I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 25, leave out from 'section' to end of line 26 and insert:

'19 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973'.

With this Amendment we are to take the following amendments:

No. 3, in Clause 6, page 5, line 34, leave out from 'section' to '(which' in line 35 and insert:

'27(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973'.

No. 4, in page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert:

'(2) In subsection (1) of section 50 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (scope of the Matrimonial Causes Rules), the word "or" at the end of paragraph (c) shall be omitted and after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following words "or (e) any enactment contained in Part II of or Schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 which does not fall within paragraph (d) above".'

No. 10, in Schedule 1, page 16, line 23, leave out from 'means' to end of line 26 and insert:

'such an order as is mentioned in paragraph (f) of section 23(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (lump sum payment for children) being an order made under section 23(1) or (2)(a)'.

No. 11, in page 16, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'orders' in line 35 and insert:

'(a) an order under section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (maintenance for spouse pending suit);

(aa) such an order as is mentioned in paragraph (d) or (e) of section 23(1) of that Act (periodical payments for children) being an order made under section 23(1) or (2)(a);

(ab) an order under section 42(1)(a) of that Act ('.

No. 15, in Schedule 5, page 23, line 21, leave out from beginning to '22' in line 23 and insert:

'(a) for sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of "relevant order" substitute—" (a) any order under section 19 or'.

No. 16, in Schedule 6, page 24, leave out lines 24 to 31 and insert:

'1973 c.	The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.	In section 19, in subsection (1) the words "subject to subsection (2) below", subsections (2) and (5).
		Section 46.'.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your suggested grouping, because all the amendments are to a greater or lesser extent consequential on the Matrimonial Causes Act.

I will explain as briefly as I can why I advise the House to accept the amendment at this stage, but before doing so I should like to transgress for a few moments to say how grateful I am to those right hon. and hon. Members who were good enough to serve on the Standing Committee. We were able to dispose of the Bill in three sittings and it emerged improved. I am also grateful to the Officers of the House and to my advisers.

Amendment No. 1 and the six others which are taken together are made necessary by the consolidation of the Matrimonial Causes Act for England and Wales in the Matrimonial Causes Bill which is on its way through Parliament. The Bill has been considered in another place and by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and, therefore, I think its further progress through Parliament is likely to be purely formal. I am advised that it is virtually certain that the Bill will receive Royal Assent quite soon. I suggest that, because of this, it would be wise for us to take note of the existence of the Bill which will shortly be enacted and make some necessary amendments to my own Bill here rather than leave it to another place to make these amendments.

The purpose of these amendments is simply to replace references in my Bill to the previous statutes by references to the appropriate sections of the new consolidating measure. The new Act will come into force on the same date as this Bill, namely 1st January 1974, so that the new references in my Bill will be appropriate when it is enacted. I do not think there is any need for me to say anything more about Amendment No. 1 or, indeed, Amendment No. 3.

I should add a further word of explanation about Amendment No. 4. It replaces subsection (2) of Clause 6 of the Bill with the new provisions which I suggest are made necessary by the consolidating measure. The purpose of the new provision, as of the old, is to make sure that the Matrimonial Causes Rule Committee has power to make rules for the purposes of Part II and Schedule 1 to the Bill. The new provision, however, differs considerably from the old because the consolidation Act will implement some recommendations of the Law Commission for amending the existing provisions governing the powers of the rules committee.

The purpose of the Law Commission's recommendation is to clarify the scope of the committee's powers and to include certain matters which are at present excluded. The difference of form is that Section 50(1) of the new Act will contain a list of the proceedings in relation to which the Matrimonial Causes Rule Committee will have power to make rules, while Section 50(2) will contain a list of the matters excluded from the scope of the committee's powers.

I suggest, therefore, that what is needed for the purposes of the Bill is to add a paragraph to Section 50(1) of the new Act which will specify proceedings under Part II of this Bill or Schedule 1 to it as proceedings over which the rule committee has jurisdiction. That is what the amendment does by adding a new paragraph (e) to the existing paragraphs (a) to (d) in the consolidating Act. The amendment is largely a matter of form, but there is in addition a change of substance and that is why I feel that I should offer this explanatory note.

The change of substance is that proceedings for the declaration as to the validity or subsistence of a marriage will no longer be excluded from the rule committee's jurisdiction, as at present drawn under Clause 6(2). This accords with the Law Commission's recommendation that the proceedings for a declara- tion should in future be within the rule committee's scope.

I pass to Amendment No. 10 in Schedule 1, page 16, line 23. This again is made necessary by the fact that legislation relating to matrimonial causes in England is being consolidated this Session. I do not think I need detain the House with any further explanation of this amendment but I shall be glad to do so if hon. Members wish.

11.15 a.m.

Amendment No. 11, the next in this group, is straightforward but there is a slight difference from the existing provisions in the interests of accuracy. Here again I will give a further explanation should that be the wish of hon. Members.

Amendment No. 15 alters paragraph (a) of the definition of "relevant order" in paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 1 as adapted by Schedule 5 in its application to Northern Ireland. Paragraph (a) is altered in its application to England and Wales by Amendment No. 10. The form of that amendment makes it impossible to adapt the paragraph for Northern Ireland by a simple substitution of statutory references. That being so, I suggest that paragraph (a) will have to be redrawn so as to be self-supporting for Northern Ireland. That result is achieved by this amendment.

The last in this group of amendments, No. 16, is straightforward. The necessary repeals clearly need to be reworded, in order to come into line with the Matrimonial Causes Bill.

I have tried to explain this group of amendments briefly and I am sure that any further explanation of them will be given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, or by myself if that is the wish of the House.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has said, these amendments are consequential on the consolidation of the Matrimonial Causes Act, and, indeed, Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 3 are straight cross-references to the appropriate provisions of the Bill which is currently going through this House.

As my hon. Friend has said, however, Amendments Nos. 4, 10 and 11 are rather more elaborate than simply making new references for old. As my hon. Friend has pointed out—if I may take Amendment No. 4 in the first place—the reason is that the consolidation Bill presently going through the House does rather more than purely consolidate. This House is competent, as the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) is aware, in consolidation procedure to absorb recommendations of the Law Commission, and that is done in this case.

The result is that Section 50 of the Matrimonial Causes Act—as we hope it will be—1973 differs in form and in substance from Section 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1967 which it replaces. The difference—I think my hon. Friend spelt this out, but it would be in order that I should put it on the record—is that Section 50(1) of the new Act will contain a list of the proceedings in relation to which the Matrimonial Causes Rule Committee will have power to make rules, while subsection (2) of that section will contain a list of the matters excluded. In other words, the form of Section 50 of the new Act will be different from the form of the section of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1967 which it replaces. The changes embodied in the legislation presently under consideration in the consolidation legislation flow from the recommendations of the Law Commission.

I should like to add a word on Amendments Nos. 10 and 11—because the same point arises on both—to Schedule 1, paragraph 11. Amendment No. 10 relates to the definition of lump sum order, and No. 11 relates to the definition of relevant order.

These changes have to be made because there has to be a pick-up provision to take account of the references to the 1973 Act, and the sections to which reference is made deal inter alia with the situation when an action is dismissed. We are dealing here in the schedule, however, with circumstances in which an action is stayed. Accordingly, the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perth-shire refer to the relevant provisions of the 1973 Act, as it will soon be, but they exclude in terms any reference to those provisions of it, following the earlier provisions of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, which cater for the situation where an action has been dismissed, that situation being irrelevant for the purposes of this schedule. That is why the references to the 1973 Act, as it will be, are confined in this way.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 16, leave out subsection (5) and insert:

'(5) The Court shall, at any time when proceedings are pending in respect of which it has jurisdiction by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) above (or of this subsection), also have jurisdiction to entertain other proceedings, in respect of the same marriage, for divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage, notwithstanding that jurisdiction would not be exercisable under subsection (2) or (3)'.

I suggest that we take at the same time the following amendments:

No. 5, in Clause 7, page 7, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert:

'(5) The Court shall, at any time when proceedings are pending in respect of which it has jurisdiction by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) above (or of this subsection), also have jurisdiction to entertain other proceedings, in respect of the same marriage, for divorce, separation or declarator of marriage, declarator of nullity of marriage or declarator of freedom and putting to silence, notwithstanding that jurisdiction would not be exercisable under subsection (2) or (3)'.

No. 6, in Clause 13, page 11, line 32. leave out subsection (5) and insert:

'(5) The Court shall, at any time when proceedings are pending in respect of which it has jurisdiction by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) above (or of this subsection), also have jurisdiction to entertain other proceedings, in respect of the same marriage, for divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage, notwithstanding that jurisdiction would not be exercisable under subsection (2) or (3)'.

I am much obliged for that convenient grouping of amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

As I said at the outset, I am most grateful to those right hon. and hon. Members, many of them learned, who sat on the Standing Committee, whose help and constant flattering references to me I much appreciated. One of those flattering remarks came from the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) when we were debating the Question on Clause 5. The hon. Gentleman's piece of flattery, which I read again this morning with happy recollection, was as follows:

"There comes a time in the life of every parliamentary draftsman, however skilful, when he goes berserk. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, who has drafted the Bill with great skill, is in extremely good company when it comes to that. He is in company with the Law Commission for England."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 11th April 1973; c. 112–3.]

The hon. Gentleman felt that the drafting of Clause 5 as it stood was "legal gobble-dygook", and my right hon. and learned Friend, while explaining the purpose of the words to which the hon. Gentleman took exception, suggested that perhaps it would be as well to look at them again.

Following that assurance, my advisers and I have looked at the wording again, and we think that we have now produced a solution which will be acceptable to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central. In passing, I should say that the hon. Gentleman told me yesterday that he would not be able to be with us for this stage in the passage of the Bill, and he apologised for his absence from the Chamber. I am certain that this amendment meets the point which he raised in Committee.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) wondered how proceedings brought by virtue of subsection (5) could become originating proceedings in themselves. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will be disposed to make some comment about that. I feel that it is not necessary for me to enlarge upon it now. I think that the redrafting is an improvement, if only slight, on the original wording, and I hope that the House will accept it.

The two other amendments are consequential. No. 5, relating to Clause 7, clarifies the part of that clause referring to Scotland to the same extent and with the same object as Amendment No. 2 in relation to England and Wales. Amendment No. 6 makes similar provision for Northern Ireland.

My hon. Friend invites me to comment on the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray)—this is col. 114 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee—as to how proceedings under subsection (5) could be originating proceedings. I think that the position is fairly clear, and probably clearer now than it was before. If the court has jurisdiction under this clause, even if thereafter the circumstances giving that jurisdiction fly off, provided that there is no break in the chain other actions or cross-actions may arise. If the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) wishes me to elaborate on that I shall be glad to do so. I think that the new drafting in the amendment makes the matter rather clearer than the original subsection (5).

The right hon. and learned Gentleman invites me to comment, and I am glad to do so now, principally because these are among the last amendments relating to the English courts, and I should hesitate to intervene on matters relating to the Scottish courts.

I take this opportunity to convey to the House the apologies of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), who is unavoidably absent today. He was most disappointed at not being able to be present, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) will understand that no discourtesy is intended either to him or to the House.

This is not a political Bill, and I hesitate to come in at this late stage to offer thoughts on these highly technical matters which have occupied so many able minds over a long time, but, as I am on my feet, may I say a word about the problems of draftsmanship. I noted what the Lord Advocate said a minute ago, and, coming to the matter afresh, I am persuaded by his argument. I cannot speak for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh and Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray).

That we occasionally encounter these questions of draftsmanship seems to be unavoidable. The principal purpose of the Bill, a social purpose, was expressed on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) in these terms:

"The Bill will be welcomed as another addition to the considerable line of legislation in recent times which has recognised the modern view of the status of women in our society."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 1631.]

