsequently informed, as the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has informed me again today, that the Conservative Party was also committed. I found that information was tucked away in its statement on health.

Subsequent researches led me to the discovery. I do not want to make any political point about it. I am glad that this is an all-party matter, and therefore, should receive the unanimous support of the House.

What about the Liberals?

I shall leave it to the Liberals to tell us what they said. I am quite confident that this matter had the attention of both the main political parties and they both came to the same conclusion.

As the hon. Member for Harrogate said, this is a matter of considerable and particular concern to us on the North-East Coast. I see that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) are with us this morning, so I shall not say much about the Tyne, except that we had a very disturbing report from the medical officer of health of the Tyne Port Health Authority. No doubt my right hon. Friend the hon. Lady will refer to that report in due course. It is clear from the report that we can no longer regard the Tyne just as something lacking in amenity, but also a grave potential danger to public health. The Tees is also in a shocking condition.

As the clerk of the Wear and Tees River Board has reported:

"the gross pollution of the tidal waters of the River Tees is absolutely appalling."

The Wear, our own river in Sunderland, is not so bad as the Tyne and the Tees, but, unfortunately, we get a lot of effluent from the Tyne on our beaches. Although it might not be so bad as the Tyne and the Tees, we are very conscious of the need to do something about the Wear and Sunderland Corporation has been very enlightened in this respect. It was, therefore, with great regret that I received a letter from the town clerk urging me to oppose the Bill. Well, I intend to disregard his "whip". I think it unfortunate that we should get such advice from town clerks. This would have been better left a matter for consultation.

We do not have to read all the letters we get from town clerks.

I am receiving a lot of advice this morning. I think that this letter illustrates the parochialism which we have to overcome. For that reason, I am happy to second the Motion, to support the hon. Member for Harrogate and thank him for his lucid explanation of the Bill which, I hope, will have all-party support and will lead to a steady— of course, not a dramatic, but steady—and gradual improvement of the tidal as well as of the non-tidal waters of our rivers.

I welcome the Bill, which has been so ably produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), because I feel that it will go some way in helping to clean up our rivers, a process which is so badly needed.

It seems extraordinary that in this year of 1959, with all our hygiene, our wonderful kitchens and bathrooms, with sanitary inspectors going round to see that restaurants are hygienic, we should discharge filth into our rivers. I am certain that this problem must be tackled, and tackled soon, because, obviously, it is very bad for the health of our people. It is bad enough for this filth to be discharged into open estuaries near the sea, where the water may be salt and is certainly brackish, but we should not forget that some stretches of tidal rivers are many miles from the sea and are very narrow.

For example, south of Gloucester, on the Severn, there is a stretch of river which is in a disgusting state. The filth is not carried away down to the sea, but goes backwards and forwards in a piston-like action. If, during the discussions on the Finance Bill, hon. Members could drag themselves from this Chamber and go down to the Terrace they would have this process well demonstrated to them. If they go there when the tide is about to change they can see a piece of flotsam go down the river and shortly afterwards, when the tide has changed, they will see it coming back again. That goes on in many of our rivers and it is, therefore, important to see that sewage is not discharged untreated into tidal parts of rivers.

A very well known international menu gave good advice when it said:

"Ne buvez jamais de l'eau."

How wise this suggestion is today. In the past, when our rivers were clean, there was no better place for relaxation than beside one of them. That, I am afraid, is passing now because of the disgusting state into which we allow them to fall. When I was a boy we used to bathe in the River Thames, near Windsor, and very good bathing it was, but that is completely unheard of now. It would be far too dangerous with the risk of catching poliomyelitis, or a similar disease, due to the pollution of the water. Boating is not nearly so pleasant now as it used to be, because one has to row in very badly polluted water.

Fishing nowadays is a very different pastime from what it used to be. Throughout the country, and particularly in the Midlands around my constituency, there is great interest in fishing. I believe there are about 2 million fishermen in this country. What finer form of relaxation is there than for people who work in the noise of factories all the week to be able to fish from a lovely river bank? But that is not the same as sitting at the edge of what has now become an open sewer.

There is also the question of types of fish dying out. It is not many years ago since one could catch trout and salmon in some of our great rivers, including the Thames. Now, not only is it difficult for those fish to get up the rivers, but their progeny can never get down to the sea and as a result the fish die out and the river itself becomes dead. It is not only the beautiful salmon or trout which are affected, but ordinary coarse fish. Unfortunately, in many of our rivers today we have more stench than tench.

In my constituency there is the town of Redditch, which has been renowned for generations for the manufacture of fishing tackle. It is said, "Unless you have Redditch fingers you cannot tie a fishing fly". That industry, for curious reasons, has not had a particularly easy time recently. I assure the House that if the fish of our rivers continue to die out because of pollution, that will be the death knell of this industry. It is vitally important to keep these people employed in the skilful job they are doing, because it also provides a fine export trade, but, as we all know, if there are not sales of any commodity in this country we cannot hope to export that commodity.

In these days of automation we are faced with the problem of how people are to spend their leisure, the increased leisure which we hope they will get. What an awful thing it would be if, as this leisure increases because of the success of science and new inventions, one of our greatest hobbies will cease to exist, as it will unless something is done to clean up our rivers. I therefore support the Bill most strongly. I believe that it will do something physically to clean up our rivers, and I hope that the publicity given to it will draw the attention of local authorities to the gravity of the position concerning our streams and rivers.

I should first like very warmly to welcome the Bill and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) on choosing it as the subject on which he wished to legislate when he found himself at the top of the list in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills. It is an admirable subject, and one in which I am keenly interested. Not only did I make some researches into the political pamphlets of my own and other political parties on the subject, but I included my views on it in my own election address.

I represent a constituency which is just about as far in every direction from tidal waters as it is possible to be in this country. Nor am I particularly interested in the consumption of water, either tidal or non-tidal. I ought, therefore, to be able to take an entirely dispassionate view of the question of the pollution of tidal waters. That, however, is far from being the case. I think that all forms of pollution of rivers, whether in their tidal or other reaches, are matters of vital public interest, and I am glad that hon. Members on both sides of the House are joining together today to see whether we cannot do something to deal with the problem.

An example of what happens even when there is control is seen in the River Avon, which flows through my constituency. This is something which all people ought to consider. To England, of course, it is the only Avon. Nevertheless, it is a dead river from the point at which the discharge of Coventry effluent joins it, because at the time of the summer flow, when the River Avon itself is low, 50 per cent. of the flow is provided by the effluent of Coventry below that point, until other streams join it lower down. Immediately below that confluence there is the dreadful sight of an utterly dead river with no oxygenation, flat, soapy looking water and slimy banks. This is not the fault of the Coventry Corporation, which is making great efforts to deal with the problem and is extending its sewage works and undertaking an enormous expenditure to try to improve the position. I am blaming no one.

The problem arises not so much from the sewage as from the trade effluents. The problem of treating and dealing with them and with the detergent9 which the housewife pours down the drain is very serious. Even after it has absorbed the effluent from Coventry, the river flows slowly and soapily along until it comes to a weir, and when it passes over the weir it produces a frothy scene which looks like a kitchen sink at washing-up time, which can gladden no man's heart and, I imagine, the hearts of very few women. It is a problem of treating not only ordinary domestic sewage but also trade effluents. It is obvious from the reports which we have from many different river boards on their estuaries that many industries are finding it extremely convenient to set up their works on tidal waters where there is no control, so that they are able, without expense to discharge the whole of their trade effluent into tidal waters.

In Milford Haven and other places we are therefore seeing ribbon development of industry, as it were, alongside tidal waters. Curiously, too often it is only the river board which desires to exercise any control so that the whole of the discharges of trade and other effluent are poured in completely untreated. I do not know what the explanation may be, but it is rather depressing to learn that in Milford Haven, when an application was made under Section 6 by the river board that Section 2 of the 1951 Act should be applied to it, practically every local authority, the conservancy authority and, of course, all the local trade interests in the area opposed the making of that order. They may have had good reasons; I know not. On the face of it, however, it is rather depressing that only the river board was interested in preserving the cleanliness of Milford Haven.

The waters of the Avon flow into the Severn. It is always said in our history books that John Wycliffe's body, which had been buried at Lutterworth, was dug up and burned, his ashes cast into the Swift and carried by the Swift into the Avon, carried by the Avon into the Severn and carried by the Severn into the limitless seas of the world. We are now told by experts of the Severn River Board that this was not so. They take the view that the action of the tidal waters in the estuary of the Severn prevents the dispersal of solid or effluent or sewage because it merely sweeps the sewage and effluent up and down inside the estuary. The Nene River Board takes a similar view that the action of the tide at the mouth of the estuary is simply to bottle up the filth. The Severn Board has found by experiment that there is only a little mixing of the salt and fresh waters within the estuary, showing quite plainly that the action of the tide is to bottle up the waters in their estuary.

This Bill will not cure that problem. It provides, however, a hope that in the future the situation on tidal waters will not deteriorate. It is for that reason that I welcome it. About 1912, in the Severn, within the area of which lies my constituency, they caught 34,000 salmon a year. Today the average take of salmon is only 4,000 to 5,000 a year. There is little hope of salmon running up the Avon. Nevertheless, seventy years ego under Warwick Bridge they used to catch trout on rod and line in a sparking stream. Now nothing whatever is to be caught in that reach of the river.

I am sure that we ought to look at a river as a whole from its source to its final discharge into the sea. For that reason, I congratulate my hon. Friend and welcome the Bill, and I wish it every success.

I wish to support the Bill in my capacity as a Londoner, representing a London constituency and with a natural pride in the greatest river in the world, the Thames. Unfortunately, this world-famous river is almost denied to the average Londoner. That is due to industrial expansion down the years. For a very long time, it has been difficult for any of my constituents to enjoy any of the amenities which one would expect from such a river. In any case, even if facilities were available, in our view it would be dangerous for any of our constituents or their children to bathe in the river.

The Thames is used by firms as a means of getting rid of their waste material. It is understandable that down the years it has been regarded as a very cheap and easy disposal system for all sorts of materials which they did not want. I have had many individual coin-plaints from constituents about the smell which occurs in certain parts of the river after firms have dumped into this wonderful river the materials they do not require. We have to take up these matters with the Port of London Authority. I do not deny that down the years there has been a great improvement, but it has not been enough. I was reading the other day a history of the area which I have the honour to represent, and it appears that only a hundred years ago about 12,000 people in my constituency died of typhoid as a consequence of the filth in the river at that time.

It is interesting that in those days the House decided to take an interest in these matters, not because of hon. Members' concern for my constituents and what happened to them, but because the smell was of such a character that when the polluting material passed the Terrace the House had to be suspended and hon. Members could not continue with their debates. When that happened hon. Members said, "We think it is about time something was done to put this right". There has been a great deal of improvement in public health matters since then.

The comparison is clear if we look back at the history of this great river from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the turn of the century. I am not blaming anyone; the Government then in power were the sort of Government which hon. Members opposite would have supported, but in those days there was no planning and no attempt to ensure that any amenities which could be obtained from the river were made available to the people. As a result of this lack of planning, many things happened which caused much distress.

Because of lack of planning, long before the war a local authority in my area built council flats near the river, alongside firms which have a perfect right to be there. In that day this housing scheme was considered to be wonderful, and people came from all over the world to see these council flats. For the first time, for instance, the workers were being provided with bathrooms. We refer to it today as our downtown area. It was separated from the remainder of a district by swing bridges, which made my constituents late for work, and it was an isolated area to that extent.

Unfortunately, this scheme was the biggest blunder ever made. The flats should never have been built there. Apart from the inconvenience of living there, the smell had to be experienced to be believed. Those of us who have inherited that decision have to live with the heartaches of people living in that area who want to get away from it.

I have always recognised that barges are the cheapest form of transport, and these come up the Thames carrying hundreds of tons of bulky cargoes. Nothing could be more attractive than to see some of these barges being towed along by a small tug. It is a fascinating sight. I am a bit of a romantic.

I do not see why these firms alongside the River Thames need have dirty, drab, filthy warehouses. Apparently at the moment anything is good enough. There is not a drop of paint anywhere. This wonderful river of ours is being used in this way because these firms, in their desire to make a profit, just dump into the river the material they do not want. Some of the firms occupying the river bank are an absolute disgrace. If hon. Members go along there on a bright sunny afternoon they will agree that it is sickening to look at the river.

We ought to make an effort to make this great river of ours cleaner, better and brighter and more interesting for our people. We should make it easier for the ordinary Londoner to get to the river, to see the river, to like the river, and to experience the kind of enjoyment on the river which the Germans experience. The Germans would not allow their rivers, such as the Rhine, to be used in the way in which we allow our river to be used.

If the Bill does nothing more than put a small bomb under the Port of London Authority, it is welcome. I give the P.L.A. due warning what will happen if it does not use the powers which it will be given under the Bill. We think that the time has come when to go down the river should be an enjoyment and not, as it is at the moment, an ordeal both for those going down the river and those living alongside it.

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), because my constituency also borders the Thames, although a different part of the Thames than his. It is true that we are better off up there as regards the state of the river, but even there bathing in the river is almost unheard of in a number of places.

I should like to support the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) from two points of view. The first is that the Bill makes a practical contribution to the law on the subject of pollution. It will make it more simple and logical, and I think that it will be generally welcomed for that reason. Very often, improvements in the law are not of much interest to the general public, but this one, I think is, because I believe that the second reason we should support the Bill is that it may be the beginning of united efforts by all the various conflicting interests to deal with this problem. For that reason, it is very important that we should support the Bill and be ready, as we are—it has been already stated—to ensure that proper protection is given and safeguards afforded for the various people likely to be affected by the Bill.

In particular, there are two interests—the local authorities and industry. I think it should be appreciated that we fully realise that we must be reasonable about these things. We have allowed this pollution to occur to a terrible extent and if we were to say that within the next year or two we were going to remedy all the evils of the past, we should be saying something quite impossible and putting an intolerable and impossible burden on ratepayers and on industry. Therefore, we must be reasonable and practical.

So far, our trouble has been that people have not been prepared to get round a table with good will and discuss this matter from the positive point of view. Time after time, we have found, as instanced today, that the immediate response to any proposal of this kind is that certain interests say, "Over our dead bodies! Let us get some M.P.'s to stand up in Parliament and block this, and everything will be grand", and it is dirtier than ever. That is wrong.

We must make it plain that the local authorities have been very reasonable over this matter. My hon. Friend has read out a letter which he received, and I think that we who support the Bill ought to recognise that it involves a great deal for the associations of local authorities to be prepared to say that they would not object in principle to the Bill, because it will lay greater burdens on them. In return for that, we must be prepared to see that proper safeguards are provided for them.

If we can approach this matter from a fresh point of view, with that in mind, we may achieve something and once more see that a Private Member's Bill can be of real benefit to this House and to the country. It certainly benefits the Government because, as has been pointed out, the Government have stated that they will tackle the question of estuaries, and here is one of the Government supporters saving the Government time and trouble and enabling them to do what we all knew they were going to do any way.

I shall not enlarge on this matter, because we are all agreed about it. I have always been prepared to tackle this subject, and I have spoken about it more than once from the point of view of the one million or two million anglers in the country. I think that they are a sufficiently important body of people to be regarded. As we know today, it goes far further than that. There are people in all walks of life who are beginning to realise what a terrible thing it is that we have these awful conditions. Not so very long ago when I was in an estuary, and a very different one from that of London, I was reminded of the famous words of Keats:

"The moving waters at their priestlike task of pure ablution …"

That is a very nice thought. Contrast that with something else which I read and which is the greatest contrast one could have. According to the report of the chief pollution officer of one of the river boards, one tidal estuary—a famous river, he says—receives no less than 24 million gallons of untreated sewage per day, resulting in the delightful concept of at least 1,100 tons of wet sludge. No doubt, the moving waters did their best in that case, but I do not think they achieved very much. He goes on to say this, which is very startling. It only emphasises what has already been mentioned, but it may be helpful to the House to have the actual language:

"… in the middle stretches of the area it is doubtful whether more than the mere surface water ever gets to the sea at all, being pushed back and forth by each waxing and waning tide."

That is a remarkable contrast to the words of Keats. He goes on to say:

"It is true that"—

the contents of the river in that area have—

"none of the accepted characteristics and quality of normal river water".

It is imperative that we should do something about that. If our discussions today result in a more united approach, it will he very much to the public benefit.

I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly, because I know that a number of hon. Members with constituency interests want to speak, but I want to add my support to the Bill and to congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) for bringing it before the House and on the considerable courage which he has shown in delving into the very difficult and complicated waters in which we find ourselves today.

