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

I think it would be desirable if I were to say just a word of introduction to explain that the somewhat alarming appearance of the new Clause is really nothing to cause concern. The origin of this new Clause is a discussion which took place in Committee, where it was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State that there was some question of the actual wording of the Bill as it stood, and that trouble might arise if it were not corrected. There were representations from interested parties, and it was pointed out that Clause 1 as it stood would prevent the use of a common type of amusement machine which operates by tokens and which, if the player is lucky, returns a quantity of tokens then exchanged for articles. The difficulty with Clause 1 as drafted was that such a machine may not produce anything, either money or prices, and a token is clearly on the face of it neither of those two things. Therefore, it was felt that the best way of dealing with the matter would be to remodel the Clause.

It was my hon. Friend who was good enough to say he would consult with us and consider whether it would be desirable on Report to produce a new Clause which would deal with the whole matter. We said we would be very happy to do so. Those consultations took place, and the result is this new Clause. I think it is really sufficient for me to say first of all that its sole purpose is to carry out the intention expressed in Committee, and that the only new provision is that contained in subsection (2,c), though there is no question of the new Clause going substantially beyond the provisions in the existing Clause 1. It is for purely drafting reasons that the new Clause is proposed to be substituted, rather than amending the old one.

The new Clause is desirable in the interests of manufacturers and amusement caterers who had made representations, discussed in Committee, and we hope and believe that the Clause now proposed will meet their concern and also put the whole matter without any doubt.

May I briefly add a word of confirmation to what my right hon. and learned Friend has said? We believe that this new Clause which, although it looks formidable, is in fact quite small, will be acceptable both to the manufacturers and the amusement caterers and will not put any new difficulty in the way of local authorties who will have to licence the places with which we are concerned.

There is a considerable number of this type of machine in use, and they are expensive, and we are told that they cannot readily be adapted to take money or to yield articles instead of tokens, so that unless the provisions were to be modified in this way they could cause very considerable capital loss to both manufacturers and caterers and would also severely restrict the future possibility of providing prizes in kind from amusement machines. It is difficult to devise machines which can directly produce prizes in the form of goods in any variety.

We feel, moreover, that this change is consistent with the original recommendations of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming and that not to incorporate it in the Bill would hinder the award of prizes as distinct from money prizes, which would have a retrograde effect.

Whatever praise may be showered upon the new Clause, and although I have no doubt that it will prove acceptable to the House, it strikes me that its provisions will be extremely difficult to supervise and enforce. The weakness of the whole Bill hinges upon the extent to which it will be possible to limit prizes.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State has referred to the difficulty of adapting machines to give prizes in kind. A large amount of money is invested in these machines. I cast no reflection upon the manufacturers of the machines or upon the majority of amusement caterers who are interested, but it is a fact that this kind of gaming or prize-giving machine has attracted a rather dubious element consisting of slick operators who cannot always be easily traced. If it is to be the job of the local authorities to have inspectors going round to watch what happens to the tokens which come out of the machine and are then exchanged round the corner or at the back of the shop, or if the police are to be expected to enforce the new Clause, we shall, in my submission, be putting a very heavy burden upon them.

I hope that the Clause will have the effect desired by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and others who were responsible for formulating this lengthy provision, but I must express my own doubts. I am very pessimistic about whether the new Clause will be easily enforceable. I am sure that there will continue to be a good deal of evasion. Some of the people who operate these machines will continue to argue that the heavy capital outlay involved cannot be recovered legally if the prizes are limited in this way. There are still many opportunities for evasion, and I do not think the problem will be solved in this way.

Any attempt to impose what many people would regard as the unreasonable limit of 1s. in cash or 5s. in goods is bound to give rise to a lot of jiggery-pokery. If the promoters of the Bill had thought fit to raise the level of prize money or gifts, the possibility of jiggery-pokery would, to some extent, have been reduced.

I shall not oppose the new Clause, but I think it only right to express my great doubt about whether it will achieve any useful or readily enforceable purpose.

I did not serve on the Committee and, for my own information, I should like to put this question. What effect will the new Clause have if one hires machines for a fête or garden party for a charitable effort or to raise money for a political party, as parties on both sides of the House might wish to do? As hon. Members know, for garden parties, barbecues or fêtes it is occasionally desired to hire this kind of machine. How would the new Clause work in such circumstances? Will it put an extra burden on the local authorities? Will the man who is organising the fête for charity or for his own political party have to suffer the heavy hand of the law, with lots of regulations? In a rural area will he have to go off to see the inspector of police or the chief constable of the county?

I appreciate the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). He, in his turn, will appreciate that the very reason for introducing the Bill has been to give local authorities a tighter control than was provided by the original Act which contained the loophole which we are now proposing to fill by the present Bill.

The local authority associations have been consulted in the preparation of the Bill. Although I cannot say in advance that there is no possibility of any further loophole being found by the ingenuity of operators of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it is the intention to make it very much more difficult, if not impossible.

I must apologise to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), because I have not had time to study the detailed implications of his question or take expert advice. However, my impression is that the kind of occasion to which he referred would not fall within the scope of the Bill at all. The Bill only amends a very small sector of the very wide range of the original Act. My impression is that that kind of occasion would be governed by other provisions.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, after "means" to insert "(a)".

I imagine that it might be convenient if we were to discuss at the same time the following three Amendments: In page 3, line 8, leave out "(a)"and insert "(i)".

In page 3, line 10, leave out "(b)" and insert "(ii)".

In page 3, line 11, at end insert:

"and

(b) premises which comprise or form part of a pier undertaking and in respect of which a permit for the provision thereon of amusements with prizes was granted under paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to the Betting and Gaming Act 1960".

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.

I declare at once that I have an interest in this subject because the whole purpose of my Amendments is to include seaside piers within the definition of amusement places. I have to declare this interest because, of course, Southend pier, the longest pier in the world, 1⅓ miles long, obviously offers great opportunities for amusements of this kind and it should be brought within the scope of the definition.

It seems to some of us that the definition of amusement place in Clause 2(5), while adequately covering such places as amusement parks and arcades, does not include seaside piers. The effect of the omission is that a local authority could, if so minded, refuse to renew a permit for this kind of activity on a pier or could surround the granting of a permit with all soils of unpleasant restrictions which would not apply if piers were brought properly within the definition.

It is very difficult for those of us who have not the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen to devise a form of words which will bring piers within the definition of amusement place. I believe that the Home Office is sympathetic to the idea, and I am quite sure that the promoters of the Bill have no desire to penalise seaside piers or deny to them opportunities to carry on their commercial operations as other amusement places do.

For this reason, I hope that the Amendment, which is intended to achieve something comparatively harmless and would, I think, reflect the general feeling of most hon. Members, will be acceptable.

We have, of course, no hostility to the proposal, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State has difficulties about it and we must consider what he has to say before we can form a view.

It is very appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), representing the longest pier in the world, should be speaking up for the proprietors of such establishments. He referred to seaside piers "and such like places". I think that, in adding the phrase "and such like places", he put his finger near the difficulty with which we are confronted. One cannot write into Statutes phrases like "and such like places". One has to approach very carefully and, I am afraid he may think, pedantically, the question of definition. The Amendment is skillfully drafted for his purpose in that it seeks to bring only those seaside piers which have already been granted permission to provide amusements with prizes within the definition of an amusement place in Clause 2(5), and the effect would, of course, be that, when renewing permits in these places, the local authorities concerned would not be able to exercise in respect of them that greater 'degree of discretion which is conferred by Clause 2(1).

Nor would they be able to make use of the power in Clause 2(3) to limit the number of machines or types of amusement to be provided. When the House debated the Second Reading I was asked whether piers came within the scope of amusement places and I expressed the opinion, again without having had the opportunity to consult legal experts, that a pier would not be an amusement place by definition.

I had in mind the fact that there are all sorts of piers, some of which would not be, in the ordinary sense, places of amusement at all. I have since taken advice and have satisfied myself that seaside piers used wholly or mainly for the provision of amusements by means of machines are already amusement places by definition and that an amusement arcade on a pier would also be an amusement place.

But the problem arises where a pier, although it contains a number of such machines, cannot be said to be wholly or mainly used for their provision, and it arises also where a caterer applies for a permit both for an amusement arcade on a pier and for the use of machines elsewhere on the pier. In such a case, a permit has to be granted in respect of the pier as a whole, so that the arcade, which would be an amusement place if taken by itself, might not in the larger context qualify to be treated as such.

I am sorry to appear to be pedantic but it is important to get clear what we are talking about and the difficulties involved. The Amusement Caterers' Association has represented to us that the situation I have described is an anomaly and it would like piers to be treated as amusement places whether wholly or mainly used for the provision of amusement by means of machines or only partly so. The Association has reasonably recognised that, to extend the definition of an amusement place to cover premises largely used for the purpose described, although it would serve its purpose, would be unacceptable to us because it would let in far too many other establishments and thus open a wide door to abuses.

The Association has, therefore, fallen back on the expedient of trying to deal with piers specifically and that is how the Amendment is drafted. But, of course, there is a genuine difficulty in finding a satisfactory definition for a pier. References to a pier undertaking would not be sufficiently specific and would cover a wide variety of structures that happen to project over the sea. The Association has tried to narrow down the incidence of these words by the qualification that the piers must have been granted permits for amusements with prizes under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960. But although, as I have said, this is a skilful approach to the problem it is unfortunately also a discriminatory one, in that it would leave outside the definition of an amusement place and, therefore, subject to more rigorous control, any new piers or any piers which have not so far provided amusement with prizes but may in future wish to do so.

One may defend that or seek another way of getting round the difficulty but it would be less defensible to extend to piers concessions which, under the terms of the Amendment, would not extend to show grounds which exist in certain resorts and which are in every way comparable to piers, except that they do not stand over the sea.

These are, of course, largely technical objections, but I must also add that the Amendment seems not only objectionable in principle but also—and I hope this will give my hon. Friend some comfort—probably in practice unlikely to be necessary because, if piers remain outside the definition of an amusement place, we believe that it is most unlikely that local authorities of seaside resorts will seek to use their enlarged discretionary powers under the Bill to limit the number of machines or types of amusement in an unreasonably restrictive way on such piers. That would be contrary to their own interest.

We think, on the other hand, some powers of limitation should exist because not all seaside authorities would want to see a virtually uncontrolled proliferation of amusement machines on the piers. We think it reasonable that they should have some power to put a check on their number if they so wish, but we also believe that this power is, in circumstances of this kind, likely to be very reasonably used.

My hon. Friend said that it is difficult for those who have not the services of Parliamentary draftsmen to get exact definitions. In this case, even those who do have their services have been unable to devise an exact definition that would meet my hon. Friend's purpose and only his purpose, neither falling short nor going beyond it. I hope that my hon. Friend will also take into consideration the view I have expressed that the kind of Amendment he wants is likely to be unnecessary as well as difficult and that he will not, therefore, feel disposed to press it.

In view of what, I hope, will prove to be the excellent advice which my hon. Friend has given to local authorities on how they should conduct themselves, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

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

It is perhaps a happy feature of our parliamentary affairs that even a few weeks before what will clearly be one of the most hard-fought General Elections there has ever been we can still, nevertheless, co-operate on an inter-party and non-partisan basis to reform the law in a small but significant way. The flame of party co-operation has perhaps burned a little low over recent weeks, but it is a happy feature that it lingers on at least sufficiently on this fine Friday morning to see through the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amusements with Prizes) Bill.

As the House knows, the Bill effects a small but useful reform of the law in that it ensures that the intention of Parliament when it passed the principal Act of 1963 is properly carried out. At a fairly early stage that Act ran into certain difficulties. Perhaps I may summarise them. There seemed to be doubts in the minds of certain authorities whether they had discretion in granting licences for permitting certain machines, such as we are considering today, to be installed on premises. After the case of Hewison v Skegness Urban District Council it became clear that under the principal Act it was not possible for the local authorities to impose conditions on the granting of a licence.