In that process, we shall be reversing certain social habits and modes of thought which lie deep in the history of our society. It is not surprising that our law reflects those habits and modes of thought, not just in its general rules but in its interstices, in its nooks and crannies. Inevitably, therefore, when we seek to reverse those processes, a number of anomalies and logical problems arise.

I express the gratitude of the Opposition to the Law Commission for having accepted that the need to grapple with those intellectual problems is a small price to pay, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire on his initiative.

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 13, leave out line 33.

In a previous comment I paid tribute to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), who was so helpful to me in Committee, and I acknowledge at once the great help given by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), whose learned skills were of great value to me and the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman has apologised to me for his absence, and I understand it.

The amendment follows from helpful comments by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central on Second Reading and in Committee. It deals with the provision in the Bill as at present drawn bringing Clause 16, which deals with non-judicial divorces, into force immediately upon Royal Assent. The rest of the Bill will come into force on 1st January 1974, and the amendment means that Clause 16 will also come into effect on that date and not on enactment of the Bill if it concludes its progress satisfactorily.

The amendment has an interesting purpose. It shows how widespread the effect of legislation of this kind can be. The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) was very generous in his remarks about the Bill just now, and he is right in saying that it makes an important change to an aspect of the law which affects women at present most adversely. It is an important advance in women's legal rights. The amendment will permit more time for the good news of Clause 16 to be spread among immigrant communities, because it is they who will be principally affected by it.

It would be most unfortunate if a non-judicial divorce were obtained after the clause was in force by people who were not aware of the change in the law and thought that their marriage was validly dissolved. The point was raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central in Committee, and I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate for giving us an assurance that the Government would accept responsibility for seeing that the information about the change in the law was suitably made known among the immigrant communities in Britain.

If the Bill were to receive the Royal Assent before the end of July, which seems possible, there would be insufficient time to make such publicity effective. It is better that we should postpone the coming into effect of the clause until 1st January 1974 not only for the subsidiary advantage of consistency of time but for the major advantage that a postponement of that kind would allow six months or so additional time for the spreading of the information among the immigrant communities. There are disadvantages in postponing the operation of the change, the principal one being that there might be a flood of talaks towards the end of the year and the registrars might find themselves with a large number of persons claiming to remarry on the strength of that.

I am advised that the registrars are well aware of this but do not oppose the amendment on that ground. I am grateful to them for so readily accepting the prospect of a certain amount of extra work over the coming months. The most difficult feature of the transitional period is likely to be determination of the time when talak was obtained in order to see whether it took effect before the new law took effect. That, however, is a problem which would have resulted whenever the clause took effect, and it would not be made materially more difficult by the postponement which the amendment will bring about.

My right hon. and learned Friend, in commenting on the previous amendment, called attention to the repercussions the Bill could have and it was not until the Committee stage that I realised how widespread could be its effects among the immigrant communities. In our previous discussions on this aspect of the Bill we have restricted our survey largely to the Muslim community but my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate pointed out to the Committee that Hindu divorces are among the practices which can give rise to difficulty because they can be obtained by mutual or unilateral consent. The range of matrimonial practices affected by the clause is not only wide but colourful. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to African community law and custom; to decrees granted in England by the Greek ecclesiastical court; and he said that certain Chinese customary divorces could also give rise to the same problem unless we took account of them in the Bill.

Therefore, it is right that because of the widespread effect that Clause 16 will have on the immigrant communities and on their matrimonial customs we should give a little more time for the news of the change to be made known. I am glad that the amendment, if the House accepts it, will give the Government more time to carry out their worthy promise to promulgate the information to the immigrant community.

I support the amendment, and in doing so I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on carrying the Bill successfully through to this stage.

It is a Bill which marks a most important step forward in the emancipation of women and in their progress to full equality in our society. Of no section of womankind is that perhaps more true than of the women of the immigrant communities, because they, having been subject to the talak procedure of divorce and of other procedures of a like kind, and our courts, after the Qureshi case, having held such divorces to be lawful in this country and binding on the parties, were in a position of substantial inferiority compared with other women of indigenous origin.

For that reason I hesitated at first in considering whether it would be wise to postpone the coming into force of Clause 16. As my hon. Friend has just said, there is perhaps some reason to fear that there might be a spate of such divorces between now and 1st January 1974. But I am reassured by what my hon. Friend has said about that, and by what he said about the attitude of the Registrar-General and registrars throughout the country.

When we consider the other side of the medal we see good reason why the amendment should be accepted. I had the honour of serving for some time on the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. Therefore, I am fully aware, as I expect many other hon. Members are, of the substantial difficulties that bodies concerned with communications with immigrant communities have in bringing to their notice, and educating them in, the laws and practices of this country. I have no doubt that the Qureshi decision is by now well known in such communities, and that that they have been relying for a long time on their legal rights to divorce in accordance with their native customs and practices.

Therefore, I think that a period of time for education and communicaton is vital. For that reason, after an initial hesitation about the amendment and any postponement, I come down wholeheartedly in favour of the amendment.

As the matter was canvassed at some length in Committee I should like to add only that the Home Office has taken it up with the Community Relations Commission, which will in turn take it up with the leaders of the various immigrant communities, It is a question of judgment how long should be allowed for the change in the law to be brought to the notice of the immigrant communities. I think that the general feeling of the House will be that the period between now and the coming into operation of the measure as a whole is probably about right. Certain disadvantages in that approach have been referred to, but I do not think that there is any serious risk. If too long a period were taken, that risk would be enhanced, and I think that the period in the amendment is about right.

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 14, line 40. after 'proceedings', insert:

'or is a respondent and has in his answer included a prayer for relief'.

The amendment follows an assurance I gave to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) in Committee. Its purpose is to place the statutory duty of disclosing the existence of any concurrent proceedings upon a respondent who includes a prayer for relief in his answer. Under paragraph 7 of the schedule the duty is imposed only on a petitioner. In Committee the hon. Gentleman moved an amendment with the same purpose as my amendment, but I was advised that it was technically defective. He was good enough to withdraw it on the understanding that I would invite my advisers to discuss the position with me and see how we could achieve his purpose.

The term "petitioner" would no doubt cover a party other than the original party who sought relief by way of further petition or cross-petition. A respondent who prays for relief in his answer is, for practical purposes, in the same position, and should not escape the duty through a technicality as to the nature of the proceedings.

11.45 a.m.

I apologise to those hon. Members who served on the Committee, because in my undertaking to look at the matter again I suggested that the position was spelt out in more detail in the Scottish schedule, and that it might be argued that for the sake of consistency the same wording should be used. I suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate might consider that further. When I found myself in Committee, as at other times, getting too deep in legal waters, I ran for cover—if one can do that at sea—by seeking the protective guidance of my right hon. and learned Friend and other hon. and learned Members.

In fact, I am advised that my bright idea that we should use the same wording as appears in the Scottish schedule is not feasible, because we cannot import the Scottish terminology since appearances are no longer entered in English matrimonial proceedings. As the provisions must necessarily differ there is no reason in principle to depart from the Law Commission's recommendation that in England and Wales the duty of disclosure should be limited to a party seeking relief. The only extension required to meet the point raised by the hon. Gentleman is therefore one which covers all parties seeking relief, at whatever stage of the proceedings. The amendment achieves that purpose.

I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 15, line 39, at end insert:

'(1A) In considering the balance of fairness and convenience for the purposes of subparagraph (l)(b) above, the court shall have regard to all factors appearing to be relevant, including the convenience of witnesses and any delay or expense which may result from the proceedings being stayed or not being stayed'.

With this amendment we are to discuss also Amendment No. 13, in Schedule 3, page 20, line 47, at end insert:

'(1A) In considering the balance of fairness and convenience for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, the court shall have regard to all factors appearing to be relevant, including the convenience of witnesses and any delay or expense which may result from the proceedings being sisted, or not being sisted ',

and Amendment No. 14, in page 21, line 1, leave out 'The preceding sub-paragraph' and insert 'Sub-paragraph (1) above'.

This amendment also arises from the helpful intervention of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). It inserts a new subparagraph into paragraph 9 of the schedule to expand the phrase

"the balance of fairness (including convenience) as between the parties to the marriage"

in paragraph 9(1)(b). I was advised that the amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman in Committee was technically defective, and he generously withdrew it on my undertaking to reconsider the matter before Report.

The hon. Gentleman's point was that an important element in deciding whether proceedings should be taken in one place or another could in some cases be the convenience of witnesses. Although he agreed that the court might take that into account under the paragraph as it stood, he rightly thought that the matter was too important to be left to chance and that there should be specific provision in the Bill to cover it.

The form of the amendment follows paragraph 77 of the Law Commission Report, in which the relevant factors to be taken into account when the court is deciding on a discretionary stay are mentioned. The commission referred to

"the connection of the parties or the marriage with either forum and any delay, expense or inconvenience in taking parties or witnesses to another forum."

The amendment amplifies the paragraph in respect of those matters and meets the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

I would not like it to be thought that the original drafting of the schedule was defective in this respect. The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that the convenience of witnesses must be taken into account where the exercise of discretion is involved. I was glad that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) undertook to take another look at the matter.

I am sure the House will agree that in judicial proceedings the convenience of witnesses must be considered, and it does no harm to make specific reference to this matter in a public general statute of this kind. For that reason the amendment should be accepted.

I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 17, line 45, leave out 'relevant' and insert 'matrimonial'.

This amendment should have been tabled in Committee because it corrects a small oversight in the Bill as originally drafted. The error relates to paragraph 11(4) of Schedule 1 which reproduces paragraph 5(4) of the schedule to the Law Commission's draft Bill, with one variation. Whereas the Law Commission's draft was drawn by reference to "relevant proceedings" which were defined in paragraph 6 to mean matrimonial proceedings of various kinds, the current Bill refers directly to "matrimonial proceedings". However, in the last place in the sub-paragraph where the words occur the necessary change was not made in the Bill. The amendment makes the necessary correction and ensures that the same phraseology is used throughout the sub-paragraph. For the sake of consistency I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

Clause 1 empowers the Secretary of State, if he is satisfied that a site in United Kingdom waters is, or may prove to be, that of a wrecked vessel requiring protection on account of its historical archaeological or artistic importance, to designate by order an area round the site as a restricted area, and specifies the acts which, if done in such an area otherwise than under the authority of a licence granted by the Secretary of State, constitute an offence under the Bill.

The clause reflects the anxiety felt in recent years, and which has been commented upon widely in this House over a number of years, that, with the greatly improved diving and underwater exploration equipment now available, vessels which have lain wrecked on the sea bed for many years, and which should be given proper treatment because of their immense importance, historically or for other reasons, are as matters stand at risk from indiscriminate exploration often carried out purely for reasons of commercial gain.

Other countries have had this problem. For example, the Mediterranean is said to have the remains of many ancient ships, and material of priceless value has been ruthlessly exploited and cleared from its bed. I hope to have the opportunity on Third Reading to say how other countries have dealt with the situation. If it had not been for modern techniques and the increasing interest in aqua-lung diving and exploration of the sea bed, many important wrecks would not have been found at all. Although initiative and enterprise must be accorded due credit, it is unfortunately all too true that on certain occasions quick profit-seeking frequently follows discovery and often destroys much which would have been of the greatest importance to posterity.

Examples of ancient wrecks of a type covered by the Bill and found off the coast of Britain are as follows. I shall not go through the whole list, but I should like to mention one or two which seem to me to typify in their different ways what we are trying to preserve and protect.

The first of these vessels is the "Mary Rose", which was a flagship of Henry VIII and was lost as long ago as 1545. Her remains have been found buried in the sea bed at Spithead. The hull and the contents appear to be largely intact and investigations are now continuing. Another example is the "Amsterdam", lost in 1749. The remains of that vessel, which was owned by the Dutch East Indies Company, are lying buried in the sea bed close to the shore at Hastings. Some of the artefacts, including cannon, have already been recovered and the hull and contents appear to be largely intact. That wreck is different from many others in being accessible at very low tides without diving equipment.