If the general public realised the state of our river estuaries they would be so much concerned that they would come in large numbers to the House of Commons today to ask us to do something about it. The public are very trusting in all this. They see their local authorities cleaning and lighting the streets, emptying dustbins and removing refuse. They assume that, because the local authorities perform those tasks so well, the things which they cannot see—the contents of our rivers and river estuaries—are equally well managed. If they could see what is in the rivers and river estuaries they would be horrified. From time to time they see the deposits on the beaches when they go away in the summer. They then become concerned about their children and themselves bathing in those waters and become aware of the real public health menace of the problem.

We are at the beginning of realising how important the subject is. In accepting the great tradition of this country and the part which the waterways have played in it, we have assumed that it is still something of which we can be proud. We have not examined what has been happening in recent years. With this Bill we are tackling a further stretch of the problem. I should be out of order if I mentioned a Bill which is going through another place and which will tackle another angle of it, namely, the problem of the disposal of radioactive wastes.

Hon. Members representing river and coastal areas have a particular constituency interest in the problem, but it should not be forgotten that it is a national problem. We are all affected by it. As I am speaking from the London area, I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, will he tell us where London stands in all this? My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and the hon. Member for Harrogate have mentioned the River Thames. The Thames Conservancy Board, the Port of London Authority, the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board and everything associated with estuary and coastal waters in the London area are already covered and will not come within the scope of the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that that is true?

My second question concerns local authorities. They are faced with the problem of what they are to do not only with sewage, but with refuse and the disposal of all the noxious matter which they collect. It is natural that they should be apprehensive, when they have been discharging sewage into river estuaries, about what they will do with sewage if and when the Bill comes into operation. It is right that the Bill should come into operation—with due safeguards for local authorities, with full definition of what an estuary is and full examination of all the changes which will have to be made. It may be necessary to help local authorities to deal with the problem.

If the Government are to give their blessing to the Bill, as I hope they will, will they bear in mind that local authorities are at present in great financial difficulties? If we want them to keep our river estuaries clear of sewage and waste matter, which is noxious and harmful, they may need assistance from the Government in examining the whole problem of what they are to do with it and how they are to finance alternative methods of disposal. There is not a conflict of interest between local authorities and those of us who want to clean up our rivers. It is just that there is the practical difficulty about which the Government could help very considerably if they support the Bill and its purpose, as I hope they will.

I am very glad indeed to be able to associate myself with the Bill. I am particularly pleased because recently the general public has already been alerted to the particular problems affecting the estuary waters of the Tyne. I was very glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) that there would be no difficulty in defining the estuary of the Tyne, because of the placement of two piers which will make it very easy to draw the line.

On Tyneside, so many reports have been received recently that I have felt that before long there would be a general chorus, in which I would have been delighted to join, on the lines that "it may be for years and it may be for ever" before anything happened to deal with this very difficult, and I might almost say overwhelming, problem of the dirty condition of the River Tyne.

I am glad to know that the Bill has received such a warm reception in the House and elsewhere from many people who interest themselves in the complicated problem. It is a very technical problem. Sometimes, when highly technical details have to be gone into to put something right, the general public, however interested they may be, tend to become disinterested and leave the matter to the technical experts. That, in a way, is a mistake, because this is a matter of general concern and those who are generally interested will be delighted to know that we are taking a step forward in the right direction.

I intended to quote in some detail, from the health point of view, from the medical reports that have just been received on the condition of the River Tyne, so that the whole facts of our position might be very well known but I now appreciate that that would be wasting the time of the House, because everyone is seized of the problem. However, I wish to put on record the description of the reports which have been received and the names of those who have presented them. It is important to know who is reporting on our behalf.

We have had a report on the River Tyne by the medical officer of health to the Tyne Port Health Authority, and for the purposes of the record I want to quote just one paragraph from his summing-up. He says:

"It may … be safely assumed, if not proved"—

The proving of these matters is, of course, very difficult, and I believe that to be partly responsible for the slow progress made in tackling the problem—

"that grave potential danger to health exists throughout the area, irrespective of domicile, from both air and water pollution, and all local authorities, not those merely classed as riparian, in the area of South-East Northumberland and North-East Durham, have a vital interest in the presence in the midst of this danger; and in devising adequate measures, however costly, to procure its abolition."

There was also a strong report from the chief pollution officer of the Northumberland and Tyneside River Board.

The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) spoke of the expense to local authorities. The Government might look at that because, as this report says, it is not only the people living close to the banks of the rivers and to their estuaries who are concerned. This is a national matter in the proper sense, and it is important not to overburden the individual local authorities affected.

Representations have been made by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I, like the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), have received representations from my own town clerk, and I gather that the town clerk of Newcastle-upon-Tyne has made similar representations. One can quite see that the solution of the problem will involve local authorities in financial commitments, with a consequent added burden on the ratepayers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate has said, these representations have had to be made because of the imminence of this debate, otherwise there would have been a greater chance for discussions with the Association of Municipal Corporations. That is partly the reason, I am sure, for our having received all these representations—

That does not apply to Sunderland. In the letter that I have received, my attention is called to the fact that the estimate produced by the Sunderland Corporation amounts to £1,300,000. Therefore, that corporation is willing to accept the burden of improving the means of sewage disposal on the Wear. I think that the corporation must be in conflict with the river board, and that is unfortunate. We can no longer afford to take a parochial view of the problem. We should welcome the opportunity of treating it on a much wider basis.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for saying that, and, of course, I agree in principle with him. I did not intend to go into all this, because it is a matter of detail, but a technical committee was set up to investigate the pollution of the Tyne and methods of proper sewage disposal. The present difficulty partly arises because that technical committee has been working for some time and has been a little apprehensive lest the Bill should cut across the decisions it was likely to make.

However, now that all the explanations have been given, and as a result of the unanimity with which the Bill has been received so far, I am sure that it will be possible to resolve all these difficulties. As I say, we seem to have gone on discussing the pollution of the Tyne and other rivers for so long that people are beginning to wonder whether any progress will ever be made at all.

I have quoted from a report received from Dr. Coxon. There is also a report from the chief pollution officer of the Northumberland and Tyneside River Board, whose representations are also couched in very strong terms. In addition, I want to quote from the North Shields Press. As hon. Members will know, this pollution of the Tyne affects both South Shields and North Shields—it affects the whole of the estuary—and what the local Press says ought to be put on the record.

I might say that the Press in that part of the country represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and myself has been very much in support of the tackling of this pollution of the Tyne. Those of us who are interested in the subject are very grateful indeed to the way the Press has always supported the efforts that some of us have made in this House, and those of others interested.

The North Shields Press says:

"Every medical officer of health along the banks of the Tyne has commented forcibly upon the gross pollution of the river and its danger to public health.

Two officials to add their voices to the never-ending volume of complaint are Gateshead's Medical Officer of Health and Chief Health Inspector. They reveal that their town's sewage is put untreated into the Tyne.

Last week Tynemouth District and Whitley Bay Trades Council urged that bathers at Tyne-mouth should be warned against the dangers from pollution."

Both Tynemouth and Whitley Bay, of course, are my constituency responsibilities, and I am glad to know that, for once, the trades council and myself are in complete agreement:

"There were some half-hearted denials that sea bathing in our area is not injurious to health.

The continuous build-up of evidence and the comments of responsible persons about the river's pollution and the amount of untreated sewage that flows into the sea around our coast, makes the observation of the local Trades Council more than timely.

The whole unhealthy problem requires immediate and drastic action, but which local authority on Tyneside is prepared to give a lead?"

Parliament is the answer.

Further, at the moment the local authorities have had this technical committee making an examination, but it is this House of Commons that is today showing itself prepared to give a lead. Even if the Bill represents only a small step forward in the right direction it is very worth while, and I only hope that if it receives, as I am sure it will, its Second Reading it will stimulate and encourage my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary to continue to urge local authorities to prepare and forward their reports.

It seems a little odd, after all these years, that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—and we look forward to his reply, and offer him our warm congratulations and good wishes—should be writing to me in the terms that he has used. I say, "after all these years"—that is the passage of time; he is very young, and I am very old. It is a quite extraordinary experience being in this House of Commons, because every new Minister who comes along—and this goes for the Opposition as well as my own Government—always starts at that period of the century at which he takes office, and eliminates all the decades that have passed when there have been other Ministers.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind my saying this, but he is a traditionalist, and follows tradition by starting immediately with what was happening in July of this year, just before the dissolution of the last Parliament. On the other hand, I go back for decades, and although I am very interested in today I also believe that the history of decades ought to be a powerful spur to those who hold office today.

My hon. Friend wrote to me:

"You will remember, first of all, that a working committee was formed last year which in turn set up a technical sub-committee composed of officers of the local authorities concerned. That sub-committee, in conjunction with the Civil Engineering Department of King's College, Durham, is now engaged on a number of surveys which they think essential before it can be decided what sort of scheme will be appropriate here. Our engineers fully agree with them that the surveys are necessary. The objectives are to find out much more than is yet known about the physical (especially the chemical) condition of the river, to identify the principal discharges which are creating the trouble, and to study the motions of the currents in the river, and in so doing to establish some essential facts relating to the movement of effluents."

But the currents have been going on for centuries, and I cannot believe that nobody has examined them until this technical sub-committee did so last year. I do not need to over-emphasise the point that I am trying to make, but the River Tyne has been in existence for a very long time; I really do not know since when, but I suppose since the world was created. A lot of history attaches to what happens on the River Tyne. But these reports on health make action on our rivers essential now, and I fully expect that my hon. Friend will give warm approval to the Bill. I hope that before very long we shall have taken this step forward which will be of great encouragement to all those who want this problem of pollution of our rivers dealt with. I am, therefore, delighted to be able to support the Bill; I wish it well and a speedy passage on to the Statute Book.

The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has confessed that she has been considering this problem for decades. All I can say is that I think I have been considering it for a few more decades than she has. What I am most perturbed about today is the possibility of there being what appears to be the inevitable conflict, whenever one deals with rivers, between the up-river authorities and those who deal with matters near the mouth.

The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) is aware that I spend some time navigating the waters that form the northern boundary of his constituency, and I am bound to say that I did not notice any shortage of bathers when I was trying to navigate those waters during the past summer. In fact, on one occasion when I was accompanied by a son of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), near Laleham, which, I admit, is just on the other side of the river from his constituency, but is within the reaches in which he has some interest, the bathers were so thick that we decided that in the interests of human life it was better not to attempt to get from Chertsey Lock to Penton Hook, and we turned back.

The Thames Conservancy has done great work in caring for the purity of the river. Its activity is a perpetual reminder to everyone connected with local authority work of their responsibilities in the area drained by the Thames. The condition of the river outside this Palace does not enable us to feel any great safety on this score. Even during my membership of the House I have sometimes known hon. Members to be made aware of our proximity to the river by the smell that used to invade this Chamber rather than by any of the amenities that one might expect.

The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth has told us in some detail what has been happening in connection with the Tyne. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) dealt with one of the difficulties that confront us. A scheme was prepared to deal with sewage, and then it was discovered that the effort to deal with it would probably lead to more filth being deposited on the beaches in his constituency and in mine than had been the case hitherto.

I think that both the hon. Lady and I can congratulate ourselves on the fact that all the authorities now responsible for dealing with this matter are earnestly endeavouring to find a practical way of avoiding the pollution that occurs. They are as much concerned with trying to remedy that situation as they are concerned to deal with the prevention of any increase, which is the main purpose of the Bill.

Frankly, I should think that any increase in pollution in the River Tyne would be regarded as a crime against the people of the area, although I am not so ready to classify some things as crimes as are archbishops and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr. G. Thomas).

We should pay tribute to the fact that the university, not living in a remote and ivory tower, is prepared to help in the solution of a practical problem like this in a way that will enable everyone to feel that the best brains in the area, and not merely the engineering brains—though they are of a very high quality—are trying to render a practical service to the community from whom the university draws most of its students and in which it carries on all its activities.

My town clerk wrote to me, although not in quite the same terms, I gather, as town clerks have written to other Members. He advised me to be careful. That is very sound advice from a town clerk. All he asks is that nothing shall be done in this Bill that will prevent practical steps being taken. Of course, there is some fear that the intervention of the river board may not always provide sufficient attention to the urban interests.

On Tyneside, in the course of centuries, there have been built up great interests which have to be regarded with some care when this matter is dealt with. I was very glad to learn, therefore, that the technical committee to which the hon. Lady has referred is now engaged in considering whether the effluent into the river and the sea can be treated before it is discharged.

The quantity of sewage which is bound to be discharged by the huge working population whose area is drained into the river must be such that any attempt at partial treatment cannot be regarded as satisfactory. It should be borne in mind that when one is dealing with the problem of drainage and effluent populations living quite remote from the actual river make their contribution to the ultimate state of affairs.

I hope, therefore, now that the House has demonstrated its desire to see the matter dealt with adequately, that there will be a recognition that it is not merely the riparian authorities which have to be brought into consultation, but that all those whose area is drained into a river must be regarded as having some interest in the way in which the problem is tackled. It will, I hope, be one of the objects of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in dealing with this matter to see that all people responsible in each area meet in conference so that a scheme which will be regarded as fair for both the up-river and the estuarial authorities can be evolved. If we once become involved in the age-long controversy between up-river and estuarial authorities, which goes back to days long before the time when sewage was the problem, we shall not be able to make very much use of this or any other Bill.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) on having limited his Bill so that these great controversies which have wrecked so much effort hitherto need not arise if all the people concerned approach the matter with good will. Unless such good will does exist, we shall merely spend two or three more decades—the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth may spend one or two more than I shall—in further controversy about this matter. Now, even in the valley of the River Thames, the problem has reached such proportions that there is a need for active consideration, and it would be a tragedy if, merely because the river boards asked to be considered, they were regarded as unwelcome interlopers in the consideration of estuarial waters.

I intervene now not in any way to close the debate or prevent hon. Members from speaking. I shall listen with very great interest to what they have to say. However, I think it may be helpful if, at this stage, I indicate the Government's reaction to the Bill. It is not my job today to comment in detail on the speeches which have been made. That will be, if the Bill goes further, for the sponsors at any later stages. But I must, of course, begin by paying tribute to the admirably lucid and moderate speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) in introducing the Bill. He has been most effectively seconded and supported, if I may say so, by all the speeches of those who followed.

My right hon. Friend is as ardent an advocate of clean water as he is of clean air, and he has publicly declared on many occasions his intention to continue at an ever-faster rate the abatement of pollution in the rivers; but he and all who know anything about this subject recognise that this is not an easy task which can be quickly accomplished. We live in a teeming island, and there is bound to be a very great deal of effluent, as some of the figures mentioned by hon. Members in referring to their own areas have already witnessed.

The subject of clean rivers interests every citizen, but it interests particularly those who use the rivers for work, for pleasure or for sport, those who dispose of effluent into the rivers, and, of course, as has been said, industry which has its own problems. As a newcomer to the subject I have been very impressed by the approach shown by industry, as evidenced by the pamphlet issued by the Federation of British Industries advising its constituent members on how to tackle the very complicated and, in many cases, expensive problem set for industry by the need to maintain a good standard of clean water.

All want clean rivers. I was glad to hear the sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate, pay special tribute to the effectiveness of Section 7 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, which has enabled river boards at least to make some progress in abating pollution in the non-tidal reaches of their rivers. Just as this Section has helped them in the non-tidal sections of their rivers, it makes obvious sense to extend the effectiveness of the Section to tidal waters; but, that, as my hon. Friend himself said, must be subject to safeguards for all the interests concerned. We must realise—we have not, perhaps, heard enough about this today—the cost and the difficulty in perfectionist ambitions in this matter. With the best will in the world, it is a very complex and expensive job to abate pollution especially when one comes to handle the innumerable new processes which industry now uses.

We have heard something about the interests of fishermen from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance). Also, from him we heard of the interests of those who cater for the fishing industry or make fishing tackle. We heard from the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) about the obvious interest of the citizens of London, and we heard, again from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, about the increasing interest that a more leisured population will have in enjoying unpolluted rivers. We heard a graphic account of the "dead river" from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson), who is a riparian citizen.

I thought that the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) made a good point when she said that the public trusts local authorities to deal with those things about which it knows a lot but may be a little ignorant about what is done about those things of which it does not know so much. That was a valid point. We have not today, except indirectly, heard from the local authorities which are, of course, principally concerned in any abatement of pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate read to us a very valuable letter from Sir Harold Banwell which gave qualified support to the purpose of the Bill. We have heard indirectly from the town clerks in the constituency of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the constituency of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). What right hon. and hon. Members have reported gives us some hint of the local difficulties which may be caused when working out a programme for reducing pollution. We have not heard at all from those who speak for industry, and, of course, they would, I am sure, have something to say about the pace at which we can move if we are not to burden industry with impossible financial demands.