The Bill takes care of that situation and further, as the House well knows, it provides a limitation on the amount for prizes which it was considered in Committee and is still considered to be appropriate.

I have taken the opportunity of trying to check on the point raised by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), dealt with previously by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, about the position of gaming and betting at what may be described at private functions or political functions. The Bill does not refer to that in any way and the position remains totally unaltered, being governed by Sections 48 and 43 of the principal Act which, as I understand it, gives such functions a special position and a large degree of exemption from the provisions of the principal Act. The hon. Member need have no fears or misgivings about giving the Bill a Third Reading on the score of the worries which he expressed in the discussion earlier.

This is a small, but useful Bill. It is very important, it may be thought, that the will of Parliament be carried out. The Bill ensures that what Parliament wanted to be done in 1963 is now clearly done. It does not make the law simple, for the law can seldom be simple, since we live not in a simple society but in a highly sophisticated society. But it meets the need to clarify the law and the needs which were expressed by local authority organisations to make the position of the granting of these licences clear and understandable, giving them, as it does, a virtually unfettered discretion to grant licences and impose conditions when applications are made for them.

That is the effect of Clause 2. It is what local authorities wanted and it is what Parliament originally intended they should have. It is what the House will give them if it gives the Bill a Third Reading.

Naturally, hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the Bill. Although some of us did not work on the Committee we tried to follow it as intelligently as we could, bearing in mind the other work which we have to do. It was thought that the 1963 Act had cleared up a number of anomalies, but this is a complex and difficult world, and all the time we are coming across complexities in betting, gaming and lotteries.

There was a constructive point in the question which I put, because the Minister must be aware that quite innocent people are often put into difficulty in these matters. Even the Sunday-school teacher offering free home-made jam tarts as a prize is sometimes worried about the complexity of the situation and whether it is a game of chance coming within the purview of the Home Office or the police. Often the local village constable and others do not like to be asked questions about the legality of these acts because their solution is beyond their ken and beyond the ken of those who are organising the fête. Consequently, anything which clears the position up and makes it simpler is welcome. I thank the hon. Member.

I have many reservations about the Bill, despite the interesting remarks with which the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) moved the Third Reading. I still think that the prize-money total is far too low and that it will continue to constitute a temptation to a certain number of people to evade the provisions of the Bill.

We are resuming what is becoming a well-established tradition in that we think that we have solved a problem by a fairly comprehensive piece of legislation, as we thought was the case when we passed the 1963 Act, and then a year or so later we find that it is necessary to produce amending legislation. It almost seems that we should have an annual Bill like the Finance Bill, dealing with betting, gaming and lotteries, to catch up with the tricks, the stunts and the ingenious ideas which come to light when we try to impose a regulation or restriction.

Possibly in the next Parliament it will be found necessary, through a Private Member's Bill, not through the Government, to produce another Bill to close another loop-hole. In this respect, the amusements industry and the accountants advising on tax avoidance have the same object in view—to get away with something which they should not be getting away with and to try to overcome a barrier which we thought was effective and which we had imposed in previous legislation.

The hon. Member for Colchester correctly says that the Bill strengthens the powers of local authorities, but I believe that local authorities are still a little anxious about the fact that there does not seem to be any specific provision to authorise a local authority to limit the days and hours when amusement machines may be made available to the public. Does the Bill give local authorities power to limit machines to a specified part of the premises?

These doubts have been expressed, and I hope that in his final valedictory address on the Bill the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be able to clear up these doubts. Will he give an assurance that all the doubts expressed by local authorities will be met by the Bill?

I do not wish to detain the House for more than a moment or two. I warmly support the Third Reading of the Bill and hope very much that this new piece of legislation will do what it sets out to do. We have had an unfortunate record of betting, gaming, and lotteries Bills in the past. We have had repeated assurances that the operation of commercial bingo would be impossible under earlier legislation, but this has not proved to be the case, and it has been necessary for amending legislation to be brought in.

I hope that the Bill will achieve what it sets out to achieve, because our past experience of legislation in this sphere has not been altogether happy. Some of the events which have taken place have been a surprise even to the Parliamentary draftsmen who thought that everything was nicely tied up, only to discover that that was not so. I wish the Bill godspeed, and hope that that will not happen on this occasion.

I doubt whether we have come to the end of the series of Bills to try to deal with this complicated subject. I do not altogether understand the legislation governing betting, gaming and lotteries. At this time of the year, when so many garden fêtes are being held for charitable and other purposes, all sorts of games are played which I, in my innocence, thought were illegal.

As a magistrate, I once had the experience of having to order the destruction of a machine taken from a café. Two days later at a pier—not Westminster or Southend pier—I found machines of the same type being operated quite openly and apparently legally.

It seems that one way round the problem is by forming a club. Apparently by paying a nominal fee and becoming a member of a so-called club, the door is opened fairly wide for all sorts and kinds of betting, gaming, and lotteries. The whole subject has not been cleared up, and in the hope that this Bill is one of the further steps towards the eventual cleaning up of the whole subject, I shall have little difficulty in supporting it.

Before finally agreeing to the Bill being read the Third time, there is, however, one question which I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman: now that we are to have a pause in legislation, would it be possible for the Home Office to issue a pamphlet explaining in fairly simple language for the benefit of nontechnical and non-legal people like myself just where we have got to in the way of controlling this subject?

It is a well-deserved tribute to the skill and moderation of the sponsors of the Bill that, although, as the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) said, it deals with a complex and difficult subject—and this has been reflected in several of the brief speeches today—it has secured such a smooth passage through the House. I am sure that the House would agree that it would be light for me to pay a tribute to my right hon. and noble Friend the former Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands, Lord John Hope, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who have played such a conspicuous part in promoting it.

The proceedings have shown a large unanimity of view, with certain reservations which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and others, both on the objects of the Bill and on the means of achieving them. I think that this was illustrated by the very short time which it was found necessary to devote to the Bill in Committee upstairs.

Several hon. Members have referred to other sections of the betting, gaming and lotteries legislation and have suggested that a wider or further Amendment of it may be necessary. This, indeed, is common ground. I explained in my speech on Second Reading, at column 802, on 28th February 1964, that we recognised that there were a number of other points in the law which needed revision, but that they needed careful and thorough study, and that this particular loophole was a clear and definite one which it seemed appropriate, once it had been identified, to deal with expeditiously on its own.

I shall certainly take note of the point made by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) that we should consider the preparation of an explanatory pamphlet to put the whole matter in simple terms. I shall look at that, because I know that it is something which would be widely appreciated.

I ought also to take this opportunity of clarifying and emphasising the exact effect of the Bill, in the hope that my Third Reading speech may serve as a substitute for such a pamphlet, at any rate in relation to this particular amendment of the law, because the amendments that we are introducing, although they are small, are important and fundamental to the 1963 Act.

I want to do that not only because of the questions which have been put to me this morning—and, in parenthesis, I should like to say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) for confirming that I gave the right answer to one that was shot at me rather suddenly—but because the Home Secretary and I have received a great deal of correspondence which suggests that there are still fairly wide misconceptions about the Bill itself, I should like to take this opportunity to clear up those misconceptions.

One of the main objects of the Bill is to prevent the abuse of the system of amusements with prizes by the offer of prizes in kind of considerable value, because that goes beyond the proper conception of an amusement and introduces something very close to gaming. On the other hand, it was never the purpose of the sponsors of the Bill to place restrictions on the offer of prizes in kind as virtually to exclude them altogether. Indeed, the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming contemplated that amusement machines should provide prizes in kind rather than in cash.

Most of the machines which have come into use in recent years are intended to provide goods, whether directly or indirectly, by a system of tokens, and many of these machines are very costly. Whatever the intention, there was a danger that the Bill as originally drafted would place such restrictions on the use of such machines as to render many of them virtually useless, so causing a heavy capital loss both to the manufacturers and to the purchasers. In the Government's opinion the Amendments made to the Bill have removed the most serious of these dangers and have met the legitimate interests of the manufacturers and caterers without in any way prejudicing the essential objects of the Bill.

There is no need for me to mention the amendment which has been made to make the use of tokens permissible, without which the possibility of providing prizes in kind would have been severely limited, but there are two other improvements which have been made in the Bill which deserve further mention. The first of these is the Amendment accepted in Committee to increase the maximum value of the prize in kind obtainable on a single winning stake from 1s. to 5s. I think that the hon. Member for Brixton had that in mind. I do not know whether he unintentionally said that the ceiling was too low. I assumed that he meant that it was too high.

I said that the ceiling was too low, and that because it was only 5s. the temptation to evade it would be all the greater.

I see the hon. Gentleman's point. It must be a matter of judgment where the ceiling is fixed. It is substantially higher now than it was when the Bill was originally introduced. I think that there is good reason for this, because at present money values there are not many goods which can be offered usefully for Is. Although increasing the limit to 5s. increases the incentive to play the machines, I do not think that it can be regarded as introducing any very wild element of gaming.

It could be questioned why the limit for prizes in kind had been increased in this way, while leaving the limit for cash prizes unchanged at Is. Our feeling is that there is here no true comparability between the two cases, because with prizes in kind there is a restriction of choice which does not apply with money prizes.

It is not possible, in the case of prizes in kind, as it is with money prizes, to win quite large sums by an accumulation of winning stakes. The Bill deliberately does not permit several prizes in kind, each of a value of 5s., to be exchanged for a single prize equivalent to their total value, the object being, I repeat, to provide innocent amusements of a type with which all hon. Members will be familiar—for instance, on fairgrounds—and not open up possibilities of serious gaming.

The second amendment, is, in its way, just as important, though it did not have very much discussion in Committee. Its effect will be to delay the operation of Clause 1, which limits the value of prizes in kind, until 31st October, 1965. This was a concession made during the Committee stage because it will allow people who have only recently installed machines which may have cost several hundreds of pounds to continue for a short period to use them without limitation of prizes and, therefore, to recoup their heavy capital outlay.

The operative date of 31st October next year was chosen because the genuine amusement place's business is naturally heaviest during the summer holiday season, and by giving them until the end of October next year we are providing for the whole of the 1965 holiday season to be covered. After that date, the 5s. limit will apply. People who install machines from now on will do so in the full knowledge of that fact and on an assessment of the amount of profit which the machines are likely to bring with the reduced incentive to play them.

I should also point out that Clause 2(2) is now to be brought into operation immediately on the Bill's passage and not, as the Bill originally provided, six months thereafter. This is the Clause which empowers local authorities, when granting or renewing permits for premises other than amusement places, to limit the amusement or number of machines to be provided. We see no good reason why there should be any delay in the operation of that provision. If a local authority decides to limit the number of machines which an establishment may have, it can do so only on the first application for a permit when the machines have yet to be installed and no financial loss can be incurred, or on the renewal of the permit when the proprietor or the establishment or other person concerned will have had at least three years' use of any of the machines which may be rendered redundant during which time he can reasonably be expected to have recovered the capital outlay. To bring this provision into operation at once could not, therefore, be considered inequitable, and if local authorities are to be given these powers of control the sooner they are enabled to assume them the better.

The second main object of the Bill is to strengthen the local authorities' discretion in the grant of permits for amusement machines to establishments which are not genuine amusement places within the definition given in Clause 2(5). From the correspondence which we have received, it seems that there is a fairly widespread misconception that the Bill will absolutely prohibit amusement machines being installed in such premises as cafés and public houses and, by so doing, will go well beyond the intentions of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, in which the provisions on amusements with prizes were first contained.

But this is not so; this is a mistake. It was never Parliament's intention that amusement machines should be widely installed except in such places as arcades and funfairs, but there was nothing in the 1960 Act, and there is nothing in the Bill, which precludes local authorities altogether from granting permits to public houses or, indeed, to any other premises as they think fit.