Another example is the "Girona". A large number of artefacts, including gold, silver coins and military equipment, have been recovered from that vessel which was part of the Spanish Armada and is lying in the sea bed near the coast of County Antrim in Northern Ireland. These artefacts are now displayed in the Ulster Museum. So far as we can see, the "Girona" has now been cleared of its artefacts.

Another example is that of Admiral Sir Cloudesley Shovell's squadron. There were five ships in that squadron, namely, HMS "Association", "Romney", "Eagle", "Firebrand" and "Phoenix" which were lost near the Scilly Isles in 1707. A number of artefacts, including cannon, gold and silver coins and silver plate, were recovered from the wreck of the admiral's flagship, HMS "Association". Some artefacts have also been recovered from "Romney" and "Eagle". The wrecks of the other two ships have not yet been located.

Another famous example, which was mentioned at length during the Second Reading debate, was Charles II's Royal yacht "Mary". The remains of the "Mary", which went down in 1675, have been found on the sea bed near Anglesey. Some artefacts, including cannon, coins and jewellery, have already been recovered.

The present position in law with regard to wrecks derives from Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, which reproduces similar provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854. Of course, it is not surprising to find that the provisions of that age, drafted to deal with the wreck problems of a time long before present-day salvage methods were invented—such as the plundering and stripping of wrecked ships by the local populace—are inadequate and inappropriate to deal with modern problems.

12 noon.

Perhaps I should say how the clause relates to former legislation. I turn first to the origins of the common law on wreck. By common law, from ancient times goods cast ashore following ship-wreck belonged to the Crown, but if anyone escaped alive from a shipwreck or the owner subsequently appeared to claim his property, the Crown's right was lost. In many areas of the coast, the original rights of the Crown to wrecks of this kind were subject to piecemeal grants to lords of the manor and towns.

The right to salvage for saving and keeping wreck was well established by the beginning of the 17th century. Decisions as to ownership and the assessment of a proper reward in cases of dispute appear to have been a matter for justices of the peace, coroners or local courts, according to the circumstances, depending upon who claimed to be entitled to the goods—whether the owner, the Crown or a grantee of rights to unclaimed wreck, being a lord of the manor or a coastal town with a local franchise court.

Anything found at sea, on the other hand, was originally the property of the finder. But as the Admiral's Court became established, exercising jurisdiction over the high seas, including "wreck of the sea", the admiral laid claim to such property in the name of the King. This claim was eventually confirmed by statute. The property claimed by the admiral was in one celebrated case categorised as goods, flotsam, jetsam or lagan. Later, derelict—that is to say, goods found afloat and abandoned on the high seas—was treated as an additional category. It was also established that derelict included property found on the sea bed. But the owner had to have relinquished possession.

To encourage finders to bring in property which they had found on the high seas, the Admiralty Courts paid them salvage but, unless some person appeared to prove his ownership, the goods were condemned as droits of Admiralty. Derelict goods were prima facie droits of Admiralty. A wide class of goods was so condemned.

One passage on the subject states:

"The droit book of the High Court for the period 1618–1737 is extant, containing particulars of and dealings with all sorts of droits. It shows that every sort of property was claimed and presented as a droit. Ships, ship's gear and cargoes were the most frequent objects; but dead bodies with valuables and money on them … and treasure in wrecks or buried in the sand were not uncommon."

Up to the first part of the eighteenth century, what may be called the land jurisdiction, as opposed to the Admiralty jurisdiction, was concerned with common law wreck alone and the Admiralty jurisdiction mainly, if not entirely, with flotsam, jetsam, lagan and derelict. Some of the reported cases are, in effect, demarcation disputes over valuable goods found below high water mark and above low water mark between the proprietor of common law wreck and the admiral claiming the goods as droits.

The claims of the admiral to property liable to be condemned as droits and the claims of proprietors of common law wreck were, however, not easily enforced. The true owners, too, needed protection from depredators. Once ships were close in shore it was to the entire advantage of those on shore that the ship and cargo should become wreck, including those who had rights as grantees from the Crown to unclaimed wreck, salvors who would be entitled to a reward and all whose intention was to plunder without regard to legal rights either of salvage or ownership. So a number of statutes were enacted in the eighteenth century, the first in 1712.

The earliest consolidation Act appears to have been passed in 1846. It repealed earlier statutes. Section V provided:

"And be it enacted, that all Persons whomsoever who shall find, take up, or be in possession of any Wreck of the Sea, or any Goods Jetsam, Flotsam, Lagan or Derelict, or any Boat, Vessel, Apparel, Anchor, Cable, Tackle, Stores or Materials, or any Goods, Merchandize, or other Article whatsoever, which shall have been found floating or sunk at Sea, or elsewhere in any tidal Water, or cast, thrown, or stranded upon the Shore, and whether the same be found above or below High water Mark, and whether wholly on Land or wholly in the Water, or partly on Land and partly in the Water, or shall find or take possession of any Droit of Admiralty of any Description, whether such Person shall claim to be entitled to such Article or Droit or not, shall forthwith send to the Receiver or to the Collector or Comptroller of Customs at the Port or Place nearest to which such Articles or Droits have been found a Report in Writing of all such Articles or Droits so found, containing an accurate and particular Description of the Marks (if any) thereon, and of the Time and Situation when and where the same were found, and shall also forthwith place such articles or Droits at the Disposal of the said Receiver or Officer of the Customs; and every Officer of the Customs receiving such Report shall forthwith transmit the same to the nearest Receiver, and every Person who shall keep Possession of or retain or conceal or secrete, any such Wreck of the Sea, Jetsam, Flotsam, Lagan, Derelict, Boat, Vessel, Apparel, Anchor, Cable, Tackle, Stores, Materials, Goods, Merchandize, or other Article as aforesaid, or shall deface, take out, or obliterate any Name, Mark or Number thereon, or alter the same in any Manner, or shall keep Possession of or retain, or conceal or dispose of any Droit of Admiralty, or shall not forthwith report and place at the Disposal of such Receiver or Officer of the Customs any such Article or Drqit in the Manner aforesaid, shall forfeit all Claim to Salvage, and shall on Conviction forfeit any Sum not exceeding one hundred Pounds, and also forfeit and pay Double the Value of the Articles to the Owner thereof, if claimed, or to Her Majesty, if the same become or be a Droit of Admiralty; which Double Value may be recovered in the same Manner as a Penalty under this Act."

The 1846 Act was superseded by an amending and consolidating Act, the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, and was repealed by the Merchant Shipping Repeal Act 1854. The former Act of 1854 was in turn repealed and substantially replaced by the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. Section 72 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 applied certain provisions of the 1894 Act to wreck found outside the limits of the United Kingdom and brought within those limits. The Aircraft (Wreck and Salvage) Order 1938 and the Civil Aviation Act 1949 applied the wreck provisions of the 1894 Act to aircraft and its cargo found derelict at sea, in tidal waters and in ports and harbours.

Under the powers granted by the Hovercraft Act 1968 an Order in Council is in preparation which would make similar provision for hovercraft found derelict. The Sea Fisheries Aot 1968, which repeals and replaces similar provisions of the Sea Fisheries Act 1883, provides that fishing boats or fishing gear lost or abandoned at sea and found within United Kingdom territorial waters or found beyond those waters and brought within them shall be treated as wreck for the purposes of the 1894 Act.

The 1894 Act is very complicated. I have been very struck, in the representations made to me since Second Reading, by the number of persons closely involved in this matter who have no idea what the legal provisions were and how they are affected by what the House will, I hope, agree to today.

Anciently wrecked vessels and their contents as they lie on the sea bed are generally "derelict". At the moment anyone is entitled to dive to them and, having done so, to effect recoveries from them which will then fall to be treated in accordance with Part IX of the 1894 Act. The rights of the original owner or his successors are in suspense but claims to ownership may be established by them to items recovered and brought ashore. The stage at which owners have ceased to have any form of possession or control of a wrecked vessel must remain a question of fact dependent on the circumstances of each case.

Even if a wreck is ancient, there may be exceptional cases where the owner has not surrendered control. This may be so in the case of the famous Tobermory galleon the remains of which are claimed by the Duke of Argyll. At the other end of the scale, in the case of wrecks of recent origin, it may happen that although a vessel has been wrecked and months elapse without any apparent activity to effect recovery, the owners of the vessel and cargo or the underwriters have by no means abandoned it or the prospect of recovering it or part of it.

Some cases will fall between these extremes. For example, the "Tubantia" sank in the North Sea in 1916 and was located and worked on by salvors in 1922 and 1923. Although the salvors had no connection with the Dutch owners or any arrangement with them, the court nevertheless granted the protection of the possession gained by the salvors against interference by interlopers.

The original owners of ancient wreck may be the Crown or the United Kingdom Government, a private person or a foreign Government. An agreement between the legal successor of the original owner and the would-be salvor is sometimes made, as for example in the case of HMS "Association", although it may well be doubted whether such an agreement could in normal circumstances confer exclusive rights to dive and effect recoveries. If that is so, it must be asked what advantage a salvor obtains by making such an agreement. He may, if the agreement transfers title, acquire ownership of the items recovered without waiting for the statutory period of a year for salvage to be paid. We may also know in advance the reward he may expect.

There are cases on record which show that at one time the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport granted licences to dive on ancient wrecks and to recover items irrespective of whether the Crown or a United Kingdom Government Department was the original owner.

The licences carried an entitlement to salvage expressed as a specified percentage of the net proceeds of the sale of the wreck. In these cases it was believed that the Crown had the title to derelict vessels lying on the sea bed in United Kingdom territorial waters. This view may have been influenced by the fact that in two cases the Crown was at war with the original owners at the time of the loss. In other cases where the Crown or a United Kingdom Government Department was not the original owner, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport, with the consent of the Treasury, notified would-be salvors that, in the event of salvage falling to be determined by the Department because items recovered remained unclaimed, the salvage payment would be a specified percentage of the value of the wreck.

In 1965 the Board of Trade was advised that it should not be taken to be a principle of United Kingdom law that all ancient wrecks lying in United Kingdom territorial waters were vested in the Crown, as they lie irrespective of their original ownership. Instead the Crown is entitled by the provisions of the 1894 Act to the proceeds of any wreck recovered if no owner establishes his claim within a year after the wreck has come into the possession of the Receiver of Wreck.

It followed that licences to dive on such wrecks had no validity and would not keep others persons away. It will be noted that this advice did not preclude the Department from notifying a would-be salvor, as in the cases I have mentioned, that a certain percentage of the salvage award would be paid in the event of the salvage falling to be determined by the Board of Trade if wreck recovered were unclaimed.

From 1965 onwards this policy was not followed, on the grounds that it was unwise to prejudice the appropriate award before the value of the property recovered was known and that high awards in such cases might become the general rule for all unclaimed wreck recovered from sunken vessels. Accordingly, subsequent cases were dealt with on the basis that the salvage award would be determined when the net proceeds of the sale of unclaimed wreck were unknown.

In the case of "de Liefde", a Dutch East Indiaman wrecked off the Outer Skerries in 1711, the Dutch Government established its claim to ownership of the bulk of the finds and salvage was determined by an agreement between the Dutch Government and the British salvors. In the case of the "Girona", a Spanish Armarda galleass which was located by Mr. Stenuit off the coast of Northern Ireland, the salvor, while notifying the receiver of his finds, refused to deliver the property recovered on the grounds that much of it was the personal property of the passengers and crew and therefore not wreck. The opinion of counsel taken in this case was that this view would not be upheld in the courts.

12.15 p.m.

The salvor has now delivered the property into the receiver's custody on being assured of a certain scale of salvage award in the event of the property remaining unclaimed. With the HMS "Association", wrecked off the Isles of Scilly in 1707, the Ministry of Defence has made non-exclusive agreements with two groups of salvors concerning property which can be identified as belonging to the Ministry.