I come now to the river boards which are principally concerned in this Bill. They have very rightly focussed, during the first ten years of their life, on their non-tidal responsibilities, and, as I think all hon. Members would agree, however bad the legacy of the past may be, they have much progress to show. They are not to be judged because they have not used extensively their right to prosecute. This right has probably been effective as a sanction in the background. Nor are they to be judged by the comparatively few Orders extending their power to non-tidal reaches. After all, they have only been in existence ten years and have had to feel their way.

The fact is that the war against pollution has been increasing in intensity. In 1957, public authorities alone spent £25 million on sewage works. In 1958, the figure had risen to £32 million. In the first nine months of this year the figure had already reached £29 million. I emphasise that this is only public authority spending. Industry has spent an unknown but obviously large amount in addition, and nearly all the money has been effectively spent in the abatement of pollution. It is a fact that over the last two years there has been no capital restriction in this respect.

As a result of the rising programme, we can take it that the river boards have now gained sufficient experience to be justified in welcoming further scope for their efforts and I echo the tribute to them paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate. It would be dangerous in this respect to act too soon for fear of straining the administrative machine, but, on the other hand, it would be equally dangerous to leave action until too late, since this kind of Bill will give immediate spur to the progress we all wish to see.

Therefore, my right hon. Friend would not disagree that the time may be ripe for such a step forward as the Bill represents, but the Bill must be right. It must seek to satisfy all interests con- cerned. I emphasise particularly what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields echoed, that joint efforts and maximum goodwill are the essential core of a successful attack on the problem of pollution. No authority by itself can solve the problem, there has to be co-operation.

It is all very well for the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—for whose personal courtesy I thank her—to look down upon surveys. She may well say that the survey should have occurred earlier, but in her own area no fewer than 17 local authorities are concerned. If they are to get the right scheme, as they must to be successful they need to co-operate closely on the basis of technical advice. Perhaps the hon. Lady will be glad to know that the first progress report of the technical investigating sub-committee is being presented to the local authorities today. We must hope that the scheme which finally evolves will be the right one, and of course, my right hon. Friend will watch progress on the Tyne as helpfully as he can.

The Bill as it is drawn appears to my right hon. Friend to have the right general purpose, but to need considerable amendment if it is to enable that co-operation which the House will agree is necessary. The Bill is drawn in far too wide terms. It would draw within the control of the river boards stretches of coast that, as one hon. Member said are not affected by any river. No one has mentioned What is also true, that it would also draw in harbours and ports which have their own problems. It would draw in many local authorities who would not wish to be drawn in at this stage or at all without a great deal of discussion and argument.

With all this, I think that my hon. Friend agrees. It is true that he has provided by Clause 2 that the Minister shall have power to exclude certain sections of the coast but this is a wrong way of proceeding. It would lead to some doubt until the list of exclusions had been made, and it would mean that stretches of the coast, which all hon. Members would agree should not be treated in this way, would be under the control of the machinery set up by the Bill until the list of exclusions had been made. I think that my right hon. Friend would wish the sponsors themselves to decide what estuaries they want to include in the Bill, and then those who might be affected will have ample opportunity to make any representations they wish. In that case the final result, whether presented in the form of a Schedule or in some other way, will be one that takes into account all the interests which have a legitimate right to be considered in this complex matter.

It would still remain true that the river boards would retain power to bring in by the present Order procedure any estuaries which have not been included in the Bill from the beginning, so I hope my hon. Friend's undertaking will cover some such amendment as this. Perhaps we shall hear from any sponsor who follows me whether that is so. If that is so, I can certainly promise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the help of his Department in drawing up any such Schedule. I can also reassure those concerned, who perhaps have not spoken through hon. Member's sufficiently today, that their interests will be safeguarded. The local authorities are fully represented on the river boards. As for industry, if there were any risk—which I do not believe from experience there is—of the river boards abusing any powers they might receive under the Bill, there is right of appeal to the Minister which would remain under the principal Act even if this Bill were passed, so that industry could resist, with my right hon. Friend's help, any unreasonable requirements of a river board.

I hope that I have said enough to show that in my right hon. Friend's view the Bill, if revised in the sense I have indicated and which I believe the sponsor has in mind, could represent a useful step forward in our common aim of abating river pollution. The sponsors have undertaken to amend the Bill before the Committee stage, and on the understanding that the Bill will have a chance to be made practicable, and, on the whole, acceptable to all the interests concerned, I invite the House, after hearing any further speakers you, Mr. Speaker, may call, to give the Bill a Second Reading.

During the course of the many years I spent in training for the great profession of medicine I had one rather regrettable setback. I was taking an examination at Oxford on forensic medicine and public health, commonly known to undergraduates as "rape and drains". I was asked this question in the examination, "Describe what arrangements you would make for the removal of sewage if you were building a house." I replied, "Pipe it into the nearest river" and I was "ploughed." We cannot "plough" local authorities, but I have been disillusioned since in learning that the idealism of the university did not seem widely supported in practice.

In recent years, in this House and outside, on television and elsewhere, I have brought up again and again the subject of the appalling fouling of the bathing beaches of our country. The death from poliomyelitis of a small daughter of one of my constituents was a tragic and dramatic proof of the dangers implicit in bathing in such filthy water. Subsequent to that there were various other disagreeable phenomena, such as repeated letters I received from mothers of families living along the coast of my constituency, complaining that the authorities allow the littering of the beaches with objects which children pick up and run to their mothers to blow up.

We cannot tolerate this fouling, whether it occurs on the open coast or in rivers or estuaries. We must take action because this is a problem common to all our coasts. However, the enclosed coasts, as the Bill suggests, are not only more easily dealt with, but have a special problem owing to the very confined nature of their land-locked waters.

In spite of the series of Questions I have asked in this House I have received no helpful reaction from the Government. Indeed, I was sorry to find, during a television performance in which I appeared, that a medical officer of health, who was opposing me on the question of treating sewage before discharging it into the sea, was advised by civil servants; and that, I thought, was a bit rough on a Government supporter. However, those things are bygones now because the speech of my hon. Friend certainly ushered in a new era in which I can be at one with him and with Ministers in a way which, up to now, I have not been able to be.

We have had the support of The Times in this campaign—the "top people" now know something of the other extreme. I have had the personal support of a large number of the people who do research into the diseases, notably poliomyelitis; and an organisation and a magazine called Municipal Engineering deserve the warmest tribute of this House for the patient, persevering and powerful campaign that they have led in favour of some sort of restriction.

As to facts, the official view—and I know that it is disturbing for administrative people to have these disagreeable thoughts put before them—has been that it has never been proved that poliornyelitis, for instance, has ever been traced from one patient to another through polluted water. With the greatest respect to the administrators, there are scientific papers, some of which I have with me, which have the hard results of scientific observation. Paul and Trask, in New York, in 1942, traced polio virus alive in the sewer outfall of the East River when the nearest outbreak up in the Bronx was three miles away or, downwards, possibly an eighth of a mile away. There are similar findings of live vaccine at Toronto, and in advance of a polio epidemic.

I have here a paper by Rhodes and his co-workers in the Canadian Journal of Public Health for 1950, of which I will read only one sentence from the conclusions. That is enough to startle everybody. It states:

"We have shown that a strain of human poliomyelitis virus in a stool survives after addition to river water for at least 188 days and retains its property of inducing paralysis in Rhesus monkeys."

Although those papers existed long before I started getting anxious about these things, I think that the attitude of authority has recently mellowed and we now have support where we did not have it before.

I wonder what is the reason for the change. This is where I should like to ask a question of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. What has happened to the report of the Public Health Laboratory Service on this subject? It was initiated in 1957 and in August that year, Municipal Engineering said that it was likely to be two to three years before the report was available. Surely, it must be nearly ready now. Does my hon. Friend have this report? Are there things in it which, perhaps have led to the improved attitude towards this subject? Let us hope so.

I should like to ask the Minister one other question. If his Department is in favour of the treatment of sewage and the abatement of pollution, I wonder how it is that I have been told by my local authority, and by many members of it, in Fareham that a scheme for a full sewage treatment operation leading to an outfall in Southampton Water was altered by the Minister's authority to exclude the sewage treatment plant. That is something for which somebody must take the blame. The local authority assures me that it is not its fault. The local authority was under some duress. We must have satisfaction about this because local feeling is very strong. This would certainly indicate that the attitude of the Department is at variance with its professions.

This Bill is likely to be restricted to estuaries. Very well. But in the provisions of the Bill we have to consider one example of what is a multiple estuary. The Solent is entirely landlocked and on each tide it is easy to calculate from the harmonic curve that the water will flow not more than six miles altogether either way. Therefore what goes into the water will stay within the area bounded by the north of the Isle of Wight, whatever happens. I plead with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary not to oppose the inclusion of this area as a somewhat unusually large but firmly estuarial stretch of water. No doubt, it will be a committee point to decide what short of authority must be responsible for it, but I put forward the suggestion for serious consideration.

I am extremely relieved by the arrival of the Bill. It has come much sooner than I had any ground for hoping. Government approval of it has come far sooner than I had any reason to hope. I had thought that public opinion up and down the country would need much more rousing before we reached this point. I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the attitude he is taking. It is a relief to us all that three centuries after people stopped emptying pots out of upper windows into the streets with a shout "Gardyloo," we should, finally, be guarding the rivers and the waters round our coasts.

I add my voice to the chorus of approval for the Bill. This is one of those pleasant occasions when the whole House, on all sides, seems to be unanimous and when we have had sympathetic noises from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary speaking for the Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), who introduced the Bill, deserves our sincere thanks. It is a practical step in the interest of public health, fishing and amenities, in whatever order one likes to put them. Friends of mine would put fishing first, and I do not blame them, as it is one of the agreeable occupations that anybody can have. At least, in one way or another the Bill is in everyone's interest.

We in Devon have a number of beautiful rivers and estuaries where pollution is a serious problem. On behalf of many people in my constituency, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate for introducing the Bill. It certainly deserves the co-operation of everybody, including local authorities and industry, and I am sure that, with common sense and consultation, proper co-operation can be achieved with everybody.

Another voice from the South-West, I speak with diffidence, especially as a new boy to this House, even though I have made my maiden speech, and particularly after listening to other Members of the House vying with one another as to how many decades they have been here. As somebody who lives by an estuary and who bathes regularly in an estuary, I support the Bill, both because I want to go on bathing in my estuary and, at the same time, to encourage more industry to come to the area and because it is only sensible that the river board should have control from source to sea.

I would, however, like to make two provisos, the one dependent upon the other, and I hope that when the Bill reaches Committee, as, I am sure, it will, these points may be discussed. They have been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and by one or two other hon. Members. If the river boards are to have control of the estuaries to prevent pollution, it is only right that the estuary interests should be represented more strongly on those boards. Rightly or wrongly, in our part of the world, where they are migratory fish, we feel that often the river boards are more interested in looking after the interests of the riparian owners and of the rod and line men. If we are to have fair representation, we should have members from borough and district councils whose towns and lands border the estuary. At the moment, they are not fairly represented.

Furthermore, there is a case to be made for the estuary fishermen with nets, who are rather the Cinderella with the river boards, who not only earn their living by fishing, but man our lifeboats. Only a fortnight ago, in the very bad gale, our Appledore boat went out to a ship in distress. If we enlarge the representation on the boards, we must encourage the netsmen. Without them, we shall not man our boats.

If—and only if—these provisions are agreed upon, there is a lot to be said for giving to the boards under the Bill the same power as they have under the 1951 Act to deal with pollution which already exists, specifying, I think, estuaries which have both holiday and migratory fishing interests, for I do not think we could deal all at once with all the estuaries of the country, and at the same time giving them, when an Order is made, a number of years during which they must put their house in order. I suggest seven years as being a reasonable period. That may sound like an unconscionably long time, but most of those towns, particularly those on navigable waterways, go right down to the water's edge, and it would be a very expensive business to alter the course of sewerage as it is at the moment.

With those two strictures, which I hope we can discuss later. I give my wholehearted support to the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend upon it—my hon. Friend whom I have known for a number of years, who once gave me a football cap, and who told me I must be certain to be here today.

I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) upon his presentation of this Bill today. Coming from Bristol, I am very conscious of my vulnerable position in relation to my hon. Friends whose constituencies have waters which drain into the Severn and thereby affect the River Avon, at Bristol.

I must join issue with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) because there is another River Avon in the British Isles, and we Bristolians have very strong feelings about that. Indeed, it would not be wrong to describe the River Avon as the biggest open sewer in the West Country.

If I need another excuse to intervene very briefly in the debate, I think that I ought to say that through our garden, in Dorset, runs the River Piddle, which, in spite of its name, is one of the finest trout streams in that part of the country.

I must be very careful, when talking about the Severn and what goes with it, not to trespass on the ground of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach), whose interest in the sewerage problem of the City of Gloucester is so well know, but I should like to say that my family has for generations been concerned with salmon fishing in the Severn, in the tidal waters of the river, and not just for sport. Many of them have earned their living fishing with lave nets, which does not sound very sporting, but I can assure hon. Members who do not know anything about this type of fishing that one risks one's life when going about it and that there is as great an element of sport in that as there is in wading in a river in Scotland with a rod and line.

There are also people who enjoy more modest fishing, and I have had representations from the North Somerset and West Wilts Federation of Anglers and other people who point out that the condition of the tidal waters below them makes it almost impossible for many types of fish ever to reach the upper reaches of their rivers. Although it may not be thought in this House that the interests of anglers are as important as some others, I would suggest that in this troubled world of ours the enjoyment of an afternoon on a river bank is not a bad thing at all, and a far more tranquil occupation, possibly, than visiting a football match or some of the other amusements in which we indulge.

To return to the River Avon and to Bristol, I have here a report from the Bristol Avon River Board, which says:

"It can safely be said that the position in tidal waters has deteriorated because the Board were not in a position to impose conditions on new discharges. Obviously the increases in population and industry, the sewage and effluents for which discharge direct to the Avon estuary, have worsened the position."

This Bill will do much in that direction.

I should like to quote also from the Bristol newspaper of a couple of days ago. It says that 200 tons of chlorine had to be used this summer, had to be thrown into the Avon, to abate the frightful stench as a result of sewage being discharged into the river. Most of this problem is right in the middle of my constituency, Bristol, West. I quote the remarks of the chairman of the planning committee, who agreed, reports the newspaper,

"that the committee ought to build the biggest chlorination plant in the world there, even if it cost a quarter of a million. The stench had been appalling there for years."

I quite agree with him. Indeed, last summer, late at night, I drove along the Avon, and the fog of chlorine gas arising from the river was so dense one could hardly see through it; it was so appalling to the eyes that one could hardly see to drive.

Bristol Corporation has a very big drainage and sewage disposal scheme in hand, and I am glad to see that its interests are safeguarded by this Bill. I am aware, as, I am sure, any Member for Bristol is, that we are a great industrial city, and that for a thousand years we have been pouring our sewage into the River Avon; for a thousand years: we go back almost as long as the Tory Party. I see, also, that the Bristol General Hospital was built on the bank of the open sewer of the River Avon a hundred years ago. It was thought in those days not to matter so much. Perhaps Providence had something to do with the dropping of a bomb on that hospital. Now it is used to a much lesser extent than before, and our thoughts on hospital provision have moved to other parts of the city.

In conclusion, I would say that the Bill will not work a miracle overnight. It is a modest Measure, but with revisions it will, I am sure, do something to deal with this problem, and I am sure it will receive the good will of all the interests concerned.

It would appear that mine is likely to be the only discordant voice in this debate, but that may not be altogether a bad thing because it does always add interest to have other points of view, and I think it is an established fact that we Friday attenders are allowed a certain amount of licence.

I have always considered that it is not an insignificant point that when, in 1950, the then Minister of Health moved the Second Reading of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Bill he used the following words:

"The matter has been before the House on many occasions, and I am not convinced that it will not be before the House on many occasions again before we are quite satisfied that our rivers are in a satisfactory condition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 27th November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 801.]

Was the right hon. Gentleman endeavouring to warn the House that the Bill, the Second Reading of which he was moving, was not likely to bring about a really satisfactory improvement in the condition of our rivers?

Hon. Members present today who were also present at that debate in 1951 are perhaps better qualified to supply an answer to my question than I am, because, as Members know, I am quite new here, but I do say that most Members of the House welcomed that Bill, as also did the majority of the public, because it undoubtedly did represent the first real attempt since 1876 to halt the steady and ever-growing pollution of our rivers and streams. I myself, however, was not satisfied that the 1951 Act adequately dealt with the problem of this distressing pollution.