The Bill gives the authorities a truly effective discretion to decide whether the machines shall be installed in such premises or not, and, if they agree that they may be to decide, if they wish, how many machines there should be and of what types. I think that it is probable that many authorities will want to make use of this discretion to confine the use of the machines to genuine amusement places, but the decision will be theirs. That is the intention.

In the Government's view, that is entirely as it should be, because it is a matter for the judgment of those who best know the local needs and local circumstances and who can take the sense of local opinion.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not the local authority has power to limit the days and hours when amusement machines are made available?

Not under the Bill. There is, however, other legislation governing opening and closing hours. The Bill does not touch that aspect.

I hope that I have explained sufficiently clearly the scope and content of the Bill as it stands before the House after amendment. It has always had the Government's support, and it is still more welcome to the Government in its amended form. I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out from beginning to "shall" in line 12 and to insert:

"(1) Any order under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1946".

I think that it would be convenient to discuss my other Amendment at the same time, in line 16.

If that is convenient to the House.

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.

The Amendments have a very simple intent. They tidy up the drafting of the Bill and have some consequential effects. Ever since the New Towns Act, 1946, it has been the practice of the Ministry of Housing to make designation orders by Statutory Instrument. The first Amendment merely ensures that that practice will continue whether the orders relate to new towns or to large or small extensions. It also leaves out what was included previously in the Bill, namely, a reference to Section 19 of the New Towns Act, 1946. That Section merely defines the powers contained in Section 1, and since the orders are made under the powers contained in Section 1, there is no need to refer to Section 19 in this Bill.

The second Amendment provides some neater drafting, for which I am indebted to the usual sources, and defines more clearly what extensions are covered in the Bill and what are not. In particular, it makes clear that the definition of size refers to the size of all extensions within a particular order. There might be extensions in different quarters of the compass; which are all contained in the same order.

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

I want to take this opportunity of thanking my right hon. and hon. Friends on the back benches, and hon. Members opposite, who have co-operated in securing the passage of the Bill. I also wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and their Department for all the help that I have received from them, and also the Clerks in the Public Bill Office.

The procedure contained in the Bill, which makes designation orders for new towns and major extensions subject to annulment by either House of Parliament, will not, in practice, have any delaying effect on the designation of new towns and, after their designation, getting them going. That is because, as I explained on another occasion, the first procedures which have to be taken—appointing the Chairman of the corporation and its members—can continue during the 40 Parliamentary days while the order is subject to a Prayer.

In practice, what we are doing will not hold up any development. But the Bill will make the Minister—who, in respect of a new town, is the initiator, financier, planner, developer, decider and, indeed, the final judge on appeal—directly accountable to both Houses of Parliament for the decisions he makes on designation orders. The Bill will, therefore, enable Parliament to do what I am certain the public regards as its proper job in respect of new town designation orders.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after "given" to insert:

(a).

It might be convenient for the House if, at the same time, we consider the following Amendment, in line 14.

If that is convenient to the House.

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.

During our consideration of the Bill in Committee a number of Amendments were made, and a number of the powers conferred upon local authorities by what is now Clause 1 were extended to district councils. The Bill empowers the Secretary of State for Scotland to give general consents to certain types of work in anticipation. It would be appropriate if the Secretary of State were given powers to vary these general consents for different types of local authority, and the two Amendments have that purpose.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 1. to leave out subsection (4).

The subsection which it is proposed to leave out gave local authorities various powers for the management of property. In Committee, a new Clause was added to the Bill which gave local authorities rather wider powers of management, and that has rendered the subsection redundant.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, after "countryside" to insert (i).

I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to consider with this Amendment those in lines 23, 24, 39 and 42.

If the House so pleases.

These Amendments are in fulfilment of a number of undertakings which I gave to the Standing Committee to introduce various powers for local authorities which were suggested by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I think that they will improve the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out line 40.

I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to consider with this Amendment those in page 3, line 17, in page 4, line 15, in page 5, line 2, in page 10, line 34, and in page 11, line 24.

If the House so pleases.

The purpose of these Amendments is to give effect to suggestions made in Committee about the local authorities on whom the Bill was to confer powers. The first purpose is to add the combined county councils of Moray and Nairn and Perth and Kinross to the authorities having power under the Bill. This is a drafting provision, because when the Bill was originally drafted it was not observed that these were combined county councils and so not covered by the original drafting. This is particularly required for the financial provisions of the Bill.

The second purpose is to reflect the splitting of the Bill into three separate parts. That was not done in the original drafting, but it was found very convenient to do that after certain new Clauses had been added. I understand that the splitting of the Bill does not entail any Amendment, but is done simply by printing. However, it will greatly convenience local authorities administering the Bill.

It is proposed to leave out a number of references to district councils as such. The reason is that it has been found convenient to introduce district councils as local authorities in respect of certain parts of the Bill. The only substantive effect of all this will be to include district councils; as local authorities for the purposes of the Bill under what is now Clause 1. These provisions have been widely welcomed by local authorities generally throughout Scotland.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, after "power", to insert (a).

I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to consider with this Amendment that in page 3, line 16.

If the House so pleases.

These Amendments are the result of suggestions made by various hon. Members at the thirteenth meeting of the Committee. The purpose is to make it clear that when an authority carries out work, or provides facilities, on land belonging to someone else, it has power to make an agreement with the owner of the land in question. In Committee, doubts were expressed about whether a local authority had that power under the Bill as drafted.

The Amendments also provide, in accordance with an undertaking which I gave in Committee, that these terms would include, where appropriate, provisions for securing public access to the land concerned and for safeguarding the interests of the public and local authorities in future under any such agreement. The safeguards are made secure against any less well intentioned landlord in future by a provision that any such agreement may be recorded in the appropriate register of seizins, which has the effect of making any such agreement enforceable against the heirs or successors of any landlord.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out second "derelict" and to insert "vessels or".

Clause 4 gives power to remove litter of various sorts from parts of an area of a local authority. In Committee, it was suggested that a great deal of trouble was caused by people leaving derelict boats lying about in lakes and waterways and so on. The Amendment gives local authorities power to remove derelict vessels.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, after "let", to insert:

"or agreed to sell, feu or let".

I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss together with this Amendment the Amendments in page 6, lines 31 and 35.

If the House so pleases.

In Committee, a considerable amount of criticism was directed to what is now Clause 8. It was suggested that the drafting was rather clumsy, that Clause 8 was not strictly necessary, and that the same effect could very conveniently be achieved by combining what is now Clause 8 with what is now Clause 7. These three Amendments are designed to give effect to that.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out subsection (5) and to insert:

(5) An advance made under this section shall be repayable within a period not exceeding 30 years and either by instalments of principle or by an annuity of principal and interest combined.

The Bill as originally drafted laid down very lengthy rules about the making of advances by local authorities. This matter was discussed at great length in Committee. The Committee came to the conclusion that a great many of the instructions were not necessary, as local authorities, being responsible bodies, could be trusted and relied upon to insert proper conditions for regulating advances made by them. It was suggested to me that I might consider the wording of the subsection between the Committee and Report stages.

That I have now done, and I propose the words set forth on the Notice Paper as being very much shorter, more succinct and quite sufficient for the purpose.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, to leave out from "of" to the end of line 20 and to insert:

"the principal of loans (but not any payment of interest of loans)".

This is an Amendment which I undertook in Committee that I would make on Report to put it beyond any doubt that a capital fund built up by a local authority might be used to provide money for the repayment of the principal of loans but should not be used properly for the payment of interest on loans.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, after "paid" to insert "in any year".

I think that it would be convenient to consider together with this Amendment the Amendment in line 6.

If the House so pleases.

In Committee, a considerable amount of discussion took place about the amount which a local authority might set apart in any one year towards its capital fund. There seemed to be a certain amount of ambiguity in the original drafting. These drafting Amendments put the matter beyond any shadow of doubt.

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

The Bill, which is a very lengthy one, contains a number of very miscellaneous provisions giving new powers to local authorities, particularly to smaller local authorities. It makes some very useful provisions for the finance of local authorities, and generally speaking meets a number of wishes expressed by local authorities over recent years.

The Bill caused a great deal of work in the Scottish Standing Committee. The Committee met on no fewer than thirteen occasions. As a result of the Committee's deliberations, the Bill is now in a vastly different form from that in which it last left the House. It has, I believe, been greatly improved by the labours of hon. Members on both sides, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude.

I should like to express my gratitude to the Chairman of the Committee, who was very patient and tolerant and helped us a great deal with his wisdom. I should also like to express my gratitude to the officials, who helped us during the Committee stage. I have no hesitation in saying that the Bill will be greatly welcomed by local authorities in Scotland, of whatever nature, and I commend it to the House.

It may seem strange that I should wish to speak at this stage and, in particular, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) for the extensive amount of hard work he has put in on this Measure. It is equally true that I could scarcely be said to have been one of my hon. Friend's main supporters, for I have throughout been a strong critic of the Bill.

The fact that certain of my fears have been allayed during the lengthy and prolonged discussions in Committee is evidence that I should wish to comment on it now and, particularly, to remark on the first part of the Bill, which seeks to do great good. The provisions in Part I will undoubtedly bring great satisfaction to many people in Scotland, especially those who do so much hard and valuable work on district councils. It will also increase the powers available to these councils, which is something which will be universally welcomed and which, I am sure, the district councils will use with both discretion and an awareness of the need to advance their areas. This applies particularly to Clauses 2 and 3.

It would be unwise of me to go further in my comment and to discuss the financial provisions of the Bill, because it is here that I have had the greatest difference of opinion with my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, considering the scattered and sparcely populated areas of Scotland, I am sure that the Bill will make a considerable contribution. As the Measure makes clear, we are increasingly dependent on trade brought by tourists. The Bill is designed to make amenities more attractive to them and I know that the enthusiasm of councils in wishing to make these improvements will be aided by the Bill and I also know that they will not lose time in implementing its provisions.

If I have certain reservations about the second and third parts of the Measure, and the financial provisions, I am sure that the Bill goes some way towards providing us with the sort of legislation which is increasingly necessary nowadays; to provide local authorities, district councils in particular, with power to improve the amenities of the countryside.

Before we complete our discussion of the Bill I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) on having introduced it and for having so ably piloted it through the House.

As has been said, the Bill contains some useful provisions, which will be generally welcomed by local authorities in Scotland. My hon. Friend has taken immense trouble to meet many of the points made in Committee and I am sure that all hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies are grateful to him for his labours.

The purpose of the Clause, as I understand it, is to extend the type of premises and employment which are listed in Section 7(1) of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, in which the conditions of employment laid down in Part 1 of that Act shall apply. As I understand this Clause of the Bill, it extends the provisions of Part I of the 1938 Act to premises which have what are described as "special hours" certificates for the sale of intoxicating liquor. I understand that the intention is to deal with a problem which has been constantly in the public eye during the past 12 or 18 months, the question of the employment of young girls under 18 years of age often in jobs which all of us would agree are undesirable and something which young people should not be doing. I gather that it is intended to deal with the problem raised by the employment of dance hostesses in premises which have special hours certificates. One assumes, therefore, that the effect of the Clause would apply most of all to the West End of London and the clubs in the London area.

I say at once that any Measure designed to deal with this kind of problem and the sort of undesirable elements which we have in our society today receives my unhesitating support. Nevertheless, I have several reservations about this Clause, which, of course, is the important Clause of the Bill.

First, will the Clause fully do the job for which it is intended? I can claim no intimate knowledge of the world of London night-clubs and clip joints, and I imagine that some of the events of the past 18 months would make any hon. Member wish to have no close knowledge of such places, but I have in mind certain points which give rise to questions which I must put to the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) and the Government. Is it not possible that there are premises in London and, perhaps, elsewhere where girls under 18 years of age are employed as dance hostesses or as hostesses for seamy purposes although the premises at which they work, or outside which they work, are not subject to a special hours certificate? If this is so, would it be possible at a later stage of the Bill to examine the question again? This Bill is limited in scope, but it should be possible to deal a little further with the employment and use of young girls in the kind of premises which the London evening newspapers are now describing as clip joints and which, I understand, have no licence for the sale of liquor.