Items which cannot be so identified, comprising largely gold and silver coins, Admiral Sir Cloudesley Shovell's silver plate and other artefacts, fall to be treated as unclaimed wreck. Two public auctions of the unclaimed property have already been held and salvage has been paid. The remains of the "Amsterdam" lie buried in the foreshore near Hastings. Certain artefacts have been recovered and delivered into the receiver's custody. The Dutch Government has announced its intention of making a claim to ownership. The foreshore where the wreck lies buried is the property of the Hastings Corporation whose byelaws control access by vehicles to the site. The Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports has the right to unclaimed wreck, whether common law wreck or Admiralty droits, in this area but has agreed that the receiver will administer them on his behalf.

In these cases it has been the normal practice for the Receiver of Wrecks or the Board of Trade to consult appropriate museums regarding the conservation of artefacts in the receiver's custody. Objects of no great intrinsic value or bulky objects such as cannon have been lent to museums when security permits for preservation, study or display to the public.

I come now to the question of the rights of salvors in possession. It was established in the case of the "Tubantia" that a salvor who could show that he was in possession of a derelict vessel and its contents lying on the sea bed might in certain circumstances obtain a High Court injunction restraining other salvors from interfering with his operations. Mr. Stenuit obtained an opinion of the Northern Ireland court to this effect in an action concerning the "Girona". A similar action has been initiated by Mr. Roland Morris to restrain the Lyonesse Salvage Company from interfering with the wrecks of the "Association" and the "Romney". An ex-parte injunction was granted in the latter case but after a full hearing the application was refused.

As I have demonstrated, there is provision in the Act for the custody and proper disposal of items recovered from wrecks and also for preventing plunder and disorder. In the case of newly-wrecked vessels where lives and property are in danger, there is provision for protecting the carrying out of rescue work and the receiver's functions. There is no provision for preventing disorder or conferring protection in the case of derelicts lying on the sea bed of possibly great value not only in terms of money but in terms of historical, archaeological or artistic interest.

Cases have already occurred where explosives have been used under water to effect the recovery of valuables quickly, regardless of possible damage to other important remains on the sea bed in the area. Indeed, fighting between rival salvors has occurred over at least one wreck of great historical importance, namely, the "Mary Rose". That was discussed at considerable length during Second Reading. It is in consequence of the considerable pressure of opinion which has arisen that wrecks of that kind should be properly dealt with as part of our national heritage that this short Bill has been introduced.

It has been fully realised in the long term that there must be revision of Part IX of the 1894 Act, which, as the House knows, runs to 61 Sections. A committee, which is representative of all interests affected, has that matter under consideration. In the meantime, some degree of statutory protection is urgently required. I think that the committee agrees with this.

I now turn to Clause 1 and to one or two rather more detailed matters. Clause 1(1) provides:

"If the Secretary of State is satisfied with respect to any site in United Kingdom waters that (a) it is, or may prove to be, the site of a vessel lying wrecked on or in sea bed; and (b) on account of the historical archaeological or artistic importance of the vessel, or of any objects contained or formerly contained in it which may be lying on the sea bed in or near the wreck, the site ought to be protected from unauthorised interference, he may by Order designate an area round the site as a restricted area."

The words "United Kingdom waters" are defined in Clause 3(1) to mean—

"any part of the sea within the seaward limits of United Kingdom territorial waters and includes any part of a river within the ebb and flow of ordinary spring tides".

The words "the sea" are defined as including—

"any estuary or arm of the sea; and references to the sea bed include any area submerged at high water of ordinary spring tides".

Thus, the power to designate areas does not extend beyond the outer boundary of the territorial waters of England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. It does, however, extend to areas which are generally termed "the foreshore". As I have already mentioned, the site of the "Amsterdam", lying close to low water mark in the sands off Hastings, could be designated under the Bill if the Secretary of State so decided.

The expressions

"on or in the sea bed'"

and

"objects contained or formerly contained in"

—that is, in the vessel—take account of the fact that the remains of a vessel wrecked possibly centuries ago and of its equipment, such as antique brass cannons or cargo, and personal possessions of the passengers and crew, such as coins and jewellery recovered from the "Girona", which are now on exhibition at the Ulster Museum, had become scattered over the sea floor following the gradual disintegration over the years of the vessel.

Of course, such objects frequently become buried in the process. It is for that reason that it is necessary to take power to designate, and so to subject to the restrictions which follow, an area round the site of the wrecked vessel, as well as what might be termed the specific site itself.

Subsection (2) requires orders to identify the site where the vessel lies or formerly lay or is supposed to lie or have lain. As I have already said, a wrecked vessel may disintegrate with the passage of the years. Also, where the Secretary of State has to deal, as provided in subsection (1), with a site which "may prove to be" that of a vessel, the evidence before him will no doubt be factual and sufficient to justify designation but may fall short of the visible presence of a vessel on the sea bed. Both those eventualities require to be covered by the enabling power.

The subsection goes on to provide that the restricted area designated in the order must not include any area above high water mark, that it must all be within such distance of the site as is fixed and specified in the order, and that that distance is to be such as the Secretary of State may fix as appropriate to ensure protection for the wreck.

Subsection (3) lists the acts which will constitute offences if done in a restricted area otherwise than under the authority of a licence granted by the Secretary of State. The first is tampering with, damaging or removing any part of a vessel lying wrecked on or in the sea bed, or any object formerly contained in such a vessel. The second is carrying out diving or salvage operations directed to exploring any wreck or to removing objects from it or from the sea bed, or using diving or salvage equipment. The third is depositing, so as to fall and lie abandoned on the sea bed, anything which if falling on the site of a wreck would either wholly or partly obliterate the site, obstruct access to it, or damage any part of the wreck.

The subsection also makes it an offence to cause or permit such acts to be done by others in such an area and otherwise than under licence.

Regard has been had in the framing of these offences to ensuring that restriction of activities in designated areas is not more than is reasonably necessary to pro- vide adequate protection for the wreck and for authorised work to be carried out upon it. It will be seen that ordinary navigation, which includes anchoring, fishing and bathing in the area remain lawful. If I am fortunate to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Third Reading I shall refer to fishing, which is of considerable interest to my constituents. I emphasise, with specific regard to Clause 1, that fishing remains lawful subject only to the provisions relating to obstruction.

Under Clause 3(3), acts done to deal with an emergency or in the exercise of statutory functions or in any other specified circumstances are not to be offences under the Bill.

With regard to exploratory diving and the use of diving equipment, it was decided, after careful consultation, that its prohibition, in what will, it is expected, be in few and comparatively small areas, would be necessary to ensure proper protection. I hope the Committee will agree that in the circumstances that is not unreasonable.

Subjection (4) requires that the Secretary of State, before making a designation order, must consult persons whom he considers to be appropriate. When my hon. Friend comes to reply he may explain the law on that matter. I understand that the Secretary of State is required to consult such people unless he is satisfied that the making of an order is a matter of immediate urgency. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is only common sense. It must be remembered that the Bill deals not only with vessels of historical, artistic or archaeological value but with dangerous wrecks.

I apologise for missing the first two or three minutes of my hon. Friend's speech. I should like to know exactly what happens now if a ship goes down which is different from what will happen as a result of what he is putting forward. Let us say that a ship goes down in the Channel: what happens now and what will happen in future?

I do not think my hon. Friend quite means that. Perhaps if he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will correct his syntax. It is because there are no effective powers at the moment that we are seeking to provide them, and, in particular, to deal with the provisions about dangerous wrecks.

In normal cases it is proposed that higher consultation should take place with archaeologists, representatives of museums—including the National Maritime Museum and the corresponding Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh institutions—the British Sub-Aqua Club and commercial salvage interests. It is proposed that the chairman of the advisory group should be available to give prompt advice if there is a need for immediate action so that designation, if required, can take place immediately. The Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh Departments and harbour authorities would be consulted if a site were within their areas. There would also be consultation with the appropriate Departments if sites were in lobster or scallop fishing areas or recognised dumping grounds.

Subsection (5) deals with the licences to be granted by the Secretary of State in respect of restricted areas for the purposes of subsection (3). They are required to be in writing and are to be confined to persons appearing to the Secretary of State either, first, to be competent, and properly equipped, to carry out salvage operations in a manner appropriate to the historical, archaeological or artistic importance of the wreck in question and objects contained, or formerly contained, in it, or, secondly, to have legitimate reason to carry on activities in the restricted area which would be unlawful under the Bill unless done under the authority of a licence.

Sub-paragraph (i) provides for what may be generally described as the main or principle licence under which the essential work of salvage involving proper and careful treatment appropriate to the wrecked vessel and its contents will be entrusted to suitable persons. Sub-paragraph (ii) is intended to cover cases where, making due allowance for what has to be done to conserve the wreck, it is necessary or reasonable to allow other unconnected operations to be carried out in the area, with appropriate safeguards. Examples of such cases might be salvage operations necessary to recover another vessel or cargo from it in the rather unlikely event of its sinking in a restricted area, and also the possibly more probable case of diving operations for the taking of fish from the sea bottom.

The subsection goes on to provide that licences may be granted subject to conditions or restrictions, and for their variation or revocation on not less than one week's notice to the licensee. It also provides that the breach of a condition or restriction in a licence is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (3)—which deals with offences—as done otherwise than under the authority of the licence.

Lastly—

About time.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman was present when we debated this on Second Reading. If he had taken a closer interest in the last stage of the Bill I should have been more willing to accept criticism from him.

I was away on other business at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the close interest that I have taken in this matter all through the debates on it.

I know that, and that is why I particularly mentioned the Second Reading debate. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest, and it would have been more courteous if he had followed the progress of the Bill more closely. Had he done so, I should have been more willing to accept criticism from him. I take this matter very seriously.

From the representations which I have received over the last two months it is clear that there is a great deal of misunderstanding and ignorance about this issue, and it is important to get on the record exactly what is the legal position.

Subsection (6) deals with the obstruction of authorised operations. It is made an offence, subject to Clause 3(3), for a person to obstruct or cause to permit to be obstructed any person who is authorised by licence under the clause to carry out diving or salvage operations in the doing of anything authorised by that licence.

If the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) would like to comment on that, he can do so.

It is not for the hon. Gentleman to tell me—or any other hon. Member—whether I am or am not permitted to comment on the Bill. The conduct of the debate is in the hands of the Chair, and we want no advice from the hon. Gentleman on how the debate is to be conducted.

Having listened to a speech lasting for about 41 minutes on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", I began to wonder whether the hon. Gentleman wanted to talk out his own measure. The bulk of what he said ought to have been discussed on Second Reading and was not, in my view, a matter to be raised at this stage of the Bill.

Notwithstanding that, I do not propose to detain the Committee for long because following this Bill there is an important measure dealing with heating for the elderly and I do not want to hold that up. I do not want to prevent the House from discussing it. I began to wonder whether the hon. Gentleman had some consideration at the back of his mind other than that of getting his Bill through. I began to wonder whether, by speaking at such length, someone might want to prevent the Heating for the Elderly Bill from being discussed, but that is perhaps supposition.

I know how helpful both the Minister and his Department have been on this matter. May I ask what progress has been made on the setting up of an advisory committee and whether the Minister has in mind some distinguished person who might be willing to act as chairman of the committee?

I do not want to be drawn into an argument between my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), but perhaps I may seek to arbitrate. I am sure that the House has ample time available today to discuss as much of its business as it wishes to.

When a Bill is expected to go to a Standing Committee upstairs, and, as a result, the arguments which might be advanced on Second Reading are left to be considered in Committee by those who are known to have a close and continuing interest in the matter, and it is then found that the Bill comes on to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage, I do not think the sponsor of the Bill should be condemned because he sets out in a meticulous and perhaps painstaking way what would have been discussed at some length in Committee upstairs.