Neither am I satisfied that the provisions in the Bill now before us will greatly reduce or even halt the present pollution of our tidal waters. I say that because the main purpose of the Bill before us is only to extend to such tidal and coastal waiters the control which the river boards now exercise over tidal waters by virtue of Section 7 of the 1951 Act. In other words, we are seeking to extend the provision of Section 7 of an Act with which the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) himself expressed some dissatisfaction, and which, I submit, has proved in practice to be rather ineffective.

I am in complete sympathy with the hon. Member for Harrogate in his desire that our rivers, streams, estuaries and coastal waters should be pure and clean. Unfortunately—and this is the point that I am making—the 1951 Act has never stopped pollution. That Act seemingly accepted the notion that pollution must take place and apparently attempted only to define under what conditions rivers are deemed to be polluted, or, shall I say, under what conditions rivers may be polluted.

Several hon. Members have referred to rivers in their own areas. I can only agree with them to this extent. If water is dirty, it is dirty, and it is no use trying to persuade an unconvinced public that water is legally clean and unpolluted when they know from their own experience that such waters are contaminated to the extent that fish cannot live in them. We heard ample evidence to that effect today, yet we accept the notion that legally such waters are not polluted. It is a sad reflection that in this day and age many of our once beautiful waterways and streams have been allowed to become wantonly polluted.

It has frequently been said that the condition of these rivers today is not due to a lack of powers vested in the various river boards and river authorities. If that is true, surely it is a reasonable assumption that, for some reason best known to themselves, certain authorities are loath to use the powers which they have, or, alternatively, that such authorities have widely differing opinions as to what degree of contamination constitutes pollution. Equally, it is regrettable that the estuaries of many of our rivers and coastal waters have become increasingly and alarmingly polluted during the past few years.

Hon. Members have mentioned raw sewage as a principal source of pollution in these areas. The contamination caused by the discharge of fuel and noxious mineral oils, an effluent which somehow or other seems to get into our tidal and offshore waters is more offensive. The fearful toll of wild bird life, the unpleasant state of many of our beaches, and the inconvenience caused to holiday makers are proof enough of this nuisance.

While welcoming the Bill, which has caused considerable public interest, and congratulating the hon. Member for Harrogate on bringing it in, because of what was apparently stated in the famous—although in Tottenham somewhat elusive—Conservative manifesto, the Government should take steps to lay down an easily interpreted and acceptable definition of, and control over, pollution. The Government should then appoint a person or some persons, or a department, to make certain that river boards or river authorities—who, incidentally, are frequently the main offenders—carry out their obligations. Nothing short of such legislation will improve, let alone halt, the conditions of our tidal and non-tidal waters.

Having listened to almost the entire debate, I am very glad of the opportunity to take part in it. I shall be extremely brief, because I want to refer to only one problem, which arises in connection with pollution in Gloucestershire.

The Parliamentary Secretary has had a lot of correspondence about the pollution which is taking place in the Severn immediately below Gloucester. There have been occasions when I have not agreed with the City of Gloucester, but I agree with them in their difficulties about pollution. Because of the draftsmanship of the 1951 Act, when the Severn River Board approached the Ministry asking for its assistance to try to encourage the city council to take some steps about the gross pollution which was taking place outside Gloucester, the board were told that the Ministry could not be of assistance because those waters were tidal, which is true.

The River Severn just below Gloucester is very narrow. Without being committed to a definite figure, I think it is about fifty yards wide. I have been a keen fisherman all my life, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) quite rightly and properly said, the Bill is not a fisherman's charter. I do not therefore propose to say anything on that.

What is important is that even some twenty years ago the netting or catching of salmon by artificial means and not by a rod and line in the Severn outside Gloucester provided an important industry. Some people think that the only really edible salmon come from—

Tins.

—a little further north than Gloucester. That is not correct. Severn salmon has a reputation of being second to none. I have not the figures available, but, speaking from memory, the industry of netting salmon just outside Gloucester—which is a useful industry from the economic point of view and from the point of view of anyone who likes salmon—has gone down by about 75 per cent. over the last twenty years.

The City of Gloucester has its problems. I hope that the Bill, which I fully support—and I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate on the very clear and fair way in which he introduced it, and also the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey)—will enable some action to be taken quickly to deal with this problem outside Gloucester.

Two important observations have been made this morning. One was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who said that it was foolish to pretend that this was an easy problem. It is an extremely difficult problem. The other observation was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who said that this was a difficult problem and one that we had to deal with carefully, but that it was a problem which had to be faced.

Therefore, as an old Gloucestershire man, I hope that one of the first questions which the Minister will consider when the Bill reaches the Statute Book is the problem of the pollution which has so deteriorated and is continuing to deteriorate the Severn just outside Gloucester.

Apart from these short observations, I welcome the Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate upon his boldness in introducing it. In my humble judgment too many Private Members' Bills are produced from the Whips' offices, and are not bold enough. This is a really bold effort, and my hon. Friend should be heartily congratulated.

I rise with some diffidence to speak from the Dispatch Box for the first time, but I am fortified in so doing by the knowledge that I speak upon a Bill which is widely supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. 1, too, offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) upon his good fortune in the Ballot and also upon his choice of subject. The Bill, which is an extension of the Labour Government's Act of 1951, deserves to be supported, and I was extremely glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that he and his right hon. Friend proposed to give it their support.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with the conclusions of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown). He speaks with experience and knowledge on this subject, and I thought that he made some extremely useful suggestions, which he may be able to enlarge upon in Committee. But I could not agree with him that the work of the river boards has not been satisfactory. I should have thought that there would be general agreement in the House that they have worked well and have proved themselves to be effective agencies. There is evidence from all parts of the country to support the contention. They have achieved good results with the 1951 Act.

I can give one illustration from Wales. The condition of the River Tawe, flowing through Swansea in the area of the South-West Wales River Board, has been so improved that last year and this year, for the first time in 60 years, sea trout were able to proceed upstream from Swansea Bay to a point above Pontardawe. This and many other examples can be adduced to prove that the boards are effective agencies, which can safely be entrusted with extended jurisdiction.

This debate has shown the urgent need for some action along the lines of the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have quoted some appalling examples of pollution in tidal waters. The Tyne at Newcastle has been mentioned several times, and it is a notorious example. Such rivers are little better than open sewers, and it is a sad commentary, in this year of grace, when so much attention is paid to high standards of health and hygiene, that large sections of our people have to live near these filthy rivers. We are told officially that it is not yet possible to establish a connection between water pollution and poliomyelitis, but it is extremely difficult to accept that there are no dangers to health from these heavily polluted rivers.

I was very impressed by the reference which the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) made to this point, and with the evidence that the adduced. I repeat his question and ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can indicate when the report of the Public Health Laboratory Service on the question of water pollution on health is likely to be published.

As the hon. Member for Harrogate indicated, we should consider "tidal waters" and "coastal waters" separately, although as at present drafted the Bill provides for control over both. No one has yet mentioned the Hobday Report, which inspired the 1951 Act. Although it was not particularly forthcoming on the question of tidal waters and estuaries, it acknowledged that it had received much evidence to the effect that the pollution of tidal waters and rivers was increasing. It then said that it envisaged "difficult technical problems" and "heavy financial burdens." The river boards, with their considerable experience, do not foresee such problems, because they support the Bill. It is clear that the Bill refers only to new or altered outlets. We are not dealing with existing discharges.

We know that many existing discharges are highly unsatisfactory, and we must hope that with the maximum co-operation between the boards, local authorities and industry there will be progressive improvement. I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary would say something about existing discharges. We should bear in mind that in paragraph 120 the Hobday Report mentioned an estimated expenditure of £100 million in connection with the reorganisation and disposal of domestic sewers alone, and that was a 1949 estimate. However, that is outside the scope of the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) made an important point in connection with local authorities. If the Bill becomes law, the water boards will quite properly set more stringent standards, and this will involve local authorities in greater expenditure. I hope that this will in no way inhibit the Parliamentary Secretary or his right hon. Friend from giving the maximum support to the Bill and subsequently giving local authorities suitable financial encouragement, because there is no doubt that they will need it.

As the hon. Member for Harrogate said, as we proceed down the estuary and on to the coast we find ourselves in very deep waters. We are up against formidable legal complications because of the difficulty of finding a precise legal definition of the word "estuary". I trust that the Bill will not be lost because of a drafting complication. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and his Ministry will be able to bring all the resources of his Department to bear so that a solution may be found and a satisfactory and acceptable Schedule drawn up. If there is any doubt about the ability of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to solve the problem we know that the Parliamentary Secretary can turn to the Minister for Welsh Affairs, who will undoubtedly be able to cope with this difficult question!

I hope that the Bill will succeed. Section 6 of the 1951 Act, although well meant, was a failure. It has resulted in only four orders, and all the evidence shows that river boards have found the procedure too slow, cumbersome and expensive to operate. The hon. Member for Harrogate paid a tribute to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but I am afraid that I cannot be quite so generous. The House should remember that at one stage the Ministry actively discouraged boards from submitting draft orders. Given Government support and close and friendly co-operation between river boards, local authorities and industry, we believe that the Bill can help to remove what is a great danger to health and can restore a glory that has been tarnished for far too long.

Debate on the Bill has been marked by that cordiality which nearly always characterises the mood of the House when it comes to discuss rivers. This was certainly so, I have noted, in 1951, when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), Mr. Dalton and the late Mr. Walter Elliot were able to proceed in close harmony on the 1951 Measure, in perhaps closer harmony than one can imagine on almost any other subject.

Today, I calculate that we have heard the voices of the Tyne, the Avon, the Severn, the Test, the Thames and the Tees, to name by no means all, which constitute a formidable barrage in support of the Bill. There has been not only cordiality today, but wholehearted endorsement of the Measure to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) has put his name. Curiously, while rivers unify the House of Commons, a river in Kent, which is my own county, divide us. As some hon. Member may know, men of Kent come on one side of the Medway and Kentish men come on the other, and it is well for any foreigner who enters the county to know which is which.

The debate has not even been rippled by trade versus trout, a phrase which I culled from the salad day's of the Patronage Secretary who was free to take part in our proceedings in 1951. I am not a fisherman, I regret to say, and so I cannot join that lobby. I must count it part of a misspent youth that I cannot even tie a fly.

If cordiality has been the keynote here, co-operation will have to be the keynote elsewhere, as the House recognised in 1951, and as it is well recognised today by the Bill's sponsors. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate has not embarked on a reckless or gallant crusade. Neither a Minister nor an hon. Member seeking to step forward to cleanse our rivers can, like salmon, hope to swim upstream. The tide must be with him, and I should like to assure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who, I am sure, is anxious to have that assurance, that we intend as far as we can, without losing our objective, to go with the tide.

To achieve this, there must be two conditions which have been already laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend the hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The first is co-operation with those who must implement the Measure, principally industry and the local authorities. The second is the acceptance of limited objectives, one step at a time. It is the second condition which makes this subject so eminently suitable for a Private Member's Bill, because a private Member can go forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate has done, one step at a time, while a Government nearly aways find themselves persuaded to take at least two steps more, and perhaps one too many.

It was stressed in 1951 that the 1951 Act would be in the nature of an experiment. That should be stressed today, because its provisions have met with varying success. Section 2 of the 1951 Act, in conjunction with Section 5, has met with only moderate success, and, as the hon. Member for Anglesey said, Section 6 has proved too ponderous, a little too elaborate, to be used as it was envisaged or hoped it would be used in 1951. But Section 7—and here I, too, must take issue with the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown)—has proved abundantly worth while, and that is the Section on which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate is now seeking to reinforce success.

His first aim is to buttress those provisions of the 1951 Act which have proved workable and salutary, in the wider sense of that word. That is the main purpose. But there is a subsidiary purpose which ought to be stressed and which was touched upon by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson). One effect of the 1951 Act being limited to streams has been unduly to concentrate damage to tidal waters. There are places where the effect of that Act has rendered the present state of tidal waters a little worse than it was, and it is that effect which it is one of the objects of the Bill to repair.

In the fulfilling of these objects, co-operation must be the keynote. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate set out quite clearly how he will set about achieving it, particularly with the Association of Municipal Corporations, which, at short notice, has made a very generous response to my hon. Friend's request to give the Bill a fair wind. Even so, and though there is no violence to be done to legitimate interest, as my hon. Friend said, I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will not be the only one to receive a letter from the town clerk. Others may also receive letters even now, and they may not all treat them in the same fashion as the hon. Member told the House he had treated his.

I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House who may receive—and I think that they will receive, and it is perfectly fair that they should—representations about the Bill to share a little of the trouble which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate has gone to and consult him and ask him whether the points made are likely to be met in Committee. He has given a generous assurance about what he is prepared to do in Committee. I hope that hon. Members will be prepared to do that, because they should note, and I hope that others elsewhere may note, that it has been clearly shown today what the attitude of hon. Members is towards the Bill. I say in all friendliness to town clerks who wish to write to hon. Members that they should talk not only to Members of Parliament, but to their medical officers as well.

My hon. Friend generously apologised for the fact that he gave the House and everyone else short notice of the Bill. I say "generously" because none of us could hold that against him. It is not his fault. It is exactly three weeks since the Ballot was presided over by Mr. Speaker, and it may well be that a delay of one week in bringing in Private Members' Bills and an addition of another week at the end of the year are something which the usual channels could consider. At least, it is not the responsibility of my hon. Friend and I hope that the authorities and others outside the House who may feel that they have been affronted and that an attempt has been made to jump over them, will know that this is nothing to do with my hon. Friend.

We shall have plenty to do in Committee, and I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we accept that some definition of estuaries is an essential safeguard to the interests of the local authorities concerned. The matter will not be rushed, and it will not be simple, but we have ample chance now for discussion and I cannot believe that with all the good will towards the Measure we cannot find a way.

It gives me particular satisfaction to support the Bill, because, as has been said, a week ago I initiated a discussion in the House on the protection of the natural beauty of the country, of which our rivers and streams are not the least adornment. It is quite easy to wax lyrical about the beauty of the countryside and of rivers and streams. It is quite another, and much more difficult, to do something practical about it, which this Bill does.

It should be widely known that it is not a sportsman's charter. It is designed to protect the health not of fish, but of human beings and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) made clear, there is a very good case to be made on those grounds. I hope, therefore, that not only here, where we have shown willingness to give the Bill a fair wind, but outside, where misunderstanding may have been clarified as a result of our discussion, there will be shown a disposition to give this excellent Bill all the support that it deserves.

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

I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) on the excellent reception given to his Bill, and I hope that similar success will attend its further stages. May I also appeal to hon. Members to continue to exercise the forbearance and restraint which they have shown hitherto and keep their speeches short during the discussion so that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) may have an opportunity to move the Second Reading of his Bill?

My Bill is designed to increase the amount of wages exempted from arrestment under the Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) Act, 1870. It has nothing to do with the principle of arrestment. It is concerned only with the limitation of the amount arrested. So far as I can ascertain, the matter was dealt with first in Section 7 of the Small Debt Act, 1837, and I gathered from my researches that it did not work very well. The courts were divided in their opinions regarding the amount to be allowed to the arresting creditor and various sheriffs throughout Scotland differed in their judgments. There was certainly dissatisfaction with the general run of the judgments given.

In 1868 Mr. George Anderson, a flax manufacturer, was elected as a Member of Parliament for Glasgow. A feature of his election platform was a reform in the law of arrestment, and in 1870 he introduced a Bill which became the Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) Act. Thereafter, arrestment could be made only in the amount in excess of 20s. per week. Wages arrestment limitation as laid down in the Act of 1870 remained in force until the passing of the Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1924. The Preamble to the Bill included the following Note on Clause 2

"In view of the change in the value of money since 1870, when the present limitation was fixed, it is proposed in the second Clause to raise the limit of exemption of wages from arrestment from 20s. to 35s. per week."

In moving the Second Reading, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Adamson, suggested that if it were fair that 20s. in 1870 should be unarrestable for debt, with the change in the value of money and the increase in the cost of living compared with that time surely it was reasonable that it should be raised to the figure mentioned in the Bill. Therefore, after the passing of the 1924 Act the figure was raised from 20s. to 35s. per week as the amount which could not be arrested.

Since 1924 there has been no change in the law regarding the limitation of wage arrestment. Dissatisfaction has been expressed from time to time. Questions have been asked in this House. During my researches, I discovered that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) put a Question down to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 3rd July, 1957. The Secretary of State indicated that the matter was under investigation. Obviously, as there were great changes in the value of money between 1870 and 1924, so over the past 35 years there have been similar changes and that is the main reason for this Motion.