My second question is whether in some of these undesirable premises—not all the premises we are considering are undesirable, though I believe that a good many of them are and should be firmly subject to this kind of Measure—the young girls who are being used or employed as hostesses or dance hostesses are, in fact, employed according to the strict letter of the law at all. I imagine that, immediately a Bill of this kind is passed; some of the sharp operators running such premises will immediately look for loopholes. We should press the hon. Lady and the Government to consider whether there are any loopholes and, if there are, what can be done to close them at a later stage of the Bill.

Sometimes, these girls who are used as hostesses, and who are sometimes, at best, on the verge of prostitution, are said not to be employed at all, it being argued that they are members of the clubs into which they go. The Bill cannot deal with the broad question of the entry of young people under 18 years of age into clubs and the whole range of premises subject to special hours certificates, but what we can do in this context is to apply the term "employment" sufficiently broadly so that, when these matters come before the courts, as one supposes they will, the proprietors of such premises will be caught by the law although they may not be paying wages to the girls.

I was particularly struck by the fact that Section 9(4) of the 1938 Act, which was passed for quite different purposes, provides that:

"For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a young person shall be deemed to be employed by the person for whom he works, notwithstanding that he receives no wages for his work."

I should be glad if the Joint Under-Secretary of State would say something about this and advise the Committee whether the loophole to which I have referred can be closed at a later stage. It would be well worth doing so.

In general, I applaud the purpose of the Bill and I think that the hon. Lady is to be congratulated and thanked for having brought it forward. My first reservation, as I have explained, is that I feel that it will not produce the full results that she wants. My second reservation concerns people in an occupation in which I worked before I came to the House. What about young musicians, those whom we now call the "groups", the "pop" and "beat" groups, and other entertainers? How will the Clause as it stands affect them?

The first point to observe is that, although a relatively small number of people in this category would be affected at this time, the number of special hours certificates is growing and one now finds them applied to premises not only in London but also in the Provinces, in the North and, perhaps, in Scotland as well. I think I am right in saying that the number of premises of this kind is tending to grow. Although only a relatively small number of young musicians and entertainers are likely to be affected by the Bill, I am sure that the Committee will not think it right to allow their interests to be adversely affected merely because their number is small.

In a conventional dance band, for instance, there might be a young man of 16½ or 17 who was a particularly able musician. We have a crying need in this country today for people who can go to the top of the musical profession. We shall need them in the future if we are to maintain standards of the kind set nowadays by the B.B.C. orchestras and the major orchestras, dance orchestras, light orchestras and symphony orchestras.

We should look very carefully at the Bill to see that we do nothing to hinder the careers and progress of the bright young musicians who are good enough to go into first-class clubs or restaurants with licences of this type to gain experience and do the kind of job for which they are equipped and capable.

In other parts of the entertainment industry in the post-war period there has been a marked decline of employment opportunities. We are discussing this at a time when a number of variety theatres—30 in the London area since the war-have been closed and when employment opportunities for musicians on many instruments are also declining in dance-halls. I would not, therefore, like to see legitimate avenues of employment closed to them.

This is also a time when young entertainers and musicians are achieving fame at an extremely early age. The very popular young pop singer, Helen Shapiro, springs to mind. She was singing professionally at the age of 14, and I suppose that the mass market for entertainment means that we can also expect to see some pop groups seeking employment in the type of premises we are dealing with. One has only to see the average age of people playing in this kind of group to realise how the average age of entertainers has gone down.

That is my first reservation regarding the effect of this Clause on musicians and entertainers. I want also to ask about the position in residential hotels, clubs and places of public entertainment under Section 7(1) of the 1938 Act. We are told that the Bill seeks to extend Part I of the 1938 Act. Section 7(1,c) says:

"employment at a residential hotel or club in carrying messages or running errands, or in connection with the reception of guests or members thereat;"

Subsection (1,e) is the provision:

"employment at a place of public entertainment or amusement … in carrying messages or running errands, or in the reception of or attendance upon persons resorting thereto; "

If I am wrong perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary of State will tell me, but, from my reading of the 1938 Act, it appears that young musicians and entertainers under 18 in residential hotels, clubs and places of public entertainment are specifically omitted from the terms of Section 7(1) of the 1938 Act. If that is the case, perhaps the hon. Lady and the Joint Under-Secretary of State will consider whether, at a later stage, there is not a way round the difficulties. We should deal with these places with special hours certificates and make provisions reflecting the employment of young people

"in carrying messages or runnning errands or in connection with the reception of guests or members thereat; "

The difficulties regarding restrictions on entertainment by young musicians and entertainers could perhaps be got over by adding a provision at a later stage.

If the Clause reaches the Statute Book as it is, we shall create a rather anomalous situation. Under Section 37(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, a child—I believe that that is someone aged 16 or under—can take part in a performance, including a performance in licensed premises, provided that he has a licence from the local authority and that the local authority is satisfied that his welfare is not being neglected and subject to restrictions and conditions made by the Secretary of State.

In Section 9 of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, the term "young person" does not include children regulated by Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. It therefore seems that, if this proposed new Clause were accepted, we should be in the position in which a child who came under the terms of the Children and Young Persons Act would be able to obtain a licence to perform or play in this type of premises, whereas once he became more than 16 years old, and until he became 18 years old, he would not be able to perform or play. I would be glad if the hon. Lady and the Joint Under-Secretary of State would consider that point.

1.45 p.m.

It also appears from Section 7(1) and (2,a) of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, that we are concerned only with people wholly or mainly in this type of employment. Section 7(1) says:

"Except as provided by subsection (3) of this section, this Part of this Act shall apply to a young person employed by an employer in any of the following employments, where his employment by that employer is wholly or mainly in that employment or in two or more of those employments taken together.…"

Similarly, subsection (2) says that we are dealing with people wholly or mainly employed in this kind of occupation. There seems to be perhaps a third anomaly here. Whereas people who are employed full time as musicians or entertainers would not be able to work in this kind of premises, it would appear that people who might be doing this kind of work semi-professionally would be able to do so.

I would appreciate an answer to these questions, which raise serious doubts on the way in which this Clause would operate. I want to see as many loopholes as possible plugged in order to prevent the exploitation of young girls in places of dubious reputation I am also particularly concerned with the situation in the music and entertainment industry. I therefore press the hon. Lady and the Government to see what they can do about the situation.

I have made one suggestion regarding the existing phraseology of Section 7(1) of the 1938 Act, and I also ask the hon. Lady and the Government to consult the local authorities, before the Bill goes through another place, to see whether it would be practicable—I do not see why it should not be—for the local authorities to license people under 18 on the lines of the licensing system laid down in the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, or make specific exemptions for performances or premises.

Although I do not oppose the Clause, because on the whole I applaud its underlying purpose, the hon. Lady may not have foreseen one effect. It is affecting the entertainment and music industry in which the hours of work are unusual. It is not a matter of a young person beginning work early in the morning or in the afternoon. Often employment in this work does not start until the evening or even quite late at night. I know that this was not the intention of the Bill and I will not oppose the Clause at this stage, but I must strongly request the hon. Lady and the Government to consider the situation of musicians and entertainers. If I can have an undertaking of that kind, I shall be satisfied.

I support what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) has said on the two grounds on which he has commented on the Clause. For some years I have tried to achieve a similar objective, but without success, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) on her initiative in proceeding with the Bill, although we ought to be aware that it fails abysmally to deal with the main area of discontent. We must regret the fact that we are dealing only with those premises blessed with a special hours certificate. This is limited, and by no means all the unsavoury circumstances are to be found within the walls of such places.

We must also realise that we are dealing with this sort of unpleasantness only in respect of young persons between the ages of 16 and 18. The unsavouriness which applies to girls of 18½ and upwards continues. My anxiety, as the anxiety of the hon. Member for Rotherham, is that the Clause as drafted would enable this conduct to go on, even with girls between the ages of 16 and 18, because of the definition of what constitutes employment.

I know that the 1938 legislation, which the Clause amends, gives a fairly wide definition of employment, saying that if a person is employed without pay, he shall be deemed to be employed if other circumstances warrant it. But it is quite possible for the unscrupulous individual—and here we are dealing only with unscrupulous persons—so to arrange matters that under the terms of the Bill the hostess between 16 and 18 who is not in fact employed can continue in precisely the circumstances which now obtain.

I do not say this in any churlish spirit, because I appreciate that this is the most difficult of all spheres in which to legislate and to pin down the unscrupulous individual without harming legitimate interests. This is one of the most arduous forms of legislative work. However, I hope that before the Bill proceeds my hon. Friend and the Joint Under-Secretary will consider the possibility of getting a definition of employment which would prevent the situation in which people are employed without payment.

May I emphasise why I want the present situation to be altered? Dance hostesses may or may not be a necessity to civilised existence. I have no time for them myself, but there are others who do not share my view. It is possible to have a hostess system properly conducted so that it gives rise to little abuse and little offence, but the worst possible condition in which these girls can work is when they are not paid for what they do.

The effect of non-payment, to which the Bill may well drive many operators, is manifold. First, if one does not pay a girl, one is not very interested in the process of selection. Anybody will do if without expense she can pick up a few pounds for herself and the house, even though this brings in the sort of people who may not really be wanted.

Secondly, there is the question of control. If one does not pay a person, then the element of control exercised by the management, even assuming that the management wants to exercise control, is obviously limited. If one is paying a person a wage, one tries to see that he behaves properly and does the job properly, but if no payment is made, it is extremely difficult for the management to exercise any sort of control over the individual.

It also means, as one sees in these places, that very many girls are employed, a much greater number than would be employed in any one room or club if the proprietor had to pay them. This creates unseemly competition and unseemly appearance.

I therefore urge my hon. Friend and the Joint Under-Secretary to consider the necessity of strengthening the definition of employment so that even the most assiduous member of the fraternity which is very good at getting round the law cannot get these girls on its premises and not pay them, thus employing them in a way which would get round the Bill.

I should like the situation to be brought about in which the employment of girls of any age in this capacity could not take place without payment. The great mass of unsavoury conditions is not in respect of girls between 16 and 18, but in respect of girls over that age. Let us appreciate that the Clause does very little to deal with the situation to which so many of us object.

My second ground for anxiety is the extent to which the Clause will interfere with the legitimate aspirations of those engaged in the entertainments industry. In a sense, it is unfortunate that the Bill should have been introduced without prior consultation with those engaged. The sponsor of a Bill, or the Department concerned, has an obligation when a Bill affects the livelihoods of individuals to get in touch with those who will be affected. It is not right to introduce Bills which frustrate a man's aspirations without at least giving him a reasonable chance to discuss it in advance.

The Bill cuts across the interests of a number of people in the entertainments business in a manner which cannot be entirely justified by what the Bill will achieve. Let me take the example of musicians, about whom the hon. Member for Rotherham knows much more than I do. I cannot blow a note, but I understand that he is an accomplished performer. I am told that between 3,000 and 4,000 members of the Musicians' Union are under the age of 18 and that an increasing number are applying for membership of the union who are not much more than 14.

2.0 p.m.

Younger and younger people are becoming musicians, because at the moment there is a tremendous demand for a certain type of music which makes little appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham and none to me, but which is very popular among many sections of the community. Many of these young fellows will find it difficult to get jobs in those areas of employment where the conditions are more ordinary.

If someone is seeking to get his foot into the door of the entertainment world, he cannot always do it in the most ideal circumstances. He has to work late at night. He cannot find the right job on his doorstep. He has to travel 200 or 300 miles to get a job.