I am the sponsor of the next Bill to be considered by the House. I think that if an hon. Member adopts the device of taking the Committee stage of his Bill on the Floor of the House it might be courteous of him to pay some regard to the fact that he is pre-empting the time of other hon. Members who have been lucky in the Ballot. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) might have had the courtesy to bear that in mind and restrict his remarks.

That again is a matter between the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, and not one in which I wish to take sides. However, I think that the hon. Member for York is asking for an excessive amount of courtesy between hon. Members. It might be said that if a Bill takes a long time in Standing Committee it is holding up other Bills waiting consideration by that Committee and that the hon. Member who is sponsoring it should stand up in the House at Business Time and make an apology. I do not think it would be profitable to allow ourselves to be drawn into a debate on parliamentary etiquette, because we are here to consider something quite different.

I think that it was justified of my hon. Friend to remind the Committee at the outset of the historic articles which we are here seeking to provide with protection. My hon. Friend's rehearsal of the legal history was about as evocative as anything that I have heard. It seemed to me that the Chamber was filled not only with the sound of the sea but with the ghosts of Sir Francis Drake and other eminent parliamentarians of that day and with the echo of the protests to which some of the earlier legislation on wrecks must have given rise in the parts of the country where wrecking was the principal local industry. I have no intention of following my hon. Friend except to comment briefly on one or two of the points made by him and to answer, as it is right that I should, the question asked by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West.

I think it is generally accepted as necessary that this legislation should be introduced. It is also, I am sure, understood that the time cannot be indefinitely deferred when there should be full revision of Part IX of the 1894 Act. Perhaps my hon. Friend will take it a compliment from me, as it is certainly meant to be, that he can claim to have won pole position in the race for a Committee which considers whatever legislation is introduced to amend the Act.

However, I am in no doubt at all that the legislation he is sponsoring and has spoken to today is necessary, is generally seen to be necessary, and is generally supported by the public. In spelling out its terms with some care my hon. Friend can justifiably claim that it is of the greatest importance that there should be no misunderstanding on the part of those who may find themselves brought into a different position vis-à-vis the law from that which they have hitherto occupied because some of those concerned have in the past shown some sign of not being particularly concerned with what the law actually says, and it is because of their piratical activities that it is necessary that we should legislate. I believe it is extremely important that they understand what the impact of this legislation is, because we do not want to find that its introduction is followed by a number of cases being brought against offenders claiming that they did not understand the effect of the law.

If these cases have to be brought they can only be brought as a consequence of further damage to the historical articles that we seek to protect, and I am prepared at the price of a few moments on the Floor of the Committee, to see these proposals explained to save from further damage articles of irreplaceable value which lie on the sea bed of our coasts of this country.

I hope that my hon. Friend will take it from me that I, and, I think, the whole House have great sympathy with what he seeks to do.

It is correct that we should also make clear that neither the House nor the Secretary of State will be acting, when it comes time to act, without the best possible advice being made available. My hon. Friend has pointed out that under Clause 1 the Secretary of State is required to consult appropriate persons before making a designation order. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West asked for elaboration of this point. I think it was made clear on Second Reading that we intend to establish an advisory committee consisting of experts in the various fields concerned and representative of a wide variety of interests, and that this committee should be under an independent chairman.

I am now glad to be able to tell the House that Lord Runciman has agreed to take on this task, and I am sure that there will be agreement that there could be no one better. He is a very distinguished former chairman of the trustees of the National Maritime Museum; he has a wide interest in maritime affairs; and he takes interest in, as well as having great knowledge of, nautical history. I feel we have been extremely fortunate in securing the services of so eminent and obviously non-partisan a man to take on this task.

It is a quite considerable task which will fall to him. It is right that it should be made clear precisely what duties will be devolved by the Secretary of State to the experts whose advice he will seek. It is our intention that the committee should consist of persons distinguished in fields of archaeology, representative of the commercial and other interests affected, the Hydrographer of the Navy, the Directors of the Science and National Maritime Museums, and two experts on coins and cannon from the British Museum. The national museums of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would also be consulted on sites in their areas. The Department will be free to consult other interests and Departments as necessary.

This I have explained to Lord Runciman in inviting him to take on this task, and he has agreed it is reasonable. I also explained to him that the committee would not be a statutory body, and fees would not be payable for the services of its members, but reasonable out of pocket expenses would be met.

12.45 p.m.

The composition of the committee may be varied with the chairman's agreement if circumstances require it, and clearly, to relieve perhaps embarrassment, it would have no duties in relation to the dangerous wrecks provisions in the Bill, where obviously, matters of public interest rather than any historical considerations, would determine decisions.

We hope that the full committee might meet only once or twice a year, the day-to-day work being undertaken by a subcommittee consisting of the chairman, four representatives from museums and representatives of archaeology and diving interests concerned with a site under consideration.

The Department will provide secretarial assistance and as much information as possible relating to the wreck site. We envisage that only about half a dozen sites would be designated at the outset; the number might increase as new sites were discovered, but it is unlikely to exceed 24 in the first few years.

The intention to designate a named site would be advertised and time allowed for consideration of objections. When the need for immediate designation precluded advertisement of intention, a designation order would be made immediately but could be revoked in the light of any representation arising.

In case hon. Gentlemen feel we have had time to consider the matter and so should be able to say what would be the top priority for a designation order, I think that on reflection they may agree that we must depend on the advice of the committee. Although we would have recommendations to put to it ultimately, what we do will depend upon what it advises that we should do in these cases. I think something like the "Mary Rose" is a fairly obvious example of a candidate for designation.

To complete the explanation of the committee's functions, the advisory committee and its chairman would be called upon to consider any objections received either in response to a notice of the Secretary of State's intention to designate or to an order made as a matter of urgency. The committee would be asked to advise whether licences should be granted for salvage operations and what conditions should be attached to such licences for the protection of the archaeological value of a designated site.

If the Bill is enacted substantially in its present form here and in another place it will be an acceptable basis upon which we would hope to proceed, and I hope the House will agree that it is a most reasonable basis upon which to proceed.

There is little else I can add. It may be that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West would like to come back on Third Reading to what I have said, but, in any case, I have given the House a fairly full account of the way in which we see the Bill working. There may be one or two refinements which might be introduced in relation to the consultation procedure, but nothing which would be in any way in conflict with the spirit of the Bill or the way in which it is at present drafted, and with that I recommend this clause to the House.

Perhaps I might be allowed to start by saying that I am sorry I was so sharp just now to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Ham-ling). I apologise. I did not mean to cast any aspersion on his long interest in this matter. He will understand when one presents a Bill to the House for the first time one may be a little more tense and subject to irritation than on other occasions. I hope he will take it that there is nothing personal in that.

On whether or not the question of the Shipping Act 1894 should have been raised on Second Reading had I known there was a certain amount of misunderstanding about the present legal position I certainly might have raised it then, but it has only been since then that interest has been stimulated afresh in this matter, stimulated by the Second Reading. I have had various representations made to me which have clearly indicated to me a need to put on the record the historical situation, and what we propose to do about it, and why. [Interruption.] I am sorry if the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) is anxious to get on to his Bill. However, it is a question of the Ballot, and my Bill takes precedence over his. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very interested in the subject dealt with by his Bill and that I thought originally of introducing a Bill including the very measures which the hon. Gentleman seeks to put through. I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's Bill, but I cannot allow that to stand in the way of getting through what I regard as a most important measure on the protection of wrecks.

Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State, if satisfied, first, that a vessel lying wrecked in United Kingdom waters is, by reason of anything contained in it, in a condition which makes it a potential danger to life or property, and, secondly, that it should on that account be protected from interference, to designate by order an area around that vesel as a prohibited area; and makes entry into such an area without the Secretary of State's written authority an offence.

Hazards of this kind are well illustrated by the "Richard Montgomery", which I went down to see with my hon. Friend some weeks ago to familiarise myself in particular with this case. The "Richard Montgomery" is an American ship stranded in the Thames Estuary off Sheerness during the last war—I think in 1944—when carrying several thousand tons of explosives. Although a part of her cargo has been successfully removed since then, a very considerable quantity—I think about half the total amount of 7,000 tons of explosives; in other words, about 3,500 tons of explosives—remains in the wrecked vessel.

It was decided on the best technical advice that could be obtained that the danger of further attempts at removal outweighed any risks attached to leaving the ship and her remaining contents as they lie, thus allowing the remaining explosives, as we hope and are certain, to become neutralised with the passage of time.

Naturally, traffic in the estuary has to be very carefully routed clear of the ship. The ship is very well marked. However, she has proved something of an object of curiosity to sightseers in boats, and there have been occasions when members of the public have approached sufficiently close to be in a position to interfere with the vessel, without so far—fortunately—actually doing so to any serious extent.

In this case the Port of London Authority has been able, under the provisions of the Port of London Act 1968, to give general directions in the form of a "Notice to Mariners" prohibiting unauthorised navigation in the area of the vessel. It is possible that in the event of such hazards occurring in other harbour and conservancy areas the responsible authority would have similar powers under local Acts. It is not intended that the powers of such authorities should be affected in any way by those conferred by the clause on the Secretary of State. Safety would be the overriding consideration in the case of any particular hazard, and if it occurred in any harbour area there would be full consultation.

However, it is considered right that the powers given to the Secretary of State not only should apply, as they clearly must, to areas for which no authority has responsibility but should be available for use in harbour areas to reinforce as may be necessary the possibly more limited powers of the local harbour board.

It may be noted that the prohibition imposed by the clause is upon entry, howsoever made, and not only upon navigation.

Subsection (1) provides that, where the Secretary of State is satisfied with respect to a vessel lying wrecked in United Kingdom waters, first, that because of anything contained in it it is in a condition which makes it a potential danger to life or property, and, secondly, that on that account it ought to be protected from unauthorised interference, he may by order designate an area round the vessel as a prohibited area.

Subsection (2) requires orders under the clause to identify the vessel and the place where it lies. It also provides that a pro- hibited area shall not include any area above high-water mark; that it shall be all within such distance of the vessel as is specified in the order; and that such distance shall be such as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate as to ensure that unauthorised persons are kept away from the vessel.

Subsection (3) makes it an offence to enter a prohibited area either on the surface or under water without the authority in writing of the Secretary of State. Like the offences specified in Clause 1, this offence is made subject to the provision of Clause 3(3), which specifies the circumstances in which acts which would otherwise constitute the offence shall not be regarded as doing so— for example, acts to deal with an emergency or in the course of exercising institutory powers.

I wish to add one or two points to the very excellent introduction given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat).

It may be as well for us to understand that there are certain cases which will not be covered by the clause and, therefore, in so far as they are not covered by the Bill, and, so that there shall be no public misunderstanding, I make it clear that they are already covered by other legislation, and there need not, therefore, be any concern as to their being a danger.

The Secretary of State will not be enabled by the clause to designate a prohibited area round a wrecked vessel which is a danger to life or property solely because it is an obstruction to navigation, because the danger does not arise from the vessel's contents and the vessel does not need on that account to be protected from unauthorised interference. There are well-established and, I hope we can agree, almost invariably effective procedures followed in such cases.

Where any vessel other than one of Her Majesty's ships is wrecked in any harbour or tidal water under the control of a harbour or conservancy authority or near any approach thereto, that authority has powers deriving from Sections 530, 532, 533 and 534 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894—similar powers are usually contained in local legislation —to take possession of, mark and remove the obstruction if, in its opinion, the vessel is or is likely to become a danger to navigation.

The Ministry of Defence (Navy) has power to remove any wreck which is an obstruction to a dockyard port or to the approaches thereto under Section 13 of the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act 1865. It also has power to search for, take possession of, and mark any such wreck.