Before finally deciding on the actual changes which I should try to make in the Act of 1870 I had discussions with various people interested in the problem; in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). I also discussed my tentative proposals with the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), and I wish to thank him for his willing interest and help.

I also examined the Report of the Committee on Diligence, set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland in July, 1956, which reported on the whole question of diligence. I consider that that Committee, which was presided over by Sheriff Hector McKechnie, Q.C., did an excellent job, and I should like to compliment it on the clarity of its Report, which was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland in June, 1958.

I was interested to find that while the Committee had covered the whole field of diligence it had brought in a specific and unanimous recommendation dealing with the narrower point of wages arrestment limitation. After consideration, I decided to adopt the Committee's recommendation in my Bill. The McKechnie Committee took evidence from many organisations on the subject of wages arrestment. It stated:

"Almost all our evidence on this matter was in favour of an increase in the 35s. limit."

The Committee took evidence from the Law Society of Scotland, which was in favour of the change, and it took evidence and had discussions with the Society of Messengers at Arms and Sheriff Officers which was definite that there should be a rise in the amount of 35s. The Committee had consultations with the National Assistance Board which considered that there should be an increase. The Committee stated:

"The need for an increase in the 35s. limit was supported by the Edinburgh Council of Social Service who gave us details of six families for whom problems already existing had been exacerbated and hardship had been caused by arrestment of all but 35s. of the husband's wages."

The Committee also dealt exhaustively with changes in wage rates and money value. I do not want to go over all that evidence and to delay the House, but I should like to deal with the final paragraph on that subject. In paragraph 85 of the Report on Diligence, presented in June, 1958, the Committee said:

"It seems to us that changes in weekly wages rates are more significant for our purpose than changes in the purchasing value of the pound, though we considered the latter in relation to the former. The standard of living of employed persons in Scotland has improved vastly since 1870 and so the weekly sum required for the minimum alimentary needs of a family has risen more steeply than the value of the pound has declined. The minimum alimentary needs of one family are normally related to the size of the wage earner's usual pay packet."

The Committee of Inquiry, in summing up, said:

"We decided that in practice what is required can be met only by a standard rate assessable in all cases by the employer but which takes some account of the worker's usual weekly wages on which his way of living must be assumed to be based. Yet this rate must be sufficiently stiff in its effect to encourage the debtor to make an arrangement with his creditors."

The Committee then recommended:

"We recommend that this should best be done by replacing Sections 1 and 2 of the 1870 Act by a provision that allows arrestment of wages only to the extent of one-half of the amount by which the wages exceed a specified sum which we suggest should be £4 a week."

The Committee recommendation I have just read is embodied in Clause I of the Bill.

I believe this Bill would lead to a great step forward in Scotland and would put the law of arrestment in Scotland into a much more favourable position than it has been in the past. I sincerely hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. It gives me very great pleasure indeed to commend the Bill to the House.

I beg to second the Motion.

I very sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), both on his good fortune in having been successful in the Ballot and on his choice of this Bill. It might seem to many hon. Members a small Measure, but it is, in fact, difficult to estimate just how many people would be affected by it. Looking through what information is available, the nearest I could get to an estimate is that perhaps between 20,000 and 30,000 people in Scotland have their wages arrested. That is on the basis of information available in 1957. It would seem from my experience and the experience of many hon. Friends that there are likely to be many more affected now than was the case in 1957. The relief which would came from this small Bill would be very great indeed.

Perhaps I can bring this out more dearly to hon. Members opposite, who may not know of this type of condition in Scotland, if I mention an experience I had last Friday when I returned to my home. Almost immediately on my return there was a telephone call from a young miner who told me that his wages had been arrested. I arranged to go to see him, and when I saw him I discovered that both he and another miner living a few doors away had had their wages arrested for the same debt. The miner who had telephoned me was what is known as a guarantor. He had guaranteed to meet the obligation of the other fellow. The actual debtor had gone to see the firm concerned and made arrangements to pay £3 a week to meet the debt, but he had fallen short by only one week. The very next week his wages were arrested together with the wages of the guarantor.

Both those young men were married and each had three children; yet all that was left to them was 35s. My first reaction was to tell them to go at once to the National Assistance Board. No one in this country is permitted or expected to live below the National Assistance scale, which is very much more than 35s. a week. I subsequently learned what I should have known—this is an example of how we miss many things—that one cannot get National Assistance if one is in receipt of full-time earnings. I know that under special circumstances it is possible for the Board to make a special payment which subsequently can be recovered, and on some occasions it does so, but the actual position is that where a man, no matter what family he has and even if he is left with only 35s., is in receipt of full-time earnings, the Board would actually be acting contrary to the law in giving him assistance.

It is very difficult at this stage to estimate how many people are affected, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned, there is a statement in the Report of the Committee on Diligence that in 1957 nearly 90,000 cases were brought before small debt courts in Scotland. It seems that that practice has been growing rapidly since 1957. It is very cheap to bring a small debtor before a small debt court. When the decision is given against a small debtor and powers are given for arrestment of wages an interesting little development takes place. I was rather astonished by this, but again I understand it is according to existing law, and we are not challenging this point here. The arrestment of wages order and bringing a person to court costs a small sum of money, and that sum of money is added to the debt which the debtor has incurred.

I have a particular firm in mind but I do not intend to mention its name this afternoon. It not only charges the cost of bringing the debtor to the small debt court and the cost of arresting his wages and adds that to the debt, but it charges compound interest on that cost. It seems astonishing, but that is actually going on. This is the kind of practice which has developed in Scotland. It is undoubtedly causing very considerable hardship to many people, not only the debtors themselves, but the guarantors. Many people are induced to sign a guarantee without having any knowledge of what they are doing, and they involve themselves in very serious consequences.

The fact that my hon. Friend has introduced this small Bill, which will result in a man being able to draw a substantially larger sum as his wages—£4 plus 50 per cent. of his wages above £4—will cause many of these hire-purchase firms to be much more careful about inducing people to assume debts of this kind which they cannot afford to meet. The ease with which this type of firm is enabled to collect these debts, despite the hardship it causes, in my opinion and in the opinion of my hon. Friends makes for a lack of concern among them as to whether the people who are signing these contracts have any chance of meeting their obligations. I am sure that no one will oppose the Bill.

I compliment my hon. Friend on bringing forward this small but valuable Measure. I sincerely believe that there must be a welcome on both sides of the House for a Measure so genuinely concerned with alleviating a hardship which in many cases is inexcusable.

I am sure that the House wishes to join the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) in congratulating the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), not only on his good fortune in the Ballot, but also on his choice of a Bill and on the very lucid manner in which he has explained its purpose to the House.

The House has already heard why the Bill is desirable and what it does. I should like to add my support to the hon. Member in this matter. He was kind enough to say that we have had talks about it. Bringing forward the Bill was entirely his idea, because I think I am right in saying that during his absence in the wilderness the Report of the McKechnie Committee had escaped his attention, and it was only after he had thought of the Bill that he read the recommendations of the McKechnie Committee. I agree with him entirely that it was a very wise course on his part to adopt the recommendations set out in that Report.

I want to take this opportunity of thanking the chairman and members of the Committee which reported on diligence for the work which they did in preparing so comprehensive a report. The hon. Member will have noticed from his researches that this is an extremely difficult field for research. This Report is an original piece of research in a way that few reports are. The review which the Committee undertook covered a wide and highly technical subject covering both law and practice, and the fact that the hon. Member has chosen to devote his success in the Ballot to this Bill on arrestment of wages shows the social importance of one of the Committee's most important recommendations.

I do not want to take up the time of the House but merely to make one or two points for the record. In paragraph 65, the Committee stated the general principle of Scots law:

"It is a general principle of Scots law that funds held for a debtor are not arrestable to the extent that they are alimentary."

That means the extent to which they are needed for the minimum requirements of living. That has been the general principle of Scots law. It is curious to find how a great advance such as the 1870 Act can itself in due course act as a brake, and in a sense we have departed from the principle of Scots law because of the figure written into the 1870 Act, even though it was amended in the 1924 Act.

The Government welcome the Bill because it will prevent the hardship which can arise, and which often does arise, when a debtor is left with no more of his week's pay packet than the 35s. allowed by the 1870 Act, as amended in 1924. I am sure that there will be general agreement throughout Scotland that if 35s. was the right figure in 1924, it is certainly inadequate today. The House will also agree that the hon. Member was wise to adopt the Committee's recommendation that only half the amount by which a wage exceeds £4 should be subject to arrestment. I think that the hon. Member was also wise to fallow his first inclination and to confine what he is trying to do to this point. On the previous Bill today an hon. Member said that one of the advantages of a Private Member's Bill is that it can make a limited advance, one step at a time, in a sense that the Government generally cannot do. The Government are, however, continuing their consideration of the many recommendations made by the McKechnie Committee, but I can make no further statement today as to what may be done about these matters.

The Bill as it stands does not deal with the two particular cases which are already exempted from the 1870 Act—arrestment for alimentary debts and arrestment for rates and taxes. That is a matter which we shall have to study in dealing with the general aspects of the McKechnie Report.

I congratulate the hon. Member on the expedition with which he has signified his return to the House and on his choice of a subject for the Bill.

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

I hope that as a result of the shortness of my own speech and those of other hon. Members who wish to intervene in the debate I may be able to pass on the fruits of the self-denying ordinance which hon. Members have imposed upon themselves since the House met today.

The first essential point about a Bill is the need for it. I should like to say something about that later. First, I want to explain shortly to the House the law as it stands today about the abandonment of animals and the possible cruelty which may result therefrom. The Act of Parliament at present in force is the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, which was slightly amended, in a way I will explain later, in 1954. The 1911 Act reads:

"If any person … shall … by omitting to do any act, or causing or procuring the commission or omission of any act, cause any unnecessary suffering …"

It then states that this shall be an offence.

Under that Act, if at a time after the commission of such an act, after the abandonment of an animal, a kind person, whether an R.S.P.C.A. inspector or anybody else, intervenes to prevent "any unnecessary suffering" being caused to that animal, it automatically expunges any offence in respect of the commission of the act by the person first responsible.

If I may refer to the need for the Bill, there are, surprisingly, on the records of the R.S.P.A.C.A. and other organisations, year in and year out, cases in which people literally abandon animals to their own devices. Some hon. Members probably know of these cases from their own experience. It is not fair to say that an animal should look after itself, because the animals about which I am talking are those which have been domesticated for many years and by our actions have been deprived of the ability which they once had to fend for themselves.

The Bill seeks to prevent three main classes of abandonment. First, it is concerned with people who go away for their holidays and leave their animals without any apparent care. They may look after them for 50 weeks of the year and be good, kind owners to their pets, but for the other two weeks they cause hardship, possibly unwittingly, to their animals, unless someone intervenes.

Secondly, it concerns those people who move from one part of the country, or from one home to another and who, being unable to take their animals with them, leave them behind.

Thirdly, possibly the most callous case that takes place—and I have records of it—is that of people who, by motor cycle or motor car, transport an animal to some place and dump it to look after itself.

The Bill has one operative Clause. It says that to abandon an animal shall be an offence. That is a slight extension of the 1911 Act, which says that to abandon an animal is not an offence and it is an offence only when actual suffering has been caused.

The second point in the Clause is the penalty of £50. I have put down a penalty of £50 for this reason: in 1911, the penalty for the previous offence was £25, and in 1954 the House made it £50. I have kept the amount at £50, in line with that.

As to the definition of "abandon", that word has for many years had different meanings in different types of litigation. The word "abandon" as it refers to children is quite different from what it is when it refers to an action in the Admiralty court. The word "abandon" so far as children are concerned has always been left to the courts.

I have tried to put in the Bill a definition which, I think, covers no more than the House would wish to see covered. In the later stages of the Bill—and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading—I shall not stand firm on any particular part or sentence in it. All I want to do is to stop a practice which is all too common in our society and one which I am sure the House would condemn.

I beg to second the Motion.

I am very pleased to be associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) in presenting the Bill. I hope to be as brief as other speakers today, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is anxious to introduce another Bill.

I think that the whole House will be very happy to support this little Bill in principle because a great deal of attention has been drawn in certain newspapers recently to the treatment of animals by some members of the public, very often due entirely to ignorance and sometimes because of the desire to make private profit. Out of the publicity given to the treatment of animals by one national newspaper there has arisen recently evidence of abandonment of certain domestic pets in very cruel circumstances.

I think that the time has come when this should be checked and I believe that the Bill provides opportunities for checking the wanton cruelty when domesticated animals are deliberately abandoned, often far from the surroundings and homes which they know and where they have been cared for.

In many cases where animals have been left unattended when people go away on holiday, and fail to provide them with proper food, a great deal of cruelty which would otherwise be inflicted on the animal has been mitigated by the action of members of the public. Neighbours have notified the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals and others. Their officers have often broken into houses in which animals have been locked away and ensured that they were properly fed and cared for.

This, of course, has entailed a considerable amount of trouble for the organisations and the moment their officers have entered a place in which an animal has been kept, released it and cared for it there is no possibility whatever of the police taking action against the owner, because it cannot be proved that there was long and acute suffering. Therefore, organisations such as the N.S.P.C.A. and the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals and, I believe, the veterinary associations, will welcome this Measure.

There is another matter to which I think attention should be drawn in these days. Whether the Bill will provide an opportunity for action or not, it is as well at all possible and relevant times, with the tremendous growth of traffic, to make it clear to the general public that if they have domesticated animals, particularly dogs, in an area where there is a heavy density of traffic, it is their liability and responsibility to ensure that not only in the interests of the dog itself, but in the interest of motorists and others, the dog is kept properly under control.

If a dog is allowed to pursue its absolute freedom—I read a few days ago of a blind dog which was abandoned and running in and out of traffic at great risk to itself and the people using the highway—the person responsible for that should, in my view, be liable to very severe penalties, because the possibility of death or injury to people using the highway in an attempt to avoid the animal is very serious.

One or two of my hon. Friends who are fully in favour of the Bill in principle, are concerned lest, as a result of it, in circumstances in which the owner may have no control, a person owning an animal might find himself brought before the court, if the present wording of the Bill is allowed to go through.

One of my hon. Friends gave as an example a person who might be thrown from his horse in the hunting field and injured quite severely. He might feel that the animal, unhurt, was responsible for it and that his first thought was to attend to his own bruises. The animal might then come within the category of having been abandoned. To meet such cases—and there may be other objections from other hon. Members—I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of man to devise some alternative wording during the Committee stage to ensure that the Bill does not interfere with the liberty of the subject under set circumstances but takes care of what is intended by the Bill.

Some people think that possibly a fine of £50 is too high. We are living in circumstances today when a £50 fine is not particularly high, if it is recognised and realised that it is the maximum and that, obviously, the courts will inflict the maximum penalty only when the circumstances of the case warrant and justify it. I hope, therefore, that this admirable little Bill will receive a Second Reading this afternoon.

As one who has been a member of the R.S.P.C.A. for many years, although there have been occasions when I have disagreed with it on certain aspects of policy, I welcome the object of the Bill. I certainly would not consider opposing it on Second Reading. However, its wording and drafting require very careful consideration when it reaches the Committee stage, as I hope that it will.

One problem occurs to me immediately, and it would be fair to mention it to the promoters. Friends of mine in prewar days were driving through Gloucestershire. They found a young badger. A badger is one of the most attractive animals in the countryside. This badger had obviously been left by its mother in the road. My friends picked it up and took it home and reared it on the bottle as a pet.

For a year and a half that badger made the most charming pet. Although badgers make most delightful companions, the trouble is that, when they reach a certain size, they become very strong and get rather beyond what the average person wants as a pet in the house. This badger acquired the habit of coming along and nipping one's leg just for fun when one was reading a Sunday paper comfortably on Sunday afternoons; and a two or three year old badger nips extremely strongly.

Having had the badger as a very charming pet for all that time, my friends were faced with an awkward problem. They had young children. They obviously could not keep the badger as a pet. What were they to do? Were they to have the badger destroyed, or was it kinder to turn it out in some neighbouring woods where it could resume its natural life? They consulted me. I advised that the best course to adopt was to turn it out in some neighbouring woods and hope that it returned to nature. This was done.

Having studied the Bill, I regret to say that I think that they would have been committing an offence under this Bill and would have been liable to a fine of £50. It may be said that that is far-fetched, but that is what happened in practice. I hope that the vast organisation which is supporting my hon. Friends in presenting the Bill will pay a little more attention to the word "abandon," because I do not think that from a legal point of view they have it right.

It would be an offence under the present law if, as a result of turning the badger out into the woods, it suffered.

I do not think so. My hon. Friend is confusing the issue with the law relating to dogs. Although I may be wrong in that, I am putting forward a practical point.