I think that it would help the hon. Gentleman's argument if I pointed out that the unions concerned, such as the Musicians' Union, regulate the hours of employment, intervals, and terms of employment very carefully. Most of these people, and in London all of them, are members of a union.

They have to be, and from what I hear the Musicians' Union regulates the conditions of employment too closely for most people, other than perhaps its own members. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman makes a sound point when he says that the control exercised by the Musicians' Union is so rigid that undesirable employment of these young persons is almost impossible. I think that the break periods and the conditions enforced by the Musicians' Union ensure that musicians have reasonable conditions of employment.

These young aspiring musicians, and, for that matter, variety artistes, have to take advantage of whatever opportunities occur to them to get themselves on the way to being recognised and earning bigger money. During the last few years I have personally obtained jobs in clubs for young artistes who have established themselves in those jobs, and two of them are now earning big money in the United States. Without opportunities like that, these young people would never be able to get anywhere, because there are practically no theatres and variety halls left in this country.

I urge my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport to have some regard to the interests of these young men and women, because, as the hon. Member for Rotherham rightly said, we now have the anomalous position that, under the exemption provided, a young person of 14 can take part in entertainment, while a young person between the ages of 16 and 18 cannot do so.

That objection applies not only to musicians, but to dancers. If a girl wants to become a dancer today, the field in which she can earn a living is extremely small if we rule out clubs. The variety stage has ceased to exist. It is true that there are some opportunities for employment with I.T.V. and with the B.B.C. and that in the summer they can perhaps get a job at a seaside resort, but few girls get such employment. When it comes to regular, all-the year-round employment, for a young girl who wants to be a dancer the opportunities are very few indeed, and by the Bill we shall reduce them still further.

I know that the intention behind the Bill is a good one, but is it right to put obstacles in the way of people who are artistes and who have to prove themselves? This is not employment in the sense that we know. We go into a place and we start performing a job which we have been told to do. These young people have to prove their ability in an artistic sphere, yet they are to be denied the opportunity of expressing themselves artistically. That is what we are doing here by preventing them from being employed in these places, and I do not regard that as wholly reasonable.

I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the matter to see whether some exemption procedure can be introduced between now and another stage. I should not like to see—and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not either—young persons employed in circumstances or in premises where the conditions are wholly unsatisfactory, but this applies equally to the employment of young persons of 14 in entertainment, and we have overcome that difficulty. It does not seem to me to be beyond the wit of the Parliamentary draftsmen, and the resources of my resourceful hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, to devise a similar form of exemption which, while not frustrating the legitimate aspirations of those who wish to establish themselves in the artistic profession, will safeguard the interests, and the moral interests, of these boys and girls.

I have to begin by saying something which I very much dislike saying. I think that the problems raised by the Bill are beyond the resources of a private Member trying to get legislation through the House. I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) will not think that I am saying anything discouraging about her, because I know that she has had a notable series of successes in dealing with Private Members' legislation on social issues.

It was clear from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley)—and I congratulate him on the detailed knowledge he showed of the subject and of the various Acts of Parliament which impinge on the matters raised here—that this is a highly complicated business. If we want to do what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) wants to do, it can only be done by the Bill being taken over by the Government, or by the Government introducing a Bill to deal with all the complications that arise in this matter.

I rise to put two points to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State. I have listened very carefully to what has been said. The two points on which I should like my hon. Friend to enlarge are the question of exemptions and the definition of employment.

Will the Bill improve the conditions of employment of young people without unduly limiting their scope? Also, will the Bill fit any future legislation which the Government may have in mind? If so, I hope that the Committee will accept the Clause.

I am very honoured that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) should have taken an interest in this Bill, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) for the interest which they have taken in it, not only today but previously. I also thank my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for receiving a deputation to discuss this Bill.

The Bill was proposed under the Ten Minute Rule procedure on 13th May. It received a Second Reading on the nod on 6th June. We have, therefore, had considerable time to consider this matter. It was only in the last week that the important points which have been raised today were brought to light. I have certain sympathy with the point that Helen Shapiro could have been licensed under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, had she been of a certain age at that time and not those aged 16–18. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will say something on this point on behalf of the Government.

2.15 p.m.

Our object is to keep as many of these young people as possible out of the types of clubs and night clubs which we are discussing. It is not just dance hostesses about whom I am worried. I am also worried about young boys. We know that homosexuality starts in these types of clubs and that this is where people pick up young boys. The Bill is not purely a feminine Measure for dance hostesses; it is a Bill to protect young people generally.

I was encouraged by what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said. He pointed out that the Bill did not go far enough and that the age was too young. We have had to deal with the matter under the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938. We may be able to do as Germany has done, namely, to make the age 21. The Germans found the Measure so successful with the age 18 years that they have raised the age to 21. Having followed the experiment in Germany, which has been very successful, I have been trying for over a year to get a similar Measure introduced here.

I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham that we do not want to stop any young people earning their living. I was, however, depressed when my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said that people coming into this type of work were getting younger and younger. We need to protect the very young from entering these kinds of clubs, which are not desirable places for them. The hon. Member for Rotherham was quite right when he said that this problem arises mostly in the London area, London is a magnet for many young people. However we must protect minorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said that only a small number of the several thousands who were engaged in this sort of work went into these types of clubs. I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham that we should plug all the loopholes, and I hope that the plea made today will not fail. However, it seems to me fairly logical that we should be able to license people up to the age of 16, but, as the Bill stands, we cannot do so from 16–18 years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle raised the problem of dance hostesses. I gather that he would like to know whether dance hostesses under the age of 18 are covered by the Bill. I think that every case has to be judged on its merits. A relationship between a hostess and a night club proprietor could be shown to be one of employment even if she were not paid. If she went to the club night after night, obviously she is getting some form of retainer even if the proprietor is not paying her directly. If she is not paid wages or has no form of agreement, it would be possible to prove that she was a dance hostess on his premises and, therefore, she could be stopped working there. I realise that it might be difficult to define this matter, but if the House gives leave for the Bill to go forward it would be for the courts to decide whether a person was employed or not. Should Members have difficulty in doing this, we can perhaps make a further Amendment to the law later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clap-ham (Dr. Alan Glyn) asked about exemptions. There are certain exemptions, for instance, under Section 63(1) of the Licensing Act, 1964, regarding drinking-up time and under subsection (2) and (3) of the same Section relating to residents and their bona fide guests. There ' are also exemptions in respect of entertainment and sales on special occasions at functions in licensed premises, covered by a special order of exemption, particularly during holidays and festivals. This comes under Section 74(4) of the Licensing Act, 1964. Another exemption is in respect of sales at functions on premises not otherwise licensed except under Section 151 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1962, and also functions in canteens and messes.

One point which I did not mention when I was introducing the Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule procedure concerns licensed premises within the examination stations of international airports covered by an order of the Minister of Aviation under Section 87 of the Licensing Act. Everywhere people cannot be employed for more than five hours without an interval of at last half an hour for a meal or rest or a lunch break of 45 minutes.

That was not the point that I was making. I know that both under Part I of the 1938 Act and under the Bill there is a condition that, for example, if a person works for a certain number of hours he must have an interval. If, for example, a professional singer was doing a full-time job singing he would come under the terms of Part I of the 1938 Act, whereas someone who was not wholly or mainly employed in that capacity and who might be working in a shop or office during the day and was only doing entertainment work as a part-time job would not come under the Act.

Not later than 11 o'clock in the evening. They are tied by time and they cannot work between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Surely under Section 7(1) and (2) of the 1938 Act we are apparently dealing with people who are wholly or mainly in that type of employment. If they are not wholly or mainly in that type of employment and are doing something else during the day, then, surely, according to Section 7 of the 1938 Act, of which this Clause is an extension, such people working part-time in this kind of occupation would not come under the terms of the 1938 Act or this Bill.

As I understand it, paragraphs (a) to (h) of Section 7(1) of the 1938 Act specify eight different kinds of operations which are covered by the Act. I am trying to cover the rest in my Bill, and that is one of the objects of this Clause.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady again. I know that the intention of the Clause is to add to the number of places of employment and types of employment listed under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), etc. of Section 7(1) of the 1938 Act. The point I am making is that, as I see it, already in these types of premises and these types of occupations as laid down in the 1938 Act we are only concerned if the young people are wholly or mainly following that employment. If they are only in the type of employment listed here, and for the sake of our argument this morning, in, say, the entertainment or musical profession, then only if they are wholly or mainly employed will they be affected by the 1938 Act or by this Bill. If they are working part-time they will not be affected, and that is another anomaly.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Perhaps when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will clear up that point.

The question of night clubs may be a little difficult, but I gather that we are concerned in the Bill with places that sell liquor at a late hour. That is what we are particularly interested in. The new Clause refers only in this respect to England and Wales and not to Scotland, because Scotland is not affected. Evidently the Scots are much better behaved than we are. Also there is the matter of the register of clubs approved by magistrates, and such clubs, which are licensed premises, have a supper certificate which extends the general licence for one hour.

A point raised previously in Committee by ray hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) was with reference to commis waiters. I gather that they are covered under another Act. I hope that I have answered the main point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the others.

I had intended only to speak on Third Reading, but as I think that a great deal of what I would have to say may be out of order on Third Reading, I will say it on the Committee stage where I know that it will be in order.

I rise to support the hon. Lady's Bill. I think that as far as it goes it is a very excellent Bill, but it shows, perhaps, one of the weaknesses of the procedure of this House. When we get a ten-minute Bill it comes back in rather a hurry on to the Floor of the House. I say that because this is the last private Members' Friday this Session. I think that the Bill ought to have been considered more fully upstairs in Committee where suitable Amendments to it could have been put down. This, however, is no reason for rejecting it. It may be that later there will be an opportunity to introduce an amending or fresh Bill. But that is only a criticism of the procedure of the House and not of the Bill as a whole.

The point to which I listened with interest when the two hon. Members were discussing the question of employment was the weakness of the Bill. Employment has a definite legal meaning. An employer is one thing and an independent contractor another. A person who is permitted on premises though not in employment in them is another matter altogether. The Bill uses the word "employment".

I am afraid that I am ignorant of what goes on in night clubs and in what are called "clip joints", a matter which was dealt with a day or two ago in another Bill which was before the House. If it be that dance hostesses are in these establishments—and they are the sort of people to get out of these premises at a young age—it may be that they are there not for employment but because the manager thinks that they will attract more custom.

It is not only that. They can, of course, be members of these clubs. This, of course, makes their position more impregnable from the point of view of the law.

Could the owner of the club be successfully prosecuted if he failed to stamp their cards? If a club owner were told, "You have to stamp the card", he has a defence to it by saying, "The girl is not an employee". Of course, I cannot anticipate what may happen in a particular case or circumstance, but I think it is very doubtful whether a prosecution would succeed against the owner on the grounds that he failed to stamp the card of this type of employee.

Then, again, I think that the hon. Member mentioned the matter of the singer. He or she goes to a club, presumably, to sing and is paid a fee. It is a temporary arrangement. If someone is employed in this capacity to sing in a hotel for an afternoon or evening and the hotel is told that it ought to stamp his card, it would be very surprised and could rightly say, "That type of person is not an employee at all".

This is rather a difficult subject, but I think the hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension. As I understand the position, already under the National Insurance Regulations a person who might be contracted by or work for a number of persons in the week should see that the first employer in the week has the liability to stamp his card.

He has to be an employee, of course, and a singer who may contract with four or five different clubs or hotels to sing at so much an evening is not an employee. Therefore, no one has the responsibility to stamp his card. I quite appreciate that the first employer in the week is responsible for seeing that the card is stamped, but he has an answer in saying, "I am not an employer at all". If a young person were to sing in a night club for, say, 5 guineas an evening and the night-club proprietor was told that he had failed to stamp the card, the first employer could say, "I did not employ this person. I had a written contract with him to sing for so much an hour". He is not an employer but an independent contractor. Indeed, in such circumstances, I should be happy to defend anyone who was prosecuted for not stamping the card.