Perhaps more concern will centre round old wrecks which might cause oil pollution. The powers of the clause are not intended to be used to prohibit interference with old wrecks which are difficult to remove and may give rise to threat of oil pollution. The potential danger to property is unlikely to be so great as to justify removal in such a case, although if a particular difficult instance were to be brought to our notice it is conceivable that some way would be found of applying these powers if there were no others to hand.

The terms of the earlier part of the clause are, as I read them, that the Secretary of State's power to designate an area as a prohibited area round the vessel is restricted to a vessel which represents a potential danger to life or property. My hon. Friend referred just now, as I took it, to an old wreck of an oil tanker which might cause pollution but would not be a potential danger to life or property and would thus presumably be covered by the Bill.

What would be the position with a new oil tanker—not an old wreck—which sank and caused pollution, which did not endanger life or property but certainly might endanger the environment with oil being washed up on beaches? I cite the "Torrey Canyon" as an example. Is such a wreck covered by other legislation, or could it conceivably be covered by the terms of the clause?

That is the very point to which I was about to come. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that it is a point in which there may be interest, as I had suspected.

I hope this will explain the situation to my hon. Friend's satisfaction. Where an accident has occurred to or in a ship and, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, oil from the ship will or may cause pollution on a large scale—that is the kind of case which I think my hon. Friend has in mind—the Secretary of State has powers under Section 12 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 to require action to be taken to prevent or reduce oil pollution, including power to take over control of, remove or even sink or destroy the ship. Perhaps the "Torrey Canyon" has won a victory of a kind posthumously, although I doubt whether precisely the same methods would always be employed to sink or destroy a similar vessel were a case of this kind regrettably to recur. The Oil in Navigable Waters (Shipping Casualties) Order 1971 applies these powers with modifications also to ships which are not registered in the United Kingdom and which are for the time being outside United Kingdom territorial waters.

We therefore have a satisfactory position in this respect, but that does not mean that we should be complacent about the danger of large tankers stranding themselves on or near our shores and causing massive pollution. Since my hon. Friend has raised this matter, I can say that my Department is conducting this summer a series of exercises designed to test our defences against cases of this kind. Some few weeks ago I went to Milford Haven and saw what was being done there and the way in which new techniques were constantly being evolved to deal with oil coming from a wreck and drifting towards our shores, and, indeed, oil which we have not been able to prevent reaching our shores. If my hon. Friend would like further details of this, without delaying the Committee now I shall be happy to write to him and put him fully into the picture. I know this is a matter of widespread public interest.

There are no statutory powers at present for removing wrecks which may contain toxic, dangerous or polluting substances other than oil. In serious cases administrative action would be taken. If it were not practicable to remove the contents it might be necessary to use the powers of Clause 2 to prevent unauthorised interference.

Therefore, I think my hon. Friend, in this legislation, is providing us with a valuable longstop power whereby we could keep unauthorised people away from a wreck which was dangerous by reason of the fact that it contained toxic or polluting substances other than oil, and which for some reason we were not immediately in a position to do anything to make safe by administrative action. That is again something which I hope we need not contemplate.

Finally, so that there shall be no misunderstanding about this either, at least one local authority appears to have supposed that the powers in this clause would enable it to take some action to protect swimmers against the consequences of their own folly, either against danger to their lives or against the danger that they might bark their shins against a submerged vessel. The powers in this clause could not be used for that purpose—in other words, to prohibit bathers or sub-aqua divers from approaching a wreck which might be dangerous solely because the intruder might get into difficulties in exploring the wreck—for example, by being sucked under water or trapped within the wreck. It depends on the wreck being a potential danger because of anything contained in it. It is because of the need to cope with that situation and to make sure that there is no unauthorised tampering with wrecks that come into this category that I commend the clause to the Committee.

This clause contains supplementary provisions including definitions of expressions used in Clauses 1 and 2—provisions relating to the making of orders and penalty provisions. It also provides that certain actions, such as action taken in emergency, are not to constitute offences under Clauses 1 and 2. This can be dealt with speedily, and I turn to slightly more detailed consideration of what the clause implies.

Subsection (1) defines 'United Kingdom waters" to mean:

"any part of the sea within the seaward limits of United Kingdom territorial waters"

and to include the tidal waters of a river. It also provides that the expression "the sea" is to include

"any estuary or arm of the sea; and references to the sea bed include any area submerged at high water".

Subsection (2) deals with orders made by the Secretary of State under Clauses 1 and 2. Such orders are to be statutory instruments and subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. They may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made under the appropriate clause. The Secretary of State is required to revoke an order in two specified cases: first where, having made an order under Clause 1 designating a restricted area—that is, in the case of historically, archaeologically or artistically valuable wrecks—he later forms the opinion that there is not any wreck in the area requiring protection under the Bill, or that there is no longer any such wreck in the area.

An example of the first kind of case would be where the initial order is made on evidence, which is positive certainly but perhaps falls short of conclusive proof, that the site is likely to be that of a wrecked vessel of historical importance, so that further investigation and possibly excavation are required before a final conclusion can be drawn. If it then turns out in such a case that the final conclusion is negative, I think the Committee would agree that it is right that the protection conferred whilst exploratory work proceeded should be ended. An example of the second kind of case would be where recovery operations at a wreck have been completed. In addition, having made an order under Clause 2 designating a prohibited area— that is, in the case of a dangerous wreck —the Secretary of State might later become satisfied that the vessel no longer constitutes a potential danger to life or property.

Subsection (3) provides that things done by a person in three sets of circumstances are not to be regarded as constituting offences under the Bill. Those three sets of circumstances are as follows: first, in the course of any action taken by the person in question for the sole purpose of dealing with an emergency of any description. What would amount to an emergency in any given case would depend on the facts, but an obvious example would be the capsizing of a boat; the steps necessary to rescue persons thrown into the water might well constitute obstruction under Clause 1(6) or necessitate entry into a danger area under Clause 2, but would not constitute an offence. The second circumstance is in exercising or seeing to the exercise of functions conferred by or under a statute, local or otherwise, on the person in question or on a body such as, for example, Trinity House or a harbour conservancy board for which he acts.

It is intended that there should be full consultation and co-operation between those licensed by the Secretary of State to conduct operations in a site and bodies having statutory responsibilities for investigation in any area, such as a harbour or conservancy area, in which it may be situated, so that their respcetive functions may be duly discharged.

The need for paragraph (c)—

"out of necessity due to stress of weather or navigational hazards"—

is self-evident.

Subsection (4) provides that an offence under Clause 1 or Clause 2 shall be punishable on summary conviction by a fine of not more than £400, or on conviction on indictment by a fine unlimited in amount. It provides also that proceedings for such offences may be taken in any place in the United Kingdom where the supposed offender may for the time being be, and that the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed in that place.

I hope that this clause, too, will commend itself to the Committee.

I should be glad to have answers to two questions. First, I believe that there is at least one privately-owned wreck in the British Isles, the wreck of the Spanish galleon in Tobermory Bay in the Isle of Mull. My impression—it is no more than that—is that this wreck belongs to the Duke of Argyll and his heirs. Certainly the Duke of Argyll claims that that is so, and, searching back in my memory, I believe that the claim is made on the ground that the wreck was gifted to the Campbells by Queen Elizabeth I.

Yes.

My hon. Friend confirms that my recollection is correct.

The House will recall that there were many reports in the Press some years ago of a succession of attempts in modern times to salvage the contents of that wrecked Spanish galleon in Tobermory Bay. There were attempts to salvage its contents also in the last century and, I believe, long before that, going right back to the seventeenth century.

There is an agreeable belief in Argyll and generally in Scotland that a treasure of vast value still lies in the wreck. I think it probable that every Spanish galleon which ran aground on the shores of Scotland and Ireland was locally regarded as the treasure ship. Nevertheless, there remains the belief that the true treasure ship is the one lying in Tobermory Bay. Quite a lot has been found. I recall seeing an iron-clad chest, some cannon and various other objects, but, so far as I know, no great treasure has been found at least in modern times.

If I am right in my understanding that this wreck is regarded as being privately owned, would the penally provisions in Clause 3 apply to any diving expedition mounted by the present Duke of Argyll or one of his successors to reclaim the treasure which is alleged to be in the ship? If he were to exploit by exploration what is regarded as his private property, could he find himself suddenly liable to a fine not exceeding £400 as a result of taking what he regards as legally his, whether intending to use the product of the search for his own benefit or for the general good by exhibition in museums or the like?

1.15 p.m.

It seems to me that Clause 1 is widely drawn so that anyone who tampers with a wreck which is regarded as of historic value, and is so designated by the Secretary of State, will be liable to the penalties under Clause 3. I should like clarification of that, and I apologise for not having given the Minister notice of the question. I admit frankly that it came to my mind only as I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) explaining the penalty of £400 which a person guilty of an offence might suffer.

I come now to my second question. Over the years, there have been reports of substantial treasure being found in wrecks around our coast. I recall that fairly recently a large hoard of coins was found off the south coast of England, and these coins were auctioned publicly only a few months ago. I accept entirely that it was all done most honourably, but my recollection is that the sale fetched a great sum of money. I have no doubt that similar treasures remain to be found on the sea bed around our coasts.

Presumably, designation of a wreck by the Secretary of State would attract some publicity. If someone finds it possible, with the new techniques of diving, to gain access to a wreck containing treasure, will he be liable only to a fine not exceeding £400 if he removes therefrom coin to a vast value?

More on indictment.

My understanding is that it is a fine on summary conviction of no more than £400. What will be the position of someone who breaks the requirement of Clause 1 by tampering with a designated wreck, removing therefrom coinage to a vast value and then selling the coins by auction at Sotheby's, say, making thousands of pounds in the process? This is no farfetched example. It could well happen. Will he be liable only to a fine not exceeding £400? If so, it would seem to me that the fine is totally inadequate and there should be provision for dealing with abuses of that kind.

The fine prescribed on summary conviction is not more than £400, but on conviction on indictment the fine is unlimited.

I am much obliged. I had misread the subsection, and I apologise. However, I should still welcome an answer to my first question, in view of what I understand to be the existence of at least one privately-owned wreck.

My hon. Friend raises a rather more substantial question than he realises. Courts of superior jurisdiction—the Crown courts now—would very likely be unwilling to enforce a really heavy fine unless there were special reasons for so doing. The technicality of these offences will often lead the court to treat them with a scale of fines consonant with what could be imposed by magistrates. Therefore, there is a matter here which the Minister may wish to consider.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on it. I shall be grateful if it is possible to have some information about the position of any privately-owned wrecks which may exist and if he will confirm whether I am right that the Tobermory wreck is one that is owned privately and, therefore, perhaps not one to which the Bill could or should apply.

I apologise for having missed the first part of the debate through an other inevitable engagement but I would ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider specifically whether one point is missing here by comparison with the sort of protection provided for works of art which are discovered on land. The parallel situation that exists there—and in our part of the world there have been the Sutton Hoo treasure in East Suffolk and the great series of torques which were found in my constituency—is the right of the Crown to claim treasure trove and thereby to acquire objects of this kind for the British Museum.

The risk that seems to be incumbent in the penalty provisions in the clause is that a £400 fine in the magistrates' court certainly will not alarm anybody who pursues treasure-seeking on a professional basis. In view of the value of the treasures that have been found— whether it is the treasure of Sir Cloudesley Shovell, the Northern Irish or the Scottish treasures—it is unlikely that the maximum fine proposed for the lower courts will deter anyone, especially in view of the amount of money needed to undertake an expedition. If the matter is taken to the Crown court, the prosecuting authority, which will be left with the decision of whether to prosecute there, will have to adopt a bold attitude in view of the constant criticism that is made about the excess of administrative-type offences being taken to the Crown court, offences which do not come within the normal purview of the criminal law.