Will not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that the courts, in examining all cases which may be brought before them, would show in a case relating to the Bill, as they do to most others, the judgment and common sense which we have come to expect of our courts? The maximum fine is £50. I suggest that in circumstances such as my hon. Friend has indicated the courts would have the common sense to see that this was the practical and the proper course to take.

I hope that my hon. Friend is right. However, we want the Bill to be in proper form. Hon. Members should not forget that I am supporting the Bill, but I do not think that as drawn it is quite right.

Finding the best legislation to deal with abandonment of pets is a much larger issue. We want more education of children about how pets should be looked after. The organisation sponsoring the Bill, to which I happen to belong, would be much better advised to promote Bills which will be enforceable. The argument which has been put to me that it will at any rate, be a deterrent on the Statute Book is bad. This organisation would be spending its funds to much more advantage if it produced pamphlets for distribution or gave lectures at schools or produced lecturers to go round the schools teaching how pets should be looked after. Abandonment of pets arises almost entirely from ignorance of how pets, which we all want to see cared for, should be looked after.

The principle of the Bill has my full support. A number of matters will want attending to in Committee. I hope very much that the organisation supporting the Bill will give serious consideration to more education on the care of pets rather than trying to overcome the difficulties we face by passing legislation which will be largely unenforceable.

I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) that this raises a much larger issue and is a matter for education, but it should be viewed in its proper perspective. In Britain, we treat our animals better than any other country in the world. I am certain that that is not being jingoistic or narrowly patriotic. Having had experience abroad, I believe that in Britain we have a very good record in the way we look after our pets.

There are defects. I sympathise with the hon. and gallant Member's doubts about the wording. Regarding the badger, the question is not whether that person when before the courts could be treated leniently, or whether there could be a liberal interpretation of the law. The hon. and gallant Member does not wish that person to go before a court and that is why he wishes to improve the wording of the Bill.

I am speaking purely for myself, although I have been asked to look after the Bill, presumably because I am involved now in agriculture and as a lay member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons I have sympathies. The wording should certainly be looked at in Committee, but my right hon. and hon. Friends and I agree in principle and compliment the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) on introducing the Bill. It is a good Bill in principle, and we approve of it. It coincides with a recent debate in another place. I cannot refer to that in detail, but it was emphasised there how stray dogs and other stray animals are a very important factor in road accidents. Many accidents could be avoided if owners looked after their pets properly.

I welcome the Bill and approve of it. I agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) that there is too much wanton cruelty in the treatment of animals. The Bill seeks to provide a deterrent. I cannot understand how any person can abandon an animal, whether it be a cat, dog or any other pet. The hon. Member mentioned how people take dogs and cats by car and abandon them in distant localities. To me, that is fantastic.

When, after a long day in the House of Commons, in this rarified political atmosphere, my little Lakeland terrier greets me at home with a wag of the tail I feel a much better man. I cannot understand how anyone can be so cruel as to abandon an animal that has been a pet for a long time. However, it does happen, and that demonstrates the need for education in this sphere.

Legislation will certainly not cure the practice. It is important to accept the Bill in principle but, in the end, the whole approach is far better made by those bodies connected with the work. They now do a lot of valuable educational work, not only on radio and T.V. but in the schools, and that work must continue.

I do not know what the Government will do, but I think that we should give the Bill a Second Reading and deal with it in detail in Committee. It is a good Bill, designed for a worthy object. It seeks to remove cruelty, and even though the cruelty is, in this case, limited to animal life that is a good thing. I hope that the Government will give the Measure the sympathetic reception that it deserves.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) on his success in the Ballot and on his wisdom in choosing today for the Second Reading of this Bill. I also congratulate him on choosing a subject that appeals, I think, to all right hon. and hon. Members, and one which appears to be reasonably non-controversial. Anything to do with animals always appeals to hon. Members. They feel strongly on the subject.

The Government—and this is the answer to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart)—certainly would not wish to raise any objection in principle to the Bill. As my hon. Friend has said, it is a Measure for which there is a genuine need, and provided that it can be enforced without undue harshness or restriction, it should, I think, become an Act of Parliament.

Speaking for the Home Office, I may say that we have not had brought to notice any particular evidence of need. I say that because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will know, Ministers at the Home Office do get a great deal of correspondence from Members and the public about animals. However, I have not been able to trace any very great pressure in regard to this aspect. On the other hand, I am aware that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has evidence of this practice, and, of course, I accept from my hon. Friend, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) that there are cases of this sort.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury has expounded the existing law. As I understand it, the Bill seeks to go one stage further and to make it an offence to abandon an animal before the suffering has occurred. That is the important extension to the existing law, and I think that it is a reasonable extension. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham spoke of penalties. The penalties are in line with the 1911 Act, as amended in 1954, and are not, I think, unreasonable in the circumstances.

Apart from need, of which I have no evidence, the two questions that the House must consider are whether the Bill is workable and whether we are justified in creating a new criminal offence. As far as I can see at the moment, it is workable—though I agree that it must be examined in Committee—and I nave reason to believe that it is capable of enforcement. It is for the House to judge, and to weigh against the offence which hon. Members see being committed at present, whether or not a new criminal offence should be created.

I think the opinion of the House is that it is justified to create this offence in order to prevent the practice developing. Therefore, if the House decides to give this Bill its Second Reading the Govern- ment will give my hon. Friend their support and help in its further stages.

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

I hope that the House will not take fright at the mass of figures in this short and really rather simple Bill. It is, of course, an amending Measure, and is unintelligible without reference to the legislation it seeks to amend. I shall, therefore, have to mention some of the figures of the existing statutory limits on the charges made in the pawnbroking business, and the manner in which the Bill seeks to bring the money limits that were fixed as long ago as 1872 into line with present-day values.

I could, perhaps, have wished that I could have adopted the normal Ministerial practice in answering Parliamentary Questions and have said that as my speech contained a number of figures I would have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. But I shall keep off the figures as far as I can, as there are one or two matters of principle involved.

I suppose that there is not a right hon. or hon. Member who has not, at some time, found himself in need of a temporary loan. I ask hon. Members to think of the ordinary householder who has to make periodical payments for rent or H.P. instalments, and who, on some occasions, through some necessity of accident or illness, or just because he has been unwise in his spending on a holiday or celebrations, finds that he has overspent his income and needs temporary help to make those payments. If he is lucky, he has a real uncle to whom he can plead for a little financial assistance—

Or the bank manager.

Or, as the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) says, the bank manager; but many of these people do not have bank accounts, and, even if they have, bank managers are not always so accommodating.

A man in that position may, of course, ask his landlord or hire-purchase firm to suspend his payments for the time, but that spoils his future credit with them. He looks for something to sell, but everything in his house has a sentimental value—and what will he get for it from a second-hand dealer?

He can adopt a most dangerous course by taking advantage of the facilities now being offered by what I might call the "pub-door" moneylender or the "factory-gate" moneylender, who is prepared to lend £1 this week and demand 30s. back next week. This practice is increasing. Illegal moneylenders practise in this way, and their methods of recovery are not those of peaceful persuasion. They have no hesitation in using violent methods to get repayment of their money at exorbitant interest.

Therefore, if our imaginary householder in need of a temporary loan has no real uncle, he will go to the man who is affectionately called "Uncle", the pawnbroker, if such a man is available. The pawnbroker is, by law, bound to treat fairly those to whom he lends money. He is controllable by law because, unlike the illegal money-lender, he is not mobile.

It is not cynicism that has led the pawnbroker to become known as "Uncle". He performs a useful social function. If a pawnbroker is not available, that fact will not stop the man in need of temporary financial assistance raising the money somehow or other, and he may do so in the dangerous way that I have just mentioned. During the past few years the pawnbroker has become less available to the public. The number of pawnbrokers in practice has been considerably reduced, but I say positively that it is not because the public do not require their services. There is, I am told by those who remain in business, a considerable demand for their services at present, although the pattern of borrowing has changed over the years. Perhaps it is the popularity of hire purchase which has caused that change, but I understand from those in practice as pawnbrokers that the great majority of their loans are for very short periods, within a month, and that nine out of ten of the articles which are pledged to them are redeemed.

Has the hon. Gentleman any figures to show how many pawnbrokers there are in the country now?

I have not the figures handy, but I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman later if I can find the figures. They have been reduced by about 75 per cent. over the past 10 to 20 years. It is my argument that that reduction in business has not been due to the fact that they are not performing a useful function, or that the public do not want them any more. The reduction has been caused by the fact that it is not worthwhile carrying on a pawnbroker's business when the charges which by statute a pawnbroker is allowed to make are tied to the value of money nearly 90 years ago. That has been amended only once, in 1922—37 years ago—and in all fairness I would ask the House to look at the figures and see whether we can now give the pawnbroker a fair deal which will bring his charges more in line with modern conditions.

I am not asking the House to legislate to preserve a business which is dying a natural death. I am asking the House to legislate to preserve a business which is dying from statutory strangulation, through being tied to the charges which were fixed 90 years ago. The increases in those charges which this Bill seeks to make are very modest. The average amount of money borrowed by those who go to pawnbrokers is a little over £1. The present cost to the borrower of borrowing £1 from a pawnbroker for a month is 8d. Under this Bill it would be 1s. 3d. The sum of 8d. as fixed so many years ago, and 1s. 3d. at the present day, seems to me a fair and reasonable comparison of the figures. I could go through a number of other figures for different periods of loan and different amounts of loan, but that is an example of the modesty of the increase sought by this Bill.

My hon. Friend has said that the charge for a loan of £1 for a month is 8d. As I understand it, that is a rate of interest of about 40 per cent. per annum. Is that not rather excessive?

The sum of 8d. includes items like the pawn ticket which the pawnbroker is allowed to sell for ½d. or 1d. varying with the amount of the loan. It includes a valuation fee of ½d. per 5s. of the loan and it includes also a certain profit charge. If one compares that sort of figure with the amount which a retail trader will expect to make from purchasing goods wholesale and selling them retail, it is very modest. I am sure my hon. Friend would not like to run a shop entirely on the basis of buying an article wholesale at £1 and selling it in a month's time at £1 0s. 8d. I do not think his shop would be a success. That is, in effect, what the pawnbroker is doing at present.

To give the House some idea of the amount of income which a moderate-sized pawnbroker makes, I can give the figures of 92 firms which were investigated by the Pawnbrokers' Association—and I think these figures are confirmed by the investigation which was carried out by the Board of Trade later—each firm using capital of approximately £5,000. The average gross receipts, using a capital of £5,000, were 25 per cent. in the year. That is £1,250 gross per annum. Those firms on an average employed either a manager or a working proprietor plus an assistant plus a junior assistant. In addition to the wages of those persons, the proprietor had to pay, out of the £1,250, the rent, rates, insurance, lighting, heating, printing and all the rest of the shop and office overhead expenses. That does not leave very much. We are hoping by the Bill to increase the 25 per cent. gross receipts to about 35 per cent. which, when compared with the ordinary retail business, which probably makes 75 per cent. out of the use of its capital, seems a fairly moderate figure.

There are other minor amendments in the Bill such as an increase in the charge of ½d. or 1d. for the inspection of the pawnbroker's books, up to a charge of 6d. Perhaps I might mention a fact which I do not think is generally known, that for all pledges of more than 10s. a pawnbroker must account for the proceeds of sale. That is to say, if a person pledges an article and fails to redeem it, for a matter of three years he can return to the pawnbroker, demand to inspect his books and demand also that the pawnbroker accounts to him for the balance of the proceeds of sale of the article over the amount of the loan plus the permitted charges. Furthermore, a pawnbroker can sell those articles by auction only so that there can be no cheating in his books.

The Bill seeks to increase the minimum figure at which goods have to be sold by auction in that way from 10s. to £2, and to reduce the period of redemption from 12 months to six months. These are the additional consequential amendments to the old law, matters which are obviously Committee matters rather than matters of principle for discussion on Second Reading.

I beg to second the Motion.

I support the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in what he has said. We normally associate the hon. Gentleman with the interests of pedestrians. Today, he has drawn our attention to the problems of pedestrians who have to walk to the nearest pawnshop, for financial reasons, and he has told us of the difficulties which face the pawnbroker at the present time. For a variety of reasons, pawnbroking seems to be a dying business. I doubt very much that, even if the increased charges proposed in the Bill before us are accepted and put on the Statute Book, they will lead to a very large increase in the number of pawnbrokers.

The charges which are now legal are, as the hon. Gentleman said, very modest indeed. Quite apart from the more affluent society—let us call it that—in which we live, which is, of course, one reason for pawnbrokers not being so necessary now as they used to be, there are other reasons which make pawnbroking less necessary than hitherto. The hon. Gentleman referred to the growth of the hire-purchase system. The hire-purchase system is a glorified form of moneylending, and the hire-purchase organisations of this country are the largest moneylenders today. I would put them in almost the same category as building societies.

Hire-purchase organisations and building societies are the largest money- lenders in this country today, and the poor old pawnbroker comes a long way behind. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, as a result of the meagre returns which the pawnbroker has, it is quite clear that, quite apart from all those other factors, the pawnbroking business, in its declining years, is being subjected to a form of statutory strangulation.

I wish that the hon. Member had included in his Bill some simplification of the procedure which has to be followed when someone who has pawned an article loses the pawn ticket. Very frequently constituents come to me, in my capacity as justice of the peace, bringing with them a rather complicated form which has to be completed and witnessed before a pawnbroker will release any article pledged to the person who has lost the ticket. I do not know to what extent the form itself is governed by statutory provisions, but, if it is so governed, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, perhaps in Committee, do something to simplify it.

indicated assent.

My main complaint is that the person loses a pawn ticket, he goes to the pawnbroker, the pawnbroker gives him the form, and then that person takes the form with him to see me or some other person in a position qualified to witness it, but he overlooks the fact that, in addition to the other requirements, it is necessary that the identity of the person who has lost the pawn ticket be vouched for by an independent witness.

This independent witness must sign the form. It seems to me, especially if, as the hon. Gentleman says, the average amount of transaction involved is about £1, that it is hardly necessary to have three signatures on the form, one, the signature of the person who lost the ticket, two, the signature of the witness as to the identity of that person, and, three, the counter-signature of a justice of the peace or commissioner of oaths. I put forward that suggestion to the hon. Gentleman, because I hope that during the Committee stage he will find no difficulty in accepting an Amendment for a revision which will mitigate the inconvenience arising when a pawn ticket is lost.

I am sure that pawnbrokers usually know their customers, since they work in a fairly small area. No doubt they have their regulars as they used to have in the old days. Therefore, it will hardly be worth while for the average person who has pawned a comparatively small article to pretend to be somebody else for the purpose of getting some other article. I hope, therefore, that the problem of the lost pawn ticket will be scooped up by the hon. Gentleman when he takes the Bill to its Committee stage, as I hope he will.

In his usual persuasive fashion the hon. Gentleman has made out a case for the Bill. There is this body of tradesmen in the country known as pawnbrokers so let us, as we want to do for the old-age pensioners, make their declining years a little easier than they are at present.

I hate to disturb the pleasant reception which the Bill has received so far, but I am wondering whether it is desirable in any way. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) agreed that the Bill refers to a dying business. In view of the prosperity which the country is enjoying, and which it will go on enjoying as long as hon. Gentlemen opposite stay in opposition, I do not think that there is much future in the pawnbroking business, and I doubt whether the Bill would do anything to improve its prospects.

My hon. Friend referred to the charges at present permitted by law, namely, that pawnbrokers are allowed to charge 8d. in the £ for a loan of a month. In many cases, I believe that the loan is often for less than one month, so the rate of interest is higher than the figure I gave when he was speaking, namely, 40 per cent. My hon. Friend pointed out that the 8d. included the cost of a ticket and the valuation. As I understand, it is part of the pawnbroker's job to value the goods and no outside person is brought in to do that work. The pawnbroker looks at the article and says it is worth, say, 5s. or £2, and then says he will allow that amount of money on it. So I do not think the statement of my hon. Friend that there is a valuation to be considered is a valid reason for increasing the rate of interest chargeable.

Of course, if the loan continues through the year, it does not work out at multiplying 8d. by twelve. In fact, the profit on a loan of £1 for a full year is approximately 25 per cent.

I was talking about a short-term loan. Most people would prefer to lend money for a month if they could get a rate of 40 per cent. Even Her Majesty's Government do not pay anything like that when they borrow on the money market and I should have thought that it was an excessive rate of interest.

This is not saying that it is easy to run a pawnbroker's business with such charges, because I do not think that it is easy so what my hon. Friend said in that respect was valid. However, the proposed increases under the Bill are liable to make it unwise for anyone to make use of the facilities offered by a pawnbroker, because if the figure of 1s. 3d. in the £ is permitted the gross rate of interest works out at 75 per cent. for a loan of 30 days. At that rate anyone who wished to borrow money would not be serving his best interests by going to a pawnbroker.