2.30 p.m.

Again, we have to look carefully at the other question, namely, the case of a person employed on premises where liquor is sold at particular hours. Not all places where intoxicating liquor is sold are undesirable or in any way traps for the unwary. I will not mention any names, but many cater for respectability. If some young person is employed to assist in the cloakroom at such premises after hours and is told that in another part of these same premises someone is drinking a bottle of champagne it will be hard on the employer if he should be prosecuted for mistaking the age of the young person. We shall have to see how the provisions work out in practice.

London acts as a magnet for people from other parts of the country and from other parts of the world. People come south from the north of England believing that they will make their fortune in London overnight. If they are industrious, there is ample suitable employment available for them, but sometimes they are easily led astray and they drift to a low type of establishment where they see and hear things which they ought not to see and hear. Probably suggestions are made to them which ought not to be made.

If this Bill goes any way to preventing such things it is one that hon. Members should support. I think it is the case that in the not very distant future we shall have to consider the effect of this Measure and the way in which the provisions have worked, in order to ensure that the desired effect has been obtained. I visualise difficulty in achieving the end which this Bill has been designed to achieve. I appreciate and support the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers). Her ideas are quite right. I hope that she has utilised the right sequence of words. Had we discussed this Bill in a Standing Committee, we might have gone into the matter more carefully. We did not have an opportunity, and so we must do the best we can. I think that we should support my hon. Friend, and promise her support on occasions when necessary Amendments may be made because of the weaknesses of the Bill, or failure of its application.

This has been a very important and serious debate. It has been notable among other things because of the reappearance of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on the Opposition Front Bench and we are, indeed, happy to see him there.

The debate has been memorable because of the weighty contributions from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley). If I take a little more time than is usual in a Friday afternoon Committee stage to deal with the points which have been raised, and adding to the explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), who so skilfully presented the Bill, I must plead in excuse that it is because of the very weighty considerations which have been advanced.

There are differing opinions in the House about the desirability of Parliament intervening in moral questions. I think that there is no difference of opinion about the desirability of the House taking steps to protect young people against moral danger. For that reason any Bill which has such an object in view, even if the object is a difficult and complicated one—as this was described by the right hon. Member for South Shields—will always be regarded with sympathy by the House.

I do not think that at this stage I need elaborate on the explanation of the intention of Clause 1 given so clearly by my hon. Friend. She has described the exceptions provided for in the Clause, and apart from those exceptions it is the case that all other types of premises, including registered licensed clubs where intoxicating liquor is regularly sold or supplied after 11 p.m., will be covered by the provisions in the Bill.

The effect of adding to the categories already specified in Section 7(1) of the 1938 Act all forms of employment on the premises to which the new paragraph applies, is that the employer will be unable to employ young persons under 18 for more than five hours without an interval of at least half-an-hour for a meal or a rest, or alternatively a lunch break of 45 minutes; on one weekday each week after 1 p.m.; and in each period from noon to noon for eleven consecutive hours including the period from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. I am sorry if that sounds complicated, but it is right that I should make absolutely specific what the Bill will do regarding those premises.

A number of questions were raised about the implications of this new Measure, as it impinges on other legislation and these questions were asked particularly by the hon. Member for Rotherham. I shall return later to most of them. As we are dealing particularly with Section 7(1) of the 1938 Act this may be an appropriate moment to refer to the last intervention made by the hon. Member for Rotherham during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport.

The hon. Member for Rotherham raised a very interesting point turning on the construction of the words "wholly or mainly". I followed closely the point that he was making. I will not attempt to reinterpret it in my own words. Anyone who leads the first six lines of Section 7(1) of the 1938 Act will readily see exactly what the hon. Gentleman had in mind. Those first six lines will cover the addition which my hon. Friend proposes to make to the Section as they already cover all the existing paragraphs within the Section.

My understanding of the law a" it is in relation to the existing paragraphs, and, therefore, also in relation to the new paragraph which it is now proposed to add, is that there would be something in the point made by the hon. Gentleman if it were the case that more than one job was being held with a single employer. As I understand the law, his point would not have substance were it a case of more than one job with a different employer. That is my construction of the law. No doubt the hon. Member will reflect on it when rereading the passage in question and it is not, of course, impossible to return to this matter later. I will touch on his other interesting points later.

Apart from the points of interpretation raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham, two general points of substance were raised both by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), in more or less the same form. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Rotherham has had a chance to see the Amendments which my hon. Friend put down, and which have not been called, but even if he might not support them verbally I am sure that he would agree that they are attempts to embody the points of substance which he and my hon. Friend put forward.

The suggestion behind them is that in one respect the Bill is a little too narrow and in another a little too wide. In both cases the number of people who might be affected by the widening or narrowing may be small, but I agree that the mere fact that they are few in number is not a reason for failing to take them seriously. The hon. Member for Rotherham and my hon. Friend argue that the Bill is too wide in that it opens the door for hostesses or girls who might be employed in night clubs, or, as my hon. Friend said, for boys becoming trapped in undesirable situations.

The purpose of the new Clause was, by a tighter definition of employment, to narrow that loophole, if not to close it altogether, and make it more difficult—

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he must not go too far in his reference to the new Clause which has not been selected. He can make a reference to it, but he must not discuss it.

I apologise, Sir Robert. I referred to it only because it embodied the principle that my hon. Friend was seeking to put forward in his speech. I will abstain from referring to it again.

I raised with the Under-Secretary the question whether the Government could consult local authorities before the Bill went to another place, with a view to seeing whether they could be brought within the terms of the Bill. I submit that it would be very useful if the Under-Secretary could discuss at this stage the question of local authorities and the suggestion that I made to him.

I would not quarrel with an oblique reference being made to the matter, but we cannot have a discussion of the new Clause as such.

I apologise again, Sir Robert.

I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for trying to extricate me from my difficulty, but I think that we shall be all right from now on, because I do not intend to refer to the new Clause again. 1Ishall refer only to the principle underlying the points raised by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rotherham, and the suggestion that there should be consultations to see whether something more restrictive could be added to the Bill to deal with this problem.

2.45 p.m.

There are cases of young women regularly spending time in some night clubs for the purpose chiefly of contacting clients for prostitution. I can imagine that their presence is not unwelcome to the management, because it serves to attract to the club potential clients who might be expected to spend freely while on the premises. These young persons, whether or not they are called hostesses, may not be employed in the normal sense by the management. They may even be members of the club. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle seemed to be under the impression that they could not be deemed to be employed if they were not receiving wages.

I understand that under the 1938 Act they would be regarded as being employed, irrespective of whether they were receiving wages, but that the circumstances of employment could be so arranged that they would not attract a penalty under the 1938 Act.

I am glad to know that my hon. Friend does not misunderstand the position, because I wanted to make it clear that the mere fact that a person is not receiving wages does not prevent his being deemed to be employed. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, this case is covered by Section 9(4) of the principal Act. But notwithstanding that provision, there may be cases in which it would be difficult to pin down a young person as an employee.

And to pin down anybody as an employer. It is possible for a man to organise these girls and be their employer without being the person who is employing them on the premises, or for whom they are apparently working on the premises. It is very difficult to frame a legal definition.

It is difficult to pin down who is the employee and who is the employer. We have had representations on this point, and we have studied the possibility of tightening the definition, but so far we have not been able to find an answer which would not run the risk of going too far. In a Bill which is designed to amplify an Act whose purpose is to regulate the conditions of employment as between employer and employee, it would not be right to insert a provision which, in effect, would say that self-employment, or even the mere presence of a person on premises, would be treated as though it were contractual employment, between an employer and an employee.

In practice, it may turn out that more of these cases would involve an employer-employee relationship than appears at first sight. If the courts find difficulty in applying the law in that sense, we may have to examine it again, but although the hon. Member for Rotherham urged that the Home Office should look for the loopholes in the existing law I would remind him that that is the function of the courts. It is our present impression that the law is sufficiently tightly drawn, but if cases occur in the courts which lead to a contrary impression we should certainly look at the matter again.

If we did do this, such a fresh look might very well involve, as the only possible means of producing a watertight provision, the prohibition of all persons under the age of 18 from visiting such premises. That might be the only available basis of control once we had abandoned the fairly well defined concept of employment.

Did I understand my hon. Friend's proposition to be that the responsibility to see that the law is so framed that it does what the House intends is that of the law courts and not the House itself?

I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression in what I said. No; it is for the law courts to interpret the law, and if they found that it was different from what Parliament intended when it passed the law, Parliament would have to look at the matter again.

I now turn to the other general point which was urged by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rotherham, namely, that in one respect the law is too restrictive and that we should try to relax it. Again, I will try not to commit the error of referring to an Amendment which has not been selected. The suggestion was that the Bill would operate unduly harshly in respect of persons under 18 years of age, and particularly those who are 16 or 17 years old, who are employed as entertainers, and the like.

It is said that night clubs and premises referred to in Clause 1 form one of the few remaining outlets for young entertainers to pursue and get experience of their chosen profession. There has been some reference to the fact that, under Section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, the local authority has power to license a child under 16 taking part in public performances and that this procedure might well be adapted to where a 16 or 17 year old performs after 10 p.m. in one of the places described in Clause 1.

The premises described in Clause 1 are those authorised to sell or supply intoxicating liquor after 11 p.m. under a variety of supper hour certificates, extended hour certificates and special hours certificates, or registered clubs which, being registered, are so authorised.

Looking at this particular criticism of the Bill in the relatively narrow context of the type of premises to which it is to apply, I would not regard it as absolutely established that the opportunities for young entertainers would be seriously curtained by the provisions of the Bill as they stand, because such premises as it seeks to deal with are not by any means the only outlets for such entertainment. Nevertheless, I would at the same time like to make it clear that we have in the Home Office a good deal of sympathy with the aspirations of these young people and we would understand it if the House did not wish to see unduly restrictive legislation imposed on them in this way.

Does my hon. Friend also take the point that, while these restrictions are being placed on individuals working in these establishments, they are perfectly free to work, under the terms of the Bill, in an unsatisfactory, unsavoury near-beer establishment.

I do take the point and I was in the process of making a concession in my hon. Friend's direction. However, the Bill is not concerned with near-beer establishments, but with night clubs and similar places selling intoxicating liquor. We are prepared to look sympathetically at the possibility of some kind of system providing for exemptions.

Exemptions would probably imply some system of licensing, either of the individual performer or of a certain type of performance or of the premises. Whichever form it took, it would have to be operated by the local authorities who are responsible for operating the 1938 Act. There has not yet, to the best of my knowledge, been any formal consultation with them about the contents of the Bill, although, from the approaches we have made in the last few days to the L.C.C. and the County Councils' Association, I understand that some concern has been expressed by the local authorities at the idea of being burdened with these exemption powers without any prior consultation.

I am sure that we all agree that consultation would be essential before any such new provisions for a licensing system were adopted. If my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport and other sponsors of the Bill are agreeable, it would be possible to assist in promoting discussions with the local authority associations concerned in order to obtain their views on this difficult question.

Subject to their views, of course, it would also be possible to consider in another place any Amendments which might be made to the Bill in order to ease the restrictions on the activities of entertainers in nightclubs, but naturally at this stage it is not possible for me to say whether a form of licensing would be a practical possibility. I know that the House would not construe me as making any firm commitment in that sense today. I will, however, gladly see that consultation to that end is undertaken.

I now want to deal with a number of interesting points raised in the debate. There was that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport concerning commis-waiters employed in these premises. Under Section 31(2) of the Shops Act, 1950, male persons aged 16 and 17 may be employed in connection with the serving of meals to customers up to midnight, but not afterwards. Everywhere the employer has adopted the relevant provisions of the 1950 Act as an alternative to those of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, which he is entitled to do, the exemption for commis-waiters up to midnight still applies. Therefore, in saying that they are covered by other legislation, my hon. Friend is right.