The fine envisaged on indictment is unlimited but I am sure that it will be conceded that there is a psychological barrier for judges who have to apply fines which might seem too heavy by comparison with the sort of fines that are imposed in ordinary criminal matters. One thinks in particular of the situation which has arisen over the last few years in connection with the planning law. This applies particularly in the case of tree preservation orders which have been flouted throughout the length and breadth of the country, especially by very wealthy companies. The same can be said of the destruction of historic buildings which have been designated to be preserved. It has proved necessary for the House to introduce new legislation on the subject because the original level of fines imposed in magistrates' courts was too low.

I wonder, therefore, whether my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the sum of £400 and say whether he and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) do not feel that I am right in suggesting that such a fine will not strike terror into the hearts of any but the most amateur of skin divers and that anybody who has a real financial interest in seeking treasure would simply regard that type of fine in the magistrates' court as a form of fiscal risk. He would feel reasonably secure in thinking that unless he committed an offence of real gravity, such as lifting the whole of the Tobermory treasure—if he was someone other than the owner—the chances of his being taken to the Crown court or the sheriff court would remain fairly small.

My other point concerns the question of whether my hon. Friend the Minister thinks it necessary to bring this type of legislation into line with the type of legislation that exists to preserve national treasures if they are discovered on land and whether it is desirable that there should be an automatic provision giving one of the major national collections the right and the option to buy such treasure at a price reasonably decided upon by some body of suitable eminence and neutrality.

Strictly speaking, it is for my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) to reply to matters raised about the clause. However, perhaps I might intervene now and be of some assistance to the Committee. I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) would necessarily think was achieved if we legislated too much in parallel with statutes relating to the protection of historical treasures on land, because from much of what he was saying I inferred that he did not regard these as being particularly adequate statutes.

I was making a distinction between the penalties, for example, for failing to comply with tree preservation orders and orders covering historic buildings which we have now had to increase, and the other separate, adequate system of treasure trove for the protection of works of art discovered in an archaeological or historical find. The two are quite distinct.

I am not sure that I can cover by comparison with the general law elsewhere the wide-ranging matter which my hon. Friend has raised in his question. Perhaps it would suffice if I were to tell the Committee that I understand that, as matters are, the view of the responsible Department—that is, the Home Office— is that a proper limit on the maximum fine on summary conviction is £400. I suppose that that might carry great weight in the minds of those who decide whether proceedings are to be launched.

It is certainly true that the clause provides no limit to the fine that may be imposed on indictment. It is natural enough to infer that the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is that, if there were evidence to suggest that a person had made very large gains as a result of action which was outside this legislation, action would be taken against him on indictment because it would be held to be inappropriate that he should be exposed to a relatively insignificant or non-existent penalty. I suppose that in theory it would be possible to extend the penalties. For instance, they might be extended to cover confiscation of equipment used in the carrying out of the unlawful act from whence the gain derived, but there are reasons which the Committee, I think, would find convincing for not taking that course.

If it were left to a magistrates' court, the possible penalties would be unduly onerous. For instance, the vessel involved might not belong to the salvor, who might have hired it from some innocent person who had no idea that it was to be used for unlawful purposes. It would not serve any purpose to render such a vessel liable to confiscation. Also, diving equipment—this comes closer to parallels elsewhere in connection with the law governing firearms and poaching —is not all that expensive and it would not be a particularly severe penalty to confiscate a set of sub-aqua apparatus.

1.30 p.m.

Therefore, it is thought that the appropriate and the greater penalty for offences where conviction is obtained on indictment is the unlimited fine, but I suppose that it is always open for the matter to be pursued elsewhere if there is a feeling that the penalties are inadequate. I can only advise the Committee that the Government take no exception to the terms of the clause as it stands.

As to the ownership of wreck, I shall have to proceed with some care, because I suspect that the law is complex. Legislation to change ownership is in any event unlikely to be a particularly suitable matter for a Private Member's Bill.

I was not suggesting, and I hope that I did not give the impression that I was, that, if I am right in believing that at least one wreck is privately owned, the House should legislate to remove it from private ownership. It is an attractive and colourful survival of our history that wreck should be privately owned in that way, and I should not want to make any change in that.

I can understand that. I was going on to say that the Bill does not affect ownership as such, but my hon. Friend has put his finger on the point that it may affect some of the owner's rights over his property. Part of the purpose of the Bill is to achieve that very object.

Therefore, I think it right that I should tell the Committee how I see the situation in theory, because nothing I say can confirm or deny rights in a particular object, whether the Tobermory galleon or any other wreck which might come within the compass of this legislation, or which is in, or might come into, identifiable private ownership. I do not think that ownership of wrecks depends on the whims of Queen Elizabeth I. There are other ways in which private owners might acquire title.

I think that the best thing for me to do is to compare the position of an owner under exising law and what it may be when the Bill becomes law.

Long-abandoned wreck as it lies on the sea bed is derelict. It has no owner, and, generally speaking, anyone is entitled to dive, locate it and then effect salvage from it. Rights of ownership are in suspense. But if recoveries are effected those rights revive, because Part IX of the 1894 Act makes it clear that a person claiming ownership of articles recovered and brought ashore in the United Kingdom and held in the official custody of the Receiver of Wreck can assert his claim and will, if it is established, be entitled to have his property restored to him, subject to the payment of salvage and official expenses.

I know that the Committee is extremely interested in the subject. As the Minister said on Second Reading, however, many of these matters, which are now before the Wreck Law Review Committee, relate to Part IX of the 1894 Act. They are matters of extreme complexity that can be considered at great length when that committee reports. It would greatly assist hon. Members now if the hon. Gentleman spoke not so much to the wider matters, as he appears to be on the point of doing, but confined himself particularly to the clause.

The question whether I am in order—

It is not a question of order.

—and whether my remarks relate to the clause, which is what would make them in order, is not one for the hon. Gentleman to rule upon. I take some exception to his intervention, because a serious question has been asked. It is not a matter that ultimately depends on what may or may not happen when the 1894 Act comes up for review. It is a question of what happens when the Bill reaches the statute book, if it does. The hon. Gentleman has been carried away, by a motive that escapes me, into failing to listen to the argument, or seeking for some purpose of his own to rush the Committee through a very important point.

The whole of the Opposition are as anxious as is the hon. Gentleman to see that the Bill reaches the statute book. But if he seeks to open up wide-ranging discussion about the Bill, and not only about the Bill but about the matters which he told us on Second Reading were under discussion by the Wreck Law Review Committee, the Opposition will likewise be bound to consider at considerable length many of the points he is raising. That raises the question whether the House would pass the Bill today. It would be most unfortunate if we did not succeed in that.

It would be particularly unfortunate if we failed in that because of a stupid reaction to a point wrongly taken. I hope that nothing the hon. Gentleman does or says will cause me to level that charge against him. There is a point here which has not been touched on previously. I thought that it might be raised and I therefore came prepared to speak upon it. I have made fairly careful inquiries about it, because it affects the owner of a wreck, with all the rights that go with ownership, and the position in which he will be placed if the House passes the Bill. It is a different position. I should be extremely surprised if it were the general view on either side that Parliament does not wish to know the effects of the legislation that it passes.

Therefore, if I may proceed without further interruption, I shall try to explain precisely what the effect is upon a gentleman in ownership of a wreck—at least, one whom I know to be concerned about the matter and to whom, as well as to hon. Members, an explanation of the Bill is owed. I was explaining that there are rights of ownership which can be revived if certain action takes place, and the Bill or anything lawfully done under its provisions will affect those rights.

It not uncommonly happens that a professional diver or concern, interested in the location and recovery of a known historic or antique vessel, will take steps in advance of recovery to acquire by contract such rights of ownership as may be vested in persons, concerns or even Governments that have succeeded to property of the vessel's original owners at the time of its loss. This has been done in the case of vessels wrecked off our coasts and formerly the property of the Dutch East Indies Company, to which the Netherlands Government succeeded. In such a case the new owner-salvor, having successfully located and recovered property from the wreck, is entitled to retain his finds by virtue of his contract, subject to its terms, and they are not required to be delivered into official custody. The Bill will not affect title to property acquired in that way.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich will accept that in many cases the costs involved in recovery are such that there is a case to be made that the owner is entitled to get the best price he can, and that he is not likely to realise that at an auction. I should hesitate to suggest that an artificial limit should be placed on that price. The question is whether museums that are interested will have adequate funds to compete at an auction and establish the proper price.

rose—

I do not wish to give way to my hon. Friend, because I am anxious to make progress.

Has what the Minister is saying anything to do with the clause?

That is a matter for the Chair.

It is obvious that ownership could be materially affected by the operation of Clause 1 and that the penalties in Clause 3 could, therefore, fall upon the owner if he acted unlawfully. That was what my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire asked about, when I think the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) was not present.

The whole purpose of the Bill is to effect suitable restrictions in the handling and exploitation of wrecked vessels of historical, archaeological or artistic importance by persons who are now free to exploit them as they choose. We shall now have a situation in which an owner will not be free—

The Minister should apologise for what he has just said about me.

The hon. Gentleman makes a sedentary intervention which may or may not get on record.

I hope that the Minister will withdraw his imputation that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) was making comments or interventions without having heard the debate. My hon. Friend has been here, if not during the whole debate, certainly during the greater part of it.

I withdraw the remark that the hon. Gentleman was not present, but I replace it with the more serious suggestion that the hon. Member for Wythenshawe was not paying attention. Now, all he is doing is wasting time.

I wish to explain that if a site is designated, and if after designation illegal acts take place in relation to the site itself, the wreck or articles in the wreck, an owner who has not satisfied the requirements of the statute will be as liable to penalty as anybody else.

We hope that in these matters we shall be dealing with people who will be reasonable and who will act sensibly and keep within the law. I do not see a serious danger that owners who are conscientious and scrupulous and have at heart the interests of archaeology and nautical history are likely to place themselves in a position in which, if they wish to enjoy the rights they formerly enjoyed, they will have to expose themselves to the penalties of the law.

The legislation will have an effect on rights of ownership in an area where such rights have not been fettered before. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Wythenshawe is so careless of the rights of private ownership as not to wish to have them explained in the House, he has no right to sit there and carry on these interruptions.

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

I am glad to have this opportunity to say a word or two on the Third Reading of the Bill. I can assure the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), who is sitting in his place so impatiently, that I do not intend to deprive him of a chance to make the remarks which no doubt we shall hear a little later. It is a great pity that any sort of acrimony should be introduced in a discussion of an important Bill dealing with the protection of wrecks.

I have been grateful for the widespread support given to the Bill on all sides of the House, and also from outside Parliament. Since Second Reading many people have contacted me both in correspondence and in person and have made various suggestions about how the Bill can be improved. No doubt they have made similar suggestions to the Department. I am grateful for the helpful suggestions which have been made, and I assure the House that I have looked at these matters closely. If certain of the suggestions have not been incorporated in the Bill or have not been tabled in the form of amendments, that does not mean that we have totally disregarded their value. We regard those suggestions as valuable, and if amendments require to be made at a later stage, I am sure the Minister will be glad to look at them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) asked me to apologise for his absence since he has had to catch an aeroplane to Scotland. He asked me to correct a minor historical inaccuracy which he does not wish to go uncorrected. He said that it was Elizabeth I who gave the right of ownership to the then Duke of Argyll. My hon. Friend meant to say that it was the English ships under Queen Elizabeth that drove the Spanish armada north towards Scotland, where they foundered. Therefore, it would be the then monarch of the Scottish kingdom who would have given such rights of property as there were to the Duke of Argyll and his successors.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mrs. Monks) brought some of her constituents to see me on this matter, and she wished to know how this legislation compared with similar legislation in other countries. It is interesting to consider what happens in other countries for it helps to put the matter in perspective. There has been some interesting legislation on this subject in Western Australia, where the phrase "historic wreck" is defined as:

"any ship referred to in the schedule before 1900 …"—

Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that argument. I would remind him that we are now on the Third Reading of the Bill.