Therefore, if the Bill goes through, I think that the result will be to accelerate the decline of the pawnbroking business. People will say more and more that this is a heavy price to pay for temporary loans and that they will not avail themselves of this service. The result may be a considerable falling off in business of the pawnbroking industry, as it has been referred to, and I do not think that it is in its best interests that the Bill should go through.

By then, we shall have betting shops instead.

I will not reply to that, because we are not discussing betting shops today, although I could say a lot about them if I had the opportunity. Last week, unfortunately, my Parliamentary duties kept me away from the House of Commons.

In the interests of the pawnbroking business, I do not think that this amendment in the law should be made. I do not say that I shall force a Division on this occasion, but there should be very careful examination of the Bill in Committee and I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby that in the interests of the business which he is seeking to protect his best service would be to drop the Measure.

If I say that there is a Government interest in the Bill, I hope I shall not be misunderstood. In the past, the National Association of Pawnbrokers has made representations to the Home Office and I should say a word about this. First, perhaps, I may establish that the Pawnbrokers Acts—my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) did not make this completely clear—of 1872 and 1922 lay down the maximum charges which pawnbrokers may make for loans of £2 or under. At present, loans of over £2 and under £10 may be made the subject of a special contract between the pawner and the pawnbroker, the terms of which must be set out in a prescribed form. Loans of over £10 are governed by the Moneylenders Acts, 1900 and 1927.

As I have said, on several occasions since the war the National Association of Pawnbrokers has represented to the Home Office that owing to the changes in money values and the decrease in pawnbroking business, pawnbrokers were no longer able to obtain a reasonable return on their business. Early in 1957, the Association put forward to my right hon. Friend proposals for increasing the statutory charges. With the co-operation of the Association and of the Accountants Division of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary arranged for a confidential examination of the accounts of a number of pawnbroking businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby had this in mind when he spoke.

The object of the inquiry was to ascertain whether revision of the charges was justified and, if so, whether the Association's proposals were reasonable. My hon. Friend probably knows the results of the inquiry and he will know that although the number of pawnbroking businesses examined was not adequate for a complete survey, the figures obtained support the Association's claim for its proposed increases in the statutory charges. If my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) wish, I can place a copy of the Report in the Library of the House of Commons.

I am obliged.

In that Report—this is the answer to the interjection by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)—the number of pawnbrokers was assessed at about 1,000, of whom 90 per cent. were members of the Association. Most pawnbrokers also maintain a retail or other side of their business, but the inquiry showed in respect of the pawnbroking establishments that the surplus or profit on capital employed amounts to 2½ per cent. per annum. Therefore, on financial grounds, there is evidence to support the view of the trade that an increase in the statutory charges should be made.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, the Board of Trade, in its Report, examined proposals similar to those contained in the Bill and came to the conclusion that if similar proposals were adopted, the surplus or profit would rise from 2½ per cent. to 10 per cent. per annum.

Does that figure of a 2½ per cent. return on capital include the remuneration or salary of the pawnbroker?

As I understand, the 2½ per cent. does not make any addition to the remuneration of the pawnbroker, on the pawnbroking side of his business, but practically all pawnbrokers carry on another side to their business. It is for the House to decide whether 2½ per cent. per annum or 10 per cent. per annum as proposed in the Bill is reasonable.

I should like to make comments on just two parts of the Bill. The first is the proposed increase from £2 to £5 as the upper limit of loans on which charges are controlled by Statute. This proposal does not benefit the pawnbroker. Any revision of the law should take account of changes in money values and should also take account of those changes in matters affecting the protection of the client; and that is what this provision does.

The second point is the proposal to cover loans up to £50 instead of £10 as at present. It may be that this figure is also justified by the change in money values, but it was not—possibly my hon. Friend did not know this—one of the proposals submitted by the Association to the Home Office two years ago or considered in the inquiry made by the Board of Trade. Therefore, it is not possible to say what effect the proposal would have on the financial conclusions reached by the inquiry. In all other respects, as far as I can ascertain, the Bill follows the proposals put to the Home Office and investigated by the Accountants Division of the Board of Trade.

My hon. Friend suggested that illegal money lending was increasing owing to the restrictions on pawnbrokers' charges. All I can say about that is that we have no evidence to that effect, but, of course, I accept what he said. I would suggest to him that in its present form the Bill, by constant reference to earlier Acts, is not particularly easy to understand. It may be that it will be possible to improve upon that. I would suggest that if the House gives it a Second Reading consideration should be given—I will co-operate in that respect—to see whether the Bill can be established in a clearer form.

It can be argued, and I think this is the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, that the place of the pawnbrokers in society today is very different from what it was in 1872 and that there is no need, or very little need, to introduce amending legislation to enable them to stay in business. I think that that is a matter for the House to decide. I am not advising the House to support or oppose the Bill. What I have tried to do, bringing in evidence the Report from the Board of Trade, is to confirm that so long as it is the wish of the House to impose maximum charges upon pawnbrokers, then there is a case for agreeing to proposals along the lines of the Bill.

I am glad to have the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment a matter of great importance to residents around London Airport, the question of aircraft noise. The last time the House debated the question of aircraft noise was in an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), so it is not since February that we have had an opportunity of hearing any fresh proposals from the Ministry in an attempt to solve this problem.

Nearly all my constituency is affected and there are other constituencies which come under the shadow of London Airport. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), who is hoping to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, receives a number of complaints from his constituents about aircraft noise which is ruining the peace and quiet enjoyment of Harlington. All the constituencies round London Airport are affected by this grievance, which is now becoming almost a national problem.

In my constituency there are people who live near Nos. 1 and 5 runways. During the General Election I held a meeting not far from one of the runways, and I know from experience how difficult it is to hold a conversation, let alone a meeting, because of the noise. Aircraft noise is becoming a major issue. A number of people who came to live in my constituency before London Airport was constructed have lost a good deal of the peace and quietness which they sought when they moved in, in the late 'twenties and early 'thirties.

There is a 24-hour service at London Airport which means that the noise continues day and night. It is not, therefore, surprising that both my hon. Friend and I continually receive letters of complaint. I have received letters of complaint ever since my election to this House, in 1955, and today I received at least half a dozen more.

The residents' association in my area has continually brought the nuisance of aircraft noise to the attention of the Minister and complained about loss of sleep and other amenities. With the increase in air transport the problem of aircraft noise will continue to grow. The noise has increased with the coming of the jet airliner and in the months ahead more and more jet airliners will be using London Airport. That is why the matter is now very urgent.

The chief offender—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington will agree with me—is the Boeing 707. When this aircraft was tested for noise at London Airport we received many letters of complaint. I understand that the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation set a noise level limit linked with the weight and the number of passengers which the airliner could carry. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether Pan-American Airways conform to the regulation? Has the Minister, in recent months, made any representations to that company about the noise made by its aircraft?

Another problem is flying height. The operational procedure is that the pilot is obliged to get up to 1,000 ft. over residential and built-up areas. I continually receive complaints that Boeing 707s fly much lower, even at 200 to 300 ft. I received the following letter from Hounslow this morning:

"Dear Sir,

At 2.46 p.m. today a departing Boeing aircraft passed over this house at between 200 and 300 ft. I have an ear affliction and the pain caused by the terrible noise from its engines all but caused me to collapse."

This is not the only letter that I have had along these lines, and I am sure that other hon. Members have received letters complaining about this aircraft flying much lower than the 1,000 ft limit. Will the Parliamentary Secretary investigate these complaints and insist upon the regulations being adhered to by Pan American Airways?

A provision in the Air Navigation Act, 1947, makes it impossible to bring an action for nuisance against an operator of an aeroplane, so the residents' only protection is the Minister. Some international airports impose a very strict noise limit. The Port of New York is an example. I have been informed on very good authority by a person who has studied the question and whose articles have appeared in the well-known magazine Flight that the noise of the Boeing 707 passing over areas near to London Airport is four times louder than the limit imposed in New York. I should be very grateful if the hon. Member would investigate that point.

I know that this is a difficult problem. Again and again we have been told by the Minister that we must have the airport near London. The area of Hounslow, Feltham is convenient for passengers wishing to go to London. Therefore, research into the noise problem must be increased by the new Ministry taking over this important work from the Ministry of Supply. There must be more co-operation with the aircraft manufacturers, because I believe that the solution is to be found there. The noise must be stopped at its source. Research work must be doubled or trebled in order to solve the problem.

Sir Miles Thomas, a former Chairman of B.O.A.C., once said:

"My personal feeling is that we aircraft operators could well consider injecting a new factor into our forward aircraft specifications, and refuse to buy machines that do not conform to strict noise limitations."

I trust that the Ministry will direct its research work along those lines and get tough with the aircraft manufacturers. If the Ministry were to insist that airline corporations should not buy aircraft from British or American manufacturers unless they conformed to strict noise limitations it would inspire and encourage aircraft manufacturers to carry out more research work.

But we should go further than that. We need international co-operation in this matter. We have international conferences to discuss fares and other regulations, and the question of noise limitation should occupy a very important place in the agenda of any conference discussing international air problems. I feel certain that with the jet age and the growth of air transport, complaints about noise will increase unless something is done. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) is present. I have had a letter from a constituent of his enclosing a resolution passed by a trade union branch complaining of the low flying of the Boeing aircraft and the way it frightens children.

The new Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have been to London Airport to examine this problem and to listen to the noise. Complaints come now from an area covering about nine miles round London Airport, including Hayes and Harlington, Southall, Cranford, Richmond and Feltham, which lie under the shadow of this great airport.

We want to go ahead with civil air transport as we move forward in this modern age, and make Britain the leading civil air Power. Air transport will grow. It is becoming more and more popular for holiday and general travelling. Therefore, as air transport increases the problem of noise will become very serious. I wish the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary success in attempting to solve the problem. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary will be making today his first speech from the Dispatch Box. I hope that he can give residents round London Airport good news and that he and his right hon. Friend will do all they can to solve the problem so that noise may be abated. I hope that they will deal strictly with operating companies which break the regulations and see that flying below a height of 1,000 feet is stopped. I hope that the Ministry of Aviation will increase its research work with the aircraft manufacturers so that noise is stopped at its source and that in time aircraft will become almost free from noise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter), the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and myself, and now, perhaps, the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), will be regarded by aviation enthusiasts in the House as dismal jimmies who are always trying to throw a spanner into the works. It would be unfortunate if we were to be depicted in that way, because all of us are as anxious as any other hon. Member that Britain should continue to lead the world in the development of civil aviation, and we are all proud of what we have achieved and, indeed, of many of the accomplishments at London Airport itself.

But, of course, we have a primary duty to our unfortunate constituents who live round London Airport. Considerable numbers of persons are affected. This is not just a parish pump problem of a few hundred. Those who are seriously disturbed by noise and also, to some extent, made apprehensive from the point of view of danger from the continual passing of aircraft overhead are not fewer and possibly may be more than half a million souls. Therefore, in the intolerable conditions in which many of these people live, we should be failing in our duty if we did not constantly raise the matter with the Government and kept it before the House and before public opinion.

I repeat, however, that we all want to do everything we can to promote the British aviation industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and myself have a special interest in this, because Fairey Aviation Limited, which produces the Rotodyne, has factories both in Southall and Hayes. At another date, we shall be pressing the Government to do something urgently about the Rotodyne, because its future is causing our constituents great concern in relation to the development of Fairey Aviation Limited and the jobs of people employed by it.

I hope, therefore, that our position will be understood. But those who are suffering, and "suffering" is not too strong a word, have only the local authorities and Members of Parliament to look to. I appreciate the concern of local authorities and the work that they try to do and the way in which they try to raise the problem at the Joint Standing Committee at London Airport. Therefore, we are not alone in facing this problem. It is actively engaging the attention of the local authorities and of Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in the area. One of the chief hardships in this matter is the one to which my hon. Friend has referred. If one voluntarily goes to live next door to a gasworks, one can only blame oneself if one suffers from the smell. But hundreds of thousands of people in the Middlesex area bought their houses or came to live in the area long before there was any thought of building an airport. People have invested their savings in the purchase of houses in that area. Some people have come to live there on retirement, and none of them expected, or had reason to expect, that their peace and security or, in the language of the law—which in this case is quite an accurate term—the quiet enjoyment of their homes was to be fractured in this way.

There are two specific problems, that of noise, especially from jets, and the subsidiary problem—although it is not necessarily a subsidiary problem after the Southall disaster—of the danger from increasing air traffic passing overhead at all hours of the day and night, and what steps the Government and civil aviation authorities propose to take to deal with that aspect of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and myself, as well as others, have pressed the Ministry on this point in the past. We appreciate the difficulties of the airport authorities, but one of the things which occurs to us regarding the development of London Airport is that on most of the official maps the surrounding district is depicted as being blank. I consider that in the early days, in the siting of the runways, insufficient attention was given to the existing housing estates round the periphery of the airfield.

It is an unfortunate fact that one housing estate is only 2,400 ft. from the threshold of a runway, and the maintenance area of one concern which operates at London Airport is, in effect, only 2,000 ft. from a built-up area. In those circumstances, there is bound to be considerable noise, but although we realise that, we cannot abandon our constituents merely because of the faulty siting of workshops and runways. I have myself made suggestions about slewing one runway.

Our constituents find two things difficult to understand. On 5th November last year—perhaps that was an appropriate date for asking them—there were no fewer than six Questions to the Minister of Transport about conditions under which he had allowed the Boeing 707 to operate from London Airport. In his reply, the Minister said:

"I have given permission to Pan-American World Airways to operate the Boeing 707 and to British Overseas Airways Corporation to operate the Comet IV on scheduled services into London Airport under conditions which are designed to cause no more noise disturbance than the heavy piston-engined aircraft currently in use when passing over the main built-up areas in the neighbourhood."

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:

"The agreed procedures for these aircraft require that the aircraft should on take-off achieve a height of not less than 1,000 ft. over the nearest built-up area along the flight path, and use reduced power … ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1958; Vol. 594, c. 934.]

There was also a condition laid down in connection with the landing of these aircraft.

This was the substance of a Press hand-out by the then Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation on 13th October, 1958, which again mentioned comparable noise and that aircraft going over built-up areas should not fly at less than 1,000 ft. When these announcements were made, there was considerable rejoicing in the area, because it was thought that this was, at any rate, putting some limit on the amount of noise and imposing a minimum height at which the aircraft could fly. Although I have had a great deal of correspondence with the Minister about the conditions since then, the residents and I are quite satisfied that in fact they are not being observed, certainly by the Boeing and, from time to time, by the Comet. Incidentally, I am glad to be able to report that I have had less complaint about the Comet in recent months than had before. I believe that certain steps have been taken to deal with the technical problem of getting the Comet off with a reduction of noise.

It seems fairly clear that the statement that jet aircraft would not operate from London Airport unless they were not noisier than comparable piston-engined aircraft, either is not true or the Minister is using some basis of comparison unknown to us. The details about the noisiness of aircraft are difficult to compare, because there is not yet a generally agreed system of measuring noise, although a great deal of data has been gathered by the noise consultants to the New York Airport authority. A lot of this has been published in Flight on 14th August this year and in the edition of 7th November last year. It is clear that somewhere there is a big discrepancy in comparisons made by the Ministry, and the New York data, or aircraft are flatly not carrying out the conditions. The only other alternative is that we and the residents have failed to understand the basis of comparison which the Minister is using.

On 7th November, the magazine Flight carried an article based upon a summary of noise levels for the Boeing and Comet and comparable piston-engined aircraft which was obtained from the tables of the noise consultants to the New York Airport authority. These comparisons were at 1,000 feet. The perceived noise levels for the Boeing, Comet and composite propeller-driven aircraft were 121, 120 and 107. If the perceived noise levels are translated into noys—which is a difficult thing to do unless one is a good mathematician, and I am not—the figures for noisiness are, for the Boeing 274, for the Comet 256, and for the noisiest piston-engined aircraft 104. So that at 1,000 feet, taking the positions along the line of the flight of aircraft, jet planes were at least two and a half times as noisy. If one looks at the figure which appeared in the 14th August issue of Flight, this seems to be the case, except that at some distances the jets are even more noisy; but at best they are two and a half times noisier. Does the Minister still say that these are the conditions under which jet aircraft operate? Are the conditions being observed, or is there some basis for Ministry comparison which makes nonsense of the advice and data provided by the New York Airport authority?