The hon. Member for Rotherham raised intricate and interesting points about the interpretation of existing law and I gladly undertake to look into them carefully. Perhaps I might have a shot at answering one or two now, subject to the reservation that I shall be studying them later. His first point concerned a specific exclusion of occupation in the entertainment industry under Section 7 (1,c) and (1,e) of the 1938 Act. It is true that the occupations therein defined do not include the entertainment industry so long as the entertainers are not employed in attendance on guests or members.

The hon. Member's second point was his suggestion that the local authorities would be able to license a performer under 16 to appear in a public performance after 10 p.m. in premises which sell liquor regularly after 11 p.m. but that, when he reached the age of 16, he perhaps could not so appear. The answer is that the hon. Member is mistaken on that point. If the Bill is passed into law, the power to license performers under 16 to appear in these circumstances will be lost. This is my understanding of the effect of the Bill.

The third point the hon. Gentleman made was concerned with the interpretation of "employment" and the distinction between "professional" and "semi-professional". I can assure the hon. Gentleman that under the law that distinction is without significance.

I shall now draw to a conclusion the necessarily rather extensive remarks I have made on the Clause by clarifying one final point. It may not be apparent from simply reading the rather intricate prose in which Statutes are phrased that the Bill does not touch at all premises in which no intoxicating liquor is sold or supplied. I alluded to this point just now in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, who referred to near-beer establishments, which are establishments which apparently purport to sell intoxicating liquor but in fact do not do so. It is a fact that there are establishments in which no liquor is sold or supplied, which evade the need for a music and dancing licence, and which are outside any form of licensing. These are not touched by the Bill.

3.0 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle thought that we should go much further. Perhaps he is right, but let us for the moment stick to what my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport is seeking to do. Establishments of that kind are a very far cry from what is commonly regarded as a night club, which it is the purpose of the Bill to deal with. With the ordinary night club, I think that hon. Members, with their wide experience, would all agree that the availability of liquor until a late hour is almost of the essence. One can be sure of that, without even setting loot in a night club. Consequently, the Bill, in defining the premises to which it is applied, is drafted by reference to licensing law, and it would be very difficult to extend its provisions to deal with premises which require no licence and which have shown themselves rather resistant to effective control in other contexts.

We shall certainly continue to keep such places in mind. In so far as remedies are required, we shall seek to devise them. I remind the House that in the past, where the conduct of such places has become outrageous, successful prosecutions have been brought under the Disorderly Houses Act. It is true that the Bill does not attempt to tackle these more far-reaching problems or to go beyond the limited but I think very constructive purpose defined by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port. That is not to say that it is not still worth doing.

I listened to what the right hon. Member for South Shields had to say with all due attention that his long experience commands, but I myself do not take so pessimistic a view of the prospects of the Bill as he does. I do not think that it will be necessary in respect of this limited Measure to adopt the suggestions he made. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to go on its way on the basis of the understanding that I have tried to outline.

This is an interesting Schedule, more interesting than illuminating, because although this admirable Bill is designed to conserve the species given in the Schedule, it is by no means clear what exactly is the identity of the various species which benefit from this conservation. I hope that it will in no way bend or stretch the frontiers of decency, if my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) were to tell us, for example, exactly what are "Testudinidae", to which reference is made at the end of the Schedule. It is not difficult to guess that a rhinoceros is indeed the animal which appears as a "Rhinocerotidae", and I imagine that a inguana comes under the heading "Iguanidae".

I hope that before the Schedule is passed into law we may be assured that we know the exact identity and extent of these animals, for is there not a risk that the House might either extend its protection to a species it would not wish to extend it to, or, alternatively, omit some species which is in great and crying need of conservation under this excellent Measure?

I notice that it is not protection which is extended to the animals mentioned in the Schedule—although I admit that, as I read the Schedule, I wondered whether they were all, in law, indeed animals. I should have thought, for example, that an iguana was a reptile, although I appreciate that the Long Title refers to the restriction of the importation of live animals of certain kinds. It is to be noticed that in Clause 2 birds are excluded, and I have not succeeded in identifying any birds in the Schedule.

I was wondering what was the characteristic which enabled my hon.

Friend to draw up the Schedule. Was it that the various animals which appear in it are becoming more and more rare, or is it that they are treated in some unkind or unnatural manner after being imported into this country?

Hon. Members will have read in the newspapers recently of the great risk which Is being run by the world's turtle population because, apparently, the consumption of turtles is now greater than the observed survival rate of young turtles. I await with baited breath to learn from my hon. Friend whether or not the turtle, whose precarious existence has been widely drawn by the Sunday Press to the attention of the British public, is included in the Schedule, because if it is not one must express the sincerely held hope that in another place this omission might be remedied. On the other hand, if turtles are excluded, the House is provided with an interesting exercise in speculation to determine which of the interesting if somewhat incomprehensible names in the Schedule is that of a turtle. We can safely exclude the possibility of the iguana—

As I understand it, the animal to which my hon. Friend has referred is a long, lizard-like animal that has nothing to do with the turtle at all. I fully agree with what he says about turtles, but he should not confuse them with iguanas.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has, without doubt, clarified this interesting point to the great benefit and elucidation of the whole House. Since he has refreshed my memory, I believe I am right in saying that the iguanas in the Schedule probably come from the Galapagos Island, which is, I believe, the property of the Republic of Ecuador—I do not think it is in dispute, Sir Robert.

There are other animals that might need protection, and an interesting point is whether they need conservation or protection. Public opinion has before now been focussed—

Would my hon. Friend consider the rhinoceros, which is also in the list?

I do consider the rhinocheros, though I later intended to come to an interesting conclusion on the question of rhinoceros horn, which is a specific characteristic of the rhinoceros.

I was about to say that public opinion has been focussed before now on the plight of rhesus monkeys passing through this country by air en route to other countries. It has been known for plane loads of rhesus monkeys to arrive in this country either dead, or nearly dead, from asphyxiation and overcrowding. I take it that any fauna in the Schedule would be equally subject to conservation, even if they were not for permanent importation but were imported with a view to re-export; that is to say, that any of the scheduled animals passing through London Airport, Manchester Airport, even through some of the Scottish airports—any airport in the United Kingdom—would come within the provisions of the Bill.

I mention rhesus monkeys because they are one species for which there is ground to suppose that they suffer very considerable hardship, although whether conservation would help them, I do not know—supposing one of these Latin names was, indeed, the rhesus monkey; and we have yet to discover whether or not it is so. We have to decide whether "conservation" in Clause 2 could be extended to mean protection or preservation. I do not think that it could be held that there is any present danger of a shortage of rhesus monkeys, and I believe that the concept of conservation is that of preserving a species that is in danger of extinction for some reason—

I am very confused about Clause 2, and I would be greatly helped if my hon. Friend could elucidate it for me. It seems—

We are not discussing Clause 2; we are discussing the Schedule.

The Schedule, of course, includes for the species in it the benefits extended by Clause 2, and excludes from the benefits of that Clause—to which we may not allude, as you have said, Sir Robert—anything that is not in it. That is, by definition, self-evident.

On a point of order. I apologise that I came in late. I thought that we were on Second Reading.

I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that I would not be in this Chair if we were on Second Reading.

I was about to pass on from the rhesus monkey—

May I help my hon. Friend by referring him to a very good systematic dictionary of mammals of the world by Maurice Burton, which I borrowed from the Library? It gives the habitat of the rhesus monkey and says that it is

"equally at home among trees on a rocky hillside and in living in and around buildings."

It therefore might survive in the United Kingdom.

I agree, but the habitat I was dealing with was inside an aeroplane. I move now to the tortoise as opposed to the turtle.

I am sure that the House is interested in what the hon. Member is saying, but would he bear in mind that there are other Bills on the Order Paper, including the Widows' Pensions Bill in which I am interested? Would the hon. Member not think that he is going too far in trying to block a Bill which would be of great benefit to widows?

If the hon. Member cares to look at the clock he will see that there is a considerable amount of time left.

On a point of order. Is not the remark just made by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) highly improper? Is it not quite wrong that any suggestion should be made that some business coming later should take precedence over the business now before the Committee? Is the hon. Member in order in suggesting that this debate should be curtailed, which would be a form of applying the Guillotine?

I am not suggesting that the debate should be curtailed, but I suggest that it might be carried on with some common sense in order to secure a quick decision so that the very important Widows' Pensions Bill may be dealt with. That Bill has been blocked by hon. Members opposite for months, but they are not prepared to face the fact.

This is not a point of order for me. In effect, the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) is suggesting that there is obstruction, but it is not unparliamentary to suggest that.

Thank you, Sir Robert, for your Ruling. It must be obvious to the House that the presence of only three Labour Members—[Interruption.]—

On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir Robert, for an hon. Member to refer to yourself as "a rat"?

I was referring to an hon. Member opposite.

It ill becomes a party which has only three representatives present in the Chamber to claim concern about widows. I should have thought that as there are only three hon. Members opposite present they would have ample opportunity to discuss that Measure if and when the House comes to it.

Will the hon. Member allow me?

No.

Order. Two hon. Members cannot address the House at the same time.

I now come to the third animal which may or may not be included in the Schedule, and that is the tortoise. I expect that there is not an hon. Member present who has not received communications from constituents as a result of complaints made in the Press about the conditions in which these animals are imported into the country. The difference is that whereas the rhesus monkey is primarily imported with a view to re-export, the tortoise is imported with a view to its remaining premanently here and being offered for sale.

So I think that we require clarification of the reasons why the various animals are included within the Schedule and the reasons why other examples which I have mentioned, if they are not included, are not included. I think till we have had an explanation of that kind the whole purpose of the Bill remains in a degree of doubt, and so I shall look forward now to hearing my hon. Friend who introduced so well this worthy and extremely timely Bill give an explanation on these points.

I think that it would be appropriate if at this stage I were to make reference in some detail to this formidable document. It is true that I had not intended to do so, at any rate at this stage, but I think that I have little option to do anything else now. If any hon. Member feels disposed to tackle his A-levels after a full and final study of the Schedule he will perhaps be able to achieve them in Latin and in what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and I agree should still be called natural history.

The fact is that this Schedule follows a respectable classification.

Does it?

It does, in fact, follow the classification of wild animals as recommended by the Zoology Department of the British Museum (Natural History) and that, in turn, recommends such classifications to be followed as recommended in this work which sets out how this should be done. It does so under the principles:

"Classification and classification of mammals by George Gaylord Simpson, published in 1945, Vol. 85, c. 12."

I will make only one brief reference to classification, but it will perhaps make clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), whose knowledge of this subject appears to be a little scanty, how one bases one's judgment of such things.

"Just as the study of classification is or should be to express relationship but in the first place one has to devise a method of clasification that can express sufficiently or consistently… the system as actually used in zoology … to serve as a grammar and vocabulary of zoology."

I certainly do not wish to detain or weary the House unduly with this, but I want to follow the same volume, at page 14, where one once more sees the hierarchy of the classification, and there one will find how the hierarchy was originated and how it was adopted from Linnaeus. In 1758, it was first consistently used in Systema Natura.

So I think I can assure my hon. Friend that the basic classification in this Schedule is reputable and that the classification extends, as it does, to a very wide range. It is obvious that it will facilitate the efforts of those who interpret the Schedule and who have had the opportunity of studying the book which I hold to discover an intelligent and commonsense interpretation of that which is in the Schedule.

Therefore, I do not at this moment intend to continue further detail in regard to the basis of classification and I turn now to the actual nomenclature about which some hon. Members may be better informed than my hon. Friend. There were one or two references he made, and which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts), from which I am not too clear whether he had read in the greatest possible detail the earlier Clauses of the Bill the discussion of which now, Sir Robert, you would rule to be out of order. So I must take the Schedule as it stands and ask the House to remember that it relates obviously to some of the Clauses which we have just passed.