The next question is that of flight at 1,000 feet over a built-up area. There seems to be some argument here about what a built-up area is. The Minister and I happen to be members of the legal profession, but I hope that neither of us will engage in legal quibbles about what is a built-up area. Certainly over part of Harlington, which I should have thought would normally correspond to the definition of a built-up area, these heavy aircraft often fly at less than 1,000 feet. I draw particular attention to two examples. One was the flight of a Comet IV over Harlington on 19th April. The Ministry knows all about this because it has been raised by both the local residents' association and myself. The other occasion was the flight of the Boeing 707 on 4th June. In both these cases the weight of the aircraft was known and has been given. The profile of the machine was known. It is clear that these machines were well under a thousand feet when flying over Harlington.

These are not isolated examples. There are also the examples mentioned by my hon. Friend. We understand that from time to time there may be exceptional reasons for lower flying, but both these occasions were normal and there seemed to be no abnormal weather conditions. Either there has been a flagrant disregard of the conditions or there may have been some other factor about which the public have not been informed.

What is to be done in the future? It is clear that if the airport develops, as we all want it to develop, this problem is likely to get much worse, unless various steps are taken. I believe that there has been a campaign for planting trees on certain parts of the periphery. That does not make much difference, but it makes some difference, and every little improvement helps. Earth banks will help in dealing with maintenance noises. Some earthworks have been completed, but I was disappointed a few months ago to find that the major earthworks which we were promised two years ago were still the subject of a working party. I hope that some expedition will be introduced into this matter for the relief of those who suffer.

In the last Parliament, we heard from the Ministry of Supply, before it was abolished, that £75,000 was being devoted to research. This seems to me to be a very small sum, bearing in mind the major nuisance which occurs and affects so many people. The Parliamentary Secretary told us at that time that money was not the limiting factor. I did not know whether to deduce from his reply that in any event very little work was being done, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some information about it.

One of the most important things is the research which is done, and I think that he will have to take a lead in insisting on this research, because most aircraft firms will not put it at the top of their priorities. They are concerned to make larger aircraft which can travel as quickly as possible to the greatest convenience of the passengers, and there must be persuasion from the Minister for them to give research work, both by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and by the aircraft firms, a very much higher priority than seems to have been the case so far.

I understand that the Minister has been to London Airport and heard the noise. I imagine that he went there during the day. May I assure him that the noise not only seems but it is in fact much worse at night, in the comparative quiet of a place such as Harlington, which in many respects is still rural, and other places around the airport. A few months ago, in April, I was standing in a garden on a peaceful night. It might have been many hundreds of years ago, bearing in mind the quaint buildings around. There was the pleasant smell of the spring flowers. It was at 11 p.m., summertime. Suddenly there was this hellish din of a jet starting off. It was far louder than any thunder clap I have ever heard, and it lasted for quite a time. Children awakened, dogs barked.

Although this kind of thing happens frequently it is still a source of some alarm and great annoyance. One can become accustomed to some noises, but not this noise. I once lived near a railway marshalling yard, but after a while I was able to ignore the noise from it and even to feel a friendliness for the men working out in the cold, shunting the wagons. I assure the Minister that there is no friendliness on the part of the inhabitant when we have this hellish din arising in the quiet of the night.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that this is not a parish pump problem which affects only a few people. It affects many people. The noise can be heard throughout the constituency, although it is not so bad on the other side of the Uxbridge Road as it is on the Bath Road. It is a fact that the intensity is far louder than that of any of the other normal noises we have in peace-time. As it is likely to be a problem of greater intensity in the future, I hone that while he is at the Ministry the Minister will give it very serious consideration and that he will be able to give us some hopeful news today.

My hon. Friends the Members for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) are to be commended for their pertinacity in the way in which they are endeavouring to protect their constituents from the noise caused by the traffic in and our of London Airport. My sole excuse for taking part in this discussion is that I live probably nearer London Airport than either of my hon. Friends, and probably nearer than any other hon. Member at present in the House.

I live in Berkshire, about 10 to 12 miles west of London Airport, and I assure the Minister that as far out as that the noise of incoming and outgoing aircraft is a real problem and a grave inconvenience. I had occasion, not long ago, to travel in a Comet, which landed at London Airport. I was alarmed to discover from the R.A.F. pilot that the Comet has to start descending about 150 miles away from the point at which it eventually lands. That explained to me why, in the very rural surroundings in which I live, the night hours, which are the only hours I am competent to speak about, because I am not there very often during the daytime, are made hideous by the deafening din caused by aircraft beginning to descend upon London Airport. This is a very real problem.

I do not know to what extent the 1,000 ft. limit which is supposed to apply to built-up areas applies to non-built-up areas, or areas like those in which I reside. I can assure the hon. Member that some of the aircraft which fly over my home, fly at very much less than 1,000 ft., or so it seems, in the small hours of the morning.

I should like to impress upon the Minister that while this is a very great problem for the people who live near to the airport, it is also a problem which causes anxiety and distress to a very wide area. This area will extend even further with the growing development of aircraft, higher speeds, and the longer period taken in losing height when descending. A wider area than ever before will be inconvenienced. I can assure the Minister that it is very upsetting, at 3 o'clock in the morning, suddenly to hear the roar of aircraft passing over one's house in the country—and so far as I am concerned there is no distinction between a built-up and a non-built-up area. The house in which I live is, to me, a "built-up area" and I do not want aircraft flying over it any lower than can possibly be avoided.

I hope that the hon Gentleman will be able to offer some assurance not only to the two constituencies represented by my hon. Friends but to the very substantial number of people within a radius of 10 or 12 miles of the airport.

I should like, first, to thank the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) for the kind references which he made to myself. I appreciate them on this, my first, appearance at the Dispatch Box. I am particularly grateful to him for having raised this important subject this afternoon, because I can assure the House that both my right hon. Friend and myself take the problem of noise very seriously.

I assure the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) that we Jo not regard this as just "a spanner in the works." We know that it closely affects the constituents of a number of hon. Members. One has the greatest sympathy for the old residents, but I emphasise, at the same time, that we are concerned also for all the residents who are affected, whether technically or otherwise they live in a built-up area. Within that number we should include the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton).

As the hon. Member for Feltham said, this raises issues of general public concern and is almost a national problem. We accept that. My right hon. Friend and I have tried from the outset to study it. That is one of the reasons why we both took an early opportunity to visit London Airport to see and hear for ourselves the scope and extent of the problem. We appreciate fully that the enjoyment of property, and indeed life generally, may be seriously affected by excessive noise. As my right hon. Friend said on 16th November, 1959, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), who I am glad to see here this afternoon and who has also taken an interest in this on behalf of his constituents:

"I have for a long time taken a great interest in this question of noise, when I was at the Ministry of Supply some years ago. But there is no good pretending that we can altogether eliminate the noise of aircraft any more than we can eliminate the noise of road traffic. What we have got to do is to do everything possible to keep the intensity of the noise within tolerable limits and also reduce as much as possible the size of the area which is affected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 786.]

That is what we are doing, and we shall continue to endeavour to do it by every means in our power.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred specifically to research and its cost. For a long time, as hon. Members must well know, much work has been going on under various auspices. I can reiterate the assurance that the limiting factor is not money. It is the intrinsic difficulty of the basic problem. I can certainly assure the House that the Government are always ready to support, within our resources, any new proposal which seems to show promise.

The three main lines of attack are to reduce noise at source; to work out procedures for the operation of aircraft; and to mitigate noise from the ground engineering activities which must inevitably be carried on at London Airport.

The hon. Member for Feltham stressed, quite rightly, that noise must be stopped at source. Over the years we believe that a very great deal of fundamental research work into the problem has been carried out under the auspices of the Government. As long ago as 28th June, 1954, my right hon. Friend, then Minister of Supply, circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT a detailed statement covering the progress of research. Much of that work has now borne fruit. Anyone comparing the civil Comet or the Boeing 707 with the unsilenced military version will at least concede that a measure of progress has already been achieved. We are also all agreed that much remains to be done and research work continues not only in our own establishments, but also in the universities, which have made a great contribution to this task.

It may interest the House to know that the basic research work carried out by the present Director of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Professor Lighthill, was the starting point for whatever success has been achieved anywhere in the world.

Of course, it has been not only a contribution by Government establishments and universities. The aircraft industry has also made its own practical contribution, and we should recognise that. Rolls-Royce, in particular, under contract to the Government, have made important advances in developing silencers for jet aircraft. I think that the hon. Members will find that this work will bear fruit in later versions of the Boeing 707 and the Caravelle.

Important advances have already been made in bypass engines, notably the Conway. These engines will, I understand, have an appreciably lower ratio of noise to power than do the present straight jet engines. In addition, work on the development of new types of engines has been carried out in our research establishments, particularly at the National Gas Turbine Establishment, as well as by the aircraft companies. I understand that, for the future, our best hopes for improvement lie in the turbofan engine now being developed both here and in the United States. This shows signs of being quieter than the present jet engines. I hope that that may give some comfort to the hon. Members, but, of course, it may be some time before this engine can be brought into use.

I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that we are taking this fundamental issue of noise suppression at source very seriously, and are trying as far as we can to anticipate future developments. I noted that the hon. Member for Feltham quoted Sir Miles Thomas in this regard, so perhaps I should emphasise that we are not just saying, "We are doing our best, and if we fail it's just too bad." We fully recognise that there is a limit to the amount of noise that the public will tolerate merely to suit the convenience of a comparatively small number of people.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to helicopters. We look forward, and should look forward, to an inter-city helicopter service becoming a permanent feature of our national transport, but we must make it clear that, if that aim is to be realised, helicopter manufacturers—and other aircraft manufacturers, too—must be prepared to do a lot more work on noise reduction

Perhaps I may now turn to what might be described as the second line of attack—which is necessarily only a palliative—the working out of operational procedures with the airline companies. The hon. Member for Feltham referred to the Boeing 707 as being the greatest problem here, but it is a general problem and affects most of these large jet airliners—the Boeing, our own Comet, and the T.U.104. As has become evident in this debate, these procedures are fairly well known to hon. Members who take an interest in the matter.

Basically, what we are trying to do is to keep aircraft as high as is consistent with safety. There has been some reference to procedures so it might be helpful to restate the position. From the outset, we agreed that on landing there should be an angle of approach of not less than 3°, which we feel is as steep an angle as can safely be imposed. As has already been said, it represents a gradient of about one in 20. On takeoff, we have also agreed with the airlines concerned that, to keep the noise down to that of a piston-engined aircraft—and I shall say a word or two on that in a moment—the pilot should reach a height of at least 1,000 ft. over the nearest built-up area in the line of flight, that he should use his engine settings to achieve it, and then cut back power to reduce the noise when he has passed the necessary height.

Of course, as aircraft vary in performance in every case, is it a matter of careful study and judgment as to the best combination of climb and power settings. For practical purposes, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington reminded us, the test has been whether the noise could be brought within the limits set by the largest and most powerful piston-engined aircraft which have been operating at London Airport for some time.

I understand that it is difficult to make exact comparisons—whether one should take the basis of the perceived noise level or whatever it may be, or whether one should take a subjective test or an objective test. I cannot comment in any detail upon the figures which the hon. Gentleman quoted, but I can assure him that I will study them very carefully. So far as one is capable of getting a fair test of noise, we feel that our policy has been brought fully into operation.

That brings me to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Feltham, which is this. We have laid down these procedures: are they, in fact, being complied with? The position is this. We continue to monitor jet aircraft flights in and out of the airport and results show that substantial departure from the agreed procedure is rare and inadvertent. Of course, pilots are human and in the early stages there is no doubt whatever that they found some difficulty in complying with these special procedures, but as experience and techniques have improved, so has the degree of compliance, and I think that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington recognises that.

The hon. Member for Feltham referred to low flying. I would point out that visual observations are sometimes very misleading. The size as well as the speed of these new aircraft often make them look lower than they really are. Of course, we will be glad to investigate any detailed complaint which comes not only from hon. Members, but also from any resident living in the area. Certainly, It has been alleged that aircraft are flying excessively low in built-up areas, and even in the more remote approaches to London Airport over such districts as North-West London, Richmond and Barnes.

And Berkshire.

I will accept Berkshire as well.

Surveys and monitoring show that, generally, pilots do not fly lower than necessary and, indeed, there is no advantage to them to do so. We have examined with particular airlines cases where low flying resulted from their incorrect operation techniques in the early stages, and we feel that, in agreement and co-operation with them, the position has greatly improved. I think it is fair to say that such rare cases of low flying as do occur are due either to operational causes beyond the pilots' control or to momentary inadvertence, and every case reported to us is taken up with the airlines if the circumstances appear to warrant it.

Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say on what is the correct procedure where a Comet or any other jet aircraft has tried to land at London Airport but, owing to some congestion, is obliged to circle the airport for some time before being given permission to land? That also is a cause of annoyance.

They do not circle below 1,000 ft. So far as I know, we have not had any suggestion of that kind. What I can say is that, in general we are satisfied that as a result of silencing at source and the handling procedures agreed with the airlines, the Boeing 707 is making no more noise in flight over substantially built-up areas than the large piston-engined aircraft.

I can reply at once to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Feltham that noise over London Airport was four times as loud as that over New York.

In one area near the airport.

I will, of course, look into the matter, but I believe that that is just not true. The Boeing produces the same volume of noise in New York as it does in London.

I assure the House that, whenever an aircraft seems not to have complied with the procedures or makes too much noise—I emphasise that this applies to all aircraft, not merely jet aircraft—we call for an explanation from the airline concerned. Also, we have periodic conferences with staff to work out details on the finer points of technique and so on.

I will give an illustration of the way in which the various companies are giving close attention to this problem. Pan-American Airways has established a count-down technique for its aircraft to comply with the special requirements. Each captain is informed by radio telephone of the sound pressure level measured at the monitoring point and, in turn, he passes his altitude to the ground station. Any operation at all giving rise to an excessive sound pressure level is immediately reported by this operator to his headquarters in New York. That is a very good example of the length to which a company is prepared to go in an endeavour to comply with our requirements.

This is not entirely a problem of noise. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington suggested, the matter of safety also is involved. This does not bear directly on the problem, but I can say that we are at the beginning of a big development programme embracing the provision of new control centres, full radar cover and the modernisation of our airways system. I believe that these new air traffic control centres will play a very big part in handling the extra traffic to which the hon. Gentleman referred with reasonably high standards of safety.

The third line of attack lies in measures taken to minimise ground noise. We are doing a good deal to improve the situation in this respect by restricting the ground running of engines at night, through the use of noise barriers and the use of mufflers, and I think that we are pressing on with this work as fast as is reasonably possible.

I have endeavoured to explain to the House the nature of the problem as it now exists and the steps we are taking and shall continue to take to control poise more effectively. It would, of course, as I have said, be completely unrealistic for any one of us not to recognise that a certain amount of noise is, unfortunately, inevitable in the neighbourhood of important airports. The only silent aerodrome is an inactive one, and it is part of our policy to try to keep London Airport as active as possible. In the belief that the progress of aviation can be combined with a limit to the noise experienced at airports, we shall do all we possibly can to hurry forward the fundamental research and to secure the enforcement of the operating procedures.

I should like to leave the House with the impression that, although we are not so rash as to promise success, we shall do our utmost to achieve it.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, if he will permit me, on his first very successful essay at the Dispatch Box. I have two questions to put to him. All the figures which I gave about the comparison of noise levels are with the Ministry. I should be grateful if we could have, after those figures have been studied, a detailed reply, because there is a very genuine feeling that the statement that jet aircraft are not making more noise than the most noisy pistonengined aircraft is not correct. In view of the figures given by the New York airport noise consultants, for jet planes under 1,000 feet, I cannot see how that statement could be true, because if the power of the jet is not above a certain level, the plane will not reach a height of 1,000 feet. Therefore, I think that, for a period, at any rate, the noise must be greater.

Secondly, if aircraft do not fulfil the conditions laid down, what sanctions do the Ministry impose? I do not use "sanctions" in an unpleasant sense, but if nothing happens there is no reason why aircraft should observe the conditions.

As regards figures, all I was saying was that I had not studied that set in detail. There are many figures on these matters. I will certainly do so, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that point. I was saying that, whatever set of figures we take, whatever test we take, whether it is the perceived noise level or a subjective test, we still cannot get an exact basis of comparison which will apply to each individual affected.

As for compliance with the procedures, I hope I have said enough to indicate that there is a very full measure of co-operation on this matter and that we are achieving a great degree of success. The operational requirements are procedures, not regulations, so the question does not arise of imposing a fine or other penalty. In the last resort, the sanction is not to allow the aircraft to fly. In that regard, I can only say that we accept that there is a limit noise which the public cannot be expected to tolerate. That must be understood.