To return to the actual list in the Schedule, I must now refer to the three groups of persons who will have to deal with the list in practice. First, the Advisory Committee established under Clause 3 will have powers to vary the Schedule, either by the addition or the subtraction of any species, as it thinks fit. No doubt, hon. Members will have seen that the Schedule is drawn up according to families, and there is thus the greatest possible width in the Schedule as it stands. This is a sensible step, deliberately taken, because it will enable variation by the Advisory Committee to be equally wide.

The other two groups of persons concerned with the Schedule will be, first, the Customs officers who will have to apply a common-sense rule of thumb to the list, and second, members of the Pet Trade Association, who must have an assurance that their interests are preserved.

The hon. Lady said that the Schedule was drawn up by family groups. As I read it, it is drawn up in alphabetical order.

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to return to the volume which I have just put down. However, in spite of the benevolent appearance of his hon. Friend behind him, the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), I do not imagine that the House would welcome my embarking on any further excursion into it. If the hon. Gentleman will ask his grandchildren or, perhaps, his children for a little clarification as to what the term "family" means in this connotation, he will, I think, be able better to appreciate the nomenclature in the Schedule.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton has asked for an interpretation of the various names in the list. As I have explained, it is right that the list should be subject to variation, according to Clause 2 of the Bill, in order to serve the interests of the people I have mentioned. Tempted though I am, I take it that I had better not weary the House by going in detail through every family and species covered by the list in the Schedule. As a brief example, I can tell the House that in one of the families mentioned there are over 700 species, although of these only two may fall within the terms of the Bill if it becomes law.

Further, I should make clear that the first three families in the list are monkeys. I do not think that I should be tempted to go into the individual description of the 40 species falling within the second family named. For the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, the tortoise family to which he referred is the last one in the list, the Testudinidae. I have already explained that there are a good many species in this family, though I do not propose to give the House the full list.

It is interesting to note—I think that this must reflect a little on the boyhood interests of some of my hon. Friends—that the two families which have been singled out for mention have been the tortoise and the Iguanidae, that is, lizards. I gather that some of my hon. Friends have kept pets in both these categories in their time.

I think that perhaps I have detained the House sufficiently at this stage. But we should not lose sight of the fact that however refreshing it may be to hon. Members, on a day reserved for Private Members' Bills, to enter into considerations rather outwith those which fall in the normal day's business, the Bill draws attention to and I hope will alleviate a very real problem in the world today. The animals listed in the Schedule represent a wide variety of those for whom protection in one form or another is required and for whom we are seeking to legislate, because there is a danger that they may be subject to wholly unsuitable treatment, which we in a sophisticated society should recognise and deplore, or that they will become rare or even extinct through the callousness of modern society and through the work of another animal who is allegedly in control.

I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton on the points which he raised and I give him an assurance that I could go on indefinitely giving him further explanations and that I shall gladly do so, but perhaps outwith the Chamber.

We are all intrigued by the excellent piece of combination between the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), in putting questions on the Schedule which I still find it impossible to understand completely, and the hon. Lady. It has been an interesting exercise so that the Schedule may be fully explored in every detail before we adjourn our proceedings at 4 p.m.

When we have a given time in which to debate a Clause or Schedule in Committee, it is not always easy to pose the questions intelligently which will prolong the debate to fill the time of the Committee. This is a noted exercise in the House; when an hon. Member is promoting a Bill and wants it to occupy a given period the difficulty is in posing the right question.

In my view the hon. Member for Tiverton has done an excellent parliamentary service, on which I can congratulate him. He has put the right questions on the right aspects which were bound to take a long time to answer. The hon. Lady had prepared herself with a volume. She quoted from 1789. She has prepared this assiduously, ready to answer her hon. Friend—with every point ready. This exercise is bound to take at least half-an-hour or three-quarters of an hour, which will occupy a good deal of the Committee's time: In case the questions were not sufficient or were not adequately answered, other hon. Members were brought to the Chamber to fill up the time, for every hon. Member could join in.

Normally, I would enjoy this exercise. Moreover, I have great respect for the proposition that we should preserve animals—all sorts of animals, including human animals. But although this exercise has been very interesting, an exercise on the Widows' Pensions Bill would have been much more interesting, could we have cut out all the nonsense which we have heard and got down to the Bill.

After all, even what the hon. Lady has just quoted was nonsense. We could not follow it. It is impossible to examine all the species listed in the Schedule. That would be an exercise taking hours. It would require at least a 48-hour study of these animals to be able to make an intelligent comment on their inclusion in the Schedule. The hon. Lady said that there were hundreds of animals and thousands of species.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he deny the right of any hon. Member to challenge anything which is going through the House of Commons and is liable to become law? He has made allegations about Members being brought into the Chamber to block Bills. Is he not aware that the majority of hon. Members present on my side of the House are regular attenders on Fridays and are assiduous in their attendance to business on Fridays?

I have been an hon. Member for nearly 14 years and I have always admired co-ordinated effort, on whichever side of the House it has occurred. I am not angry. I admire the exercise. The hon. Member for Tiverton and the hon. Lady are quite in order in carrying out the exercise. They have not exceeded their rights or duties. They have been doing a job of work. I am not condemning them, but recognising what they are doing and expressing my admiration. They have carried out this exercise and have successfully prevented the House of Commons from considering a Bill to abolish the earnings rule.

The hon. Member may be surprised to learn that I did not tell my hon. Friend that I intended to discuss the Schedule. Nor was I aware of the existence of the book which she has mentioned. The hon. Member has already taken nearly 10 minutes which might have been spent on the Bill to which he has referred.

I have myself many times been in the position in which I could say that there had been no collusion and that I had no knowledge of this, that, or the other.

Perhaps we might get back to the Schedule.

Having listened to the on. Lady intently, I am satisfied with her explanation. She has read from a book which she got from the Library. I shall read it afterwards and I ask hon. Members opposite to do the same and not to ask the hon. Lady any more questions. To ask her more would be to tax her memory a good deal. She has given us a great deal of detail and has obviously done a lot of homework.

The Committee ought now to accept the Schedule so that we can get the Bill through the Committee and allow us to get on to my hon. Friend's Bill and do something for widows as well as for the animals which we import.

I wish to consider the second name which appears in the Schedule, cebidae.

What is a cebidae?

The hon. Member is not aware what a cebidae is?

I have not the slightest idea.

It is a sub-family of the New World family of monkeys known as cebidae, medium-sized or small, with a round, haired, rolled-up tail. As the hon. Gentleman wants us to get on, I will not read more of this detailed description.

We are dealing with a Schedule which is concerned with animals which may or may not be imported and whose loose wording might send one of my constituents to prison. I am not prepared to support a Bill or a Schedule likely to send to prison for an infringement one of my constituents who happens to bring in a cebidae.

If one of my constituents brings in a cebidae—

It is one cebida or two cebidae.

The Committee is being asked to say that if one of my constituents brings in one or more of these animals he can be sent to prison for one month for the first offence. I do not believe that we should pass legislation which will send one of my constituents to prison for bringing in an animal of this kind.

I think that we ought to maintain a sense of proportion in this matter. We are a legislative body which has the power to send our constituents to prison, but it is a power which we should exercise very carefully. Here we are planning to use the weapon of one month's imprisonment against any of my constituents who import any of these animals. I am not prepared to agree to that. I do not think that this animal should be included in the Schedule at all. It is not an animal which warrants the sending to prison of any person who imports it.

The fourth on the list is Dasyuridae. I am sure that the Committee knows what this is. It is a family of Polyprotodontia marsupials distributed over Australia, Tasmania, South America, and other countries. I have many friends in Australia and in Tasmania. They live in peace and harmony with these animals. They are not sent to goal because they are found in their countries. If the Bill were passed, it would give the police power to go to the house of one of my constituents in Heeley and say, "You have a Dasyuridae in your house, which you should not have. You will therefore go to prison".

Would a policeman know what this animal was?

I confess that I did not know half an hour ago, but I went to the Library to find out. A policeman would be able to refer to this book written by Mr. Leo Wender, and I suggest that it could become part of the library of every police force. This book was published in 1948, and it is, therefore, an up-to-date publication. Every policeman would soon learn what Desyuridae was.

My protest is a real one, and this is not a question of taking away the time which I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) will have at a later occasion to present his Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that his constituents, or my constituents, should go to gaol because they have any of these animals in their houses?

As I did not bring in this Bill, the hon. Gentleman should not charge me with wanting to send his constituents to prison. He should make that charge against his hon. Friends.

I am asking the hon. Gentleman to support me in my opposition to the Bill, because I do not think that he wants his constituents to go to goal for importing any of these animals.

I know that many hon. Members want to hear what the Minister has to say. I hope that he will remember that the attitude of mind which we seem to have in the House all too frequently on a Friday, of bringing in legislation to send people to goal, is wrong. If private Members want to bring Bills before the House, those Bills should contain penalties which we can accept. I should have thought that in this case a fine would be adequate. Any move we can make to prevent unnecessary regulations and unnecessary penalties being introduced we should make, and I am proud to fight for the rights and liberties of my constituents to this end.

A number of very relevant questions have been raised by my hon. Friends. I can understand the reluctance with which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) views any Bill which might result in his constituents being sent to prison. I am not sure that I go along with him in his argument that too severe a penalty is included in the Bill. I hope that when I have answered one or two points raised by him and by other hon. Mem- bers, and said a word about the Bill's purpose, he will agree that the penalty is not excessive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raised an important point about animals in transit. It is the case that under the Bill the Customs and Excise would have power to look at animals in transit and to consider whether they fell within the terms of the Schedule. That is the legal position. But there are considerable difficulties about this. Apart from the problem of finding enough Customs officials to supervise transit traffic, there is the difficulty of the susceptibilities of other countries.

Unless there are special reasons—for example, health reasons—it is not the practice of Customs officials to supervise all transit traffic, and it is unlikely that rare animals in transit would be supervised. A large proportion of the transit traffic is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton recognised, in monkeys going to the United States for research purposes. Most of them are common varieties. Customs staff could not be provided with means to inspect and nor would they be qualified to inspect such animals to ensure that no rare ones were included. It must be accepted, therefore, that the Bill's effect on transit traffic is likely to be marginal.

The hon. Gentleman said that the Customs could look at rare animals in transit and then he said that they could supervise them. Could rare animals in transit be forfeited under the Bill? If so, what would happen to them?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, "Yes". If they were to be refused a passage and taken charge of by the Customs, the question of returning them to the country of origin or of arranging for their satisfactory care follows. This is a normal problem.

The other point on which a number of hon. Members touched is the reason for including families in the Schedule rather than individual rare species. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, on Second Reading, explained why it was necessary to include in the Schedule families rather than individual rare species. Customs officers cannot be expected to have the necessary zoological knowledge to be able to distinguish whether, within a family, a particular animal was a rare animal. It has, therefore, been necessary to detail them by families.

The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), who has explained to me that he cannot be here today, has nevertheless asked me to refer to the complaints that have been made by the Pet Trade Association. That Association has argued that the business of its members would be interfered with less if only rare animals were detailed in the Schedule. This suggestion has been carefully considered, but for the reasons given on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend it has been found necessary to include in this Schedule the names of families of animals. I do not believe that it would be possible to operate the Bill were Customs officials required to determine which animals were rare and which were not at the point of entry.

This is an important Bill on which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) have expended a great deal of effort over the years. I believe that the House generally was agreed on Second Reading and will agree that it is an important Measure in order to assist those countries which are attempting to preserve their rare fauna the better to do so. I hope, therefore, that after its very full consideration of the Schedule the House may be prepared to give the Bill its Third Reading.