I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not go into detail. I was merely pointing out that various other countries have faced this problem and have found it necessary to introduce legislation, with various interesting differences which bear on what we are doing in the present Bill. However, I will take your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will attempt to inform those who are interested by other means than by remarks on the Floor of the House.

I should like to have some clarification from my hon. Friend the Minister on the question of fishing. I should like to have his view of what will happen if there is any interference with fishing or with the catching of lobsters or other crustaceans. Am I right in thinking that under the dangerous wrecks provisions of the Bill there can be no fishing, whether commercial or recreational, in any designated area? That is the interpretation I should like put on the Bill. When human life is at risk, this must be the paramount consideration, but it is important to clarify the interpretation with regard to historic wrecks. When life is not at stake, there can be disputes about priorities — whether commercial fishing or preservation of the historic or archaeological value of a wreck.

It is my intention that there should be no bar on fishing from the surface unless it were deliberately intended to obstruct a licensed salvor. This has been used as a method of obstruction when recognised salvors were at work. It is not common, but it has been known. Such obstruction would be an offence.

Am I also right in thinking that it is the Minister's reading, as it is mine, that fishing by means of diving and fishing for lobsters or other crustaceans could be banned? It is also necessary to assure the fishermen that we are not out to place any impediment upon the exercise of their commercial activity and that it would be intended that the Secretary of State or his representatives should consult the Fishery Departments in England and Wales and in Scotland before any restricting order was made to ensure that it did not interfere with legitimate fishing, or so that the reasons for it could be explained and communicated to the fishing communities concerned.

We should ensure that fishermen, especially those who live by lobster-catching, know that if they can prove their case the Secretary of State would be able to grant a special licence for lobster-catching within a designated area. The fishing community should be reassured on these points, first on full consultation and, second, that a special licence for legitimate fishing in designated areas will be available.

We should also make it clear, perhaps, that wreck sites which are not designated pose no problem. There seems to be an impression that the Bill will designate all wreck sites. I do not know how many areas the Secretary of State might choose to designate. The Undersecretary mentioned the "Mary Rose"—

I did not mention any site as definitely to be designated, because I was at pains to make it clear that we would depend on the advice of the consultative committee headed by Lord Runciman. So I hope that my hon. Friend will not seek to deduce from my remark any specific or definite intention.

I did not mean to give that impression. I interpreted my hon. Friend's words to mean that the "Mary Rose" might be a candidate for designation. I used that example to show that we shall not cover the seas and oceans around the United Kingdom with designated areas. Many wrecks will be un-designated, and fishermen will not have to worry about these.

I have also had considerable correspondence about how the Bill will affect the enthusiasm and keenness of amateur diving clubs. The Bill's intention is to safeguard historic vessels and to protect people from dangerous vessels, not to dampen the spirit of amateur divers. Although this was said several times on Second Reading, I have still had representations from people who think that the Bill is directed against sub-aqua clubs. This is not the impression of the generality of associations, but it is the impression of certain individuals and small clubs, which are not always in touch with the main bodies.

Let me give one specific example. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley brought two of her constituents to see me a couple of weeks ago. They were members of the local sub-aqua club, which was just the sort of organisation I am sure we would all wish to support. It largely supported itself, although there was a small grant of about £80. It did a lot of good work with young boys, teaching them the delights of underwater activity, encouraging their spirit of adventure. These people said they were afraid that this measure would damage their interests and operate against the smooth running of their club.

They put it to me that the club might be the first to discover a wreck. When it applied for a licence it could be told "Certainly you discovered the wreck, but you are a small, amateur body. You do not have the sophisticated equipment, the money, the persons with necessary experience. You know nothing about marine archaeology. We will not give you a licence further to exploit the wreck." I want to say as firmly as possible that this is not our intention. It would be perfectly possible for such a group to make arrangements with more sophisticated bodies, to contact marine archaeologists, people with the sophisticated equipment and the necessary experience so that the Secretary of State would then be prepared to grant the licence.

No one should feel that there is any reason why the Secretary of State will not grant a licence provided they are properly competent and the sort of people to whom we feel a licence should be given. The safeguard here is the committee to be headed by Lord Runciman. Those who are there because of their interests in amateur clubs will be able to put their case and ensure that it does not go by default. I hope this will help to assure amateur clubs that it is not our intention to pass these matters into the hands of richer, more sophisticated bodies. It is our firm intention to encourage the spirit of adventure which these clubs so well exemplify.

I turn to another question which has raised considerable doubts both before and after Second Reading; namely, the policing of this measure. How are we to enforce it? Many people agree that it is a splendid measure but wonder how it can be enforced. I am the first to admit that this is a genuine difficulty. At the first level it is a physical difficulty. It would be simple to have ultrasonic equipment placed in areas of designated wrecks and connected with the coastguards or some such body. However, under the requirements of the Bill we are not allowed to spend any money. The Bill makes clear that we do not intend to use the police as a primary agency, although we shall have the services of the Receiver of Wrecks, Customs officers, coastguards and many amateur divers. We shall also rely on a sense of local community to ensure that the measure is enforced.

May I ask a specific question about this? I said that we should find methods of providing proper incentives for salvors of a wreck to adhere to the requirements of the Bill. The Minister said he would look at this because it was the wish of his Department to find such incentives. Has any progress been made here, because it is of the greatest importance in enabling the measure to be implemented as effectively as possible?

I appreciate the support of the House in steering this Bill through, and I hope that the House will now give it a Third Reading.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) knows that he has enjoyed the support of my hon. and right hon. Friends during all stages of this Bill because we regard it as a useful, if small, measure of protection for wrecks of archaeological and historical interest.

I welcome the announcement of the appointment of Lord Runciman as the chairman of the consultative committee. A more eminent man and one more suit- able for the job it would be difficult to imagine. He will be welcomed by all interested in this subject.

The Minister probably realises that the Opposition would have preferred a more formally constituted committee with identifiable individuals, although we recognise the desirability of the widest possible consultation before making decisions about the designation of areas of special interest. We would have preferred such a committee not only because we envisage that the committee will be in a position to offer advice to the Minister but because there is some considerable public interest in these matters. It will be of interest to know whether it will be the Minister's intention to inform the public from time to time or to invite the consultative committee to inform the public of the progress of its work in reviewing the position and in reviewing the priorities for protection.

The Bill is welcome. It is, however, dealing with an interim situation prior to the conclusion of the study by the Wreck Law Review Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has taken a particular interest in these matters. He very much regrets that he is unable to be here today to welcome the Bill and to offer his felicitations to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South upon the Bill's passage through the House to this late stage.

It is not my intention at this relatively late stage to delay the House long with a further review. The hon. Gentleman has given a review at some length, and the background to the Bill and the circumstances which gave rise to it are firmly on the record. I congratulate him, on behalf of the Opposition, on his achievement. I congratulate him from the position of one who has sponsored two Private Member's Bills which went successfully through the House. Therefore, I appreciate the value which back-bench Members attach to the opportunity to pilot legislation through the House. The hon. Gentleman will, I have no doubt, understand that his interest and enthusiasm for the Bill is paralleled by the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) in another measure which it had been hoped might have received rather lengthier consideration than now seems likely. That having been said, and in view of the widespread recognition that this is a valuable measure, I conclude by congratulating the hon. Gentleman and thanking him for the trouble which he has taken in bringing the Bill before the House.

I shall be brief because I know that there are other matters to come before the House. I had hoped to deal with the matter which I am about to raise with my hon. Friend by way of an intervention, but understandably, he was not prepared to break the course of his comments.

I ask my hon. Friend to take another look at the matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) during Second Reading—namely, the importance of keeping together collections of works of art gathered from wrecks of artistic or archaeological interest. The "Girona" treasure, for example, which is now in the Ulster Museum, is of preponderant importance because it is all kept together. The Sutton Hoo treasure—as a land-found treasure, to which I adverted earlier—is in the British Museum. That, too, is of preponderant importance because it is all kept together. If any one part of their objects is sold off the total value of such works of art is diminished. But—and it is a very big but—it was possible for the Ulster Museum to acquire the "Girona" treasure as a whole only because the salvor or salvager was generous enough to accept sale by valuation rather than to put the individual works of art on to the open market and to sell them individually.

That is why I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider this matter, although he said that it was a matter of the museums concerned having an adequate subsidy. As a provincial hon. Member—and I see that there are other provincial Members present—I should deplore everything going to the British Museum. I should like to see works of art spread round the country, but it seems that the money is not available. The Government must be congratulated on having raised to £400,000 the Victoria and Albert's provincial museum fund to meet the purchase of works of art, but it cannot be expected that this would cover whole collections of this sort.

I ask my hon. Friend to consider carefully the question of keeping such works of art together as a whole. The matter, as I said, was raised by the hon. Member for Smethwick during Second Reading, and I hope that my hon. Friend will again consider it before the Bill goes to another place.

Bearing in mind the position of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), I do not propose to detain the House for very long. In fact, a great many of the points which I intended to raise have been made.

I am delighted to hear the Minister say that Lord Runciman, the former chairman of the trustees of the National Maritime Museum, has accepted the invitation to be chairman of the advisory committee. Having worked with him for some years as a co-trustee of that museum, and knowing his interest and enthusiasm, I am delighted to know that he accepted the position. We could not have had a better chairman.

I welcome the Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows, following discussion of the Navy Estimates that the difficulties which the Department has had are known. We know of some of the difficulties that have been experienced in trying to draft a Bill to do the job which was wanted. I can remember that, in some of the discussions in which I took part, people said "Things are much more complex than they may seem to be on the surface." That is true. I do not think that it has been made more evident than in the speech made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money). The hon. Gentleman raised matters which I know are very much in the minds of all the people who are concerned with them. I speak as a trustee of the National Maritime Museum. That is partly my interest, but I am also interested as a social historian.

The Bill does not meet all matters. Of course, it is not intended to do so. It is, as has been said, of a limited nature. There are some oher long-term considerations that must be dealt with. I know that the Under-Secretary of State has a close interest in these matters and that his Department has them very much in mind.

I wish to place on record my appreciation of the way in which the Department has taken a long and keen interest in these matters. I also place on record my appreciation of the help which it has given to those who are concerned with marine archaeology. There are, as I have said, other questions to be answered. I am not sure whether I should be out of order if I specified them. In any case, I do not wish to detain the House.

There are some questions still to be resolved, and I am sure that, with the good will that has been shown, with this measure behind us, we may soon be able to resolve them. I conclude by again saying how much I welcome the Bill and hope that it will soon be on the statute book.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and to others who have spoken in what I do not think will be a prolonged debate. I am grateful, in particular, to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

Perhaps I may start by accepting that I may have been short with the hon. Gentleman a moment ago, and also with his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), but I hope that both hon. Gentlemen will take it from me that to be interrupted and pulled up short and accused of filibustering when in the middle of dealing with one of the most difficult and relevant points raised in the debate is apt to catch anybody, however naturally good-natured, on a sensitive point. I shall not spend any more time on that, but I think I was not unjustified in getting a wee bit niggled. I shall not go on, but I apologise to both hon. Members if I was too terse.

I was delighted to hear it said that the Bill is welcomed generally by the House. There is a ballot to decide the order in which we should deal with the business before us. I recognise that there are other matters to be dealt with, but this is the matter with which we have to deal first, and I think that the House has had a useful and constructive debate.

I believe that it would be a mistake to expect too much of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Woolwich, West said, there are many things which have to be left to be dealt with, some of which are even more complex than the matters before us today. There is a legislative limitation, which we must recognise, but there is also a practical limitation. If we seek to provide legal protection for our marine archaeology, we must realise that there are serious physical limitations, as well as financial ones, to what we may be able to achieve.

Some of the wrecks which have been mentioned are by no means in an untouched state. It is interesting to reflect that when the Duke of Wellington was Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports he received a deputation from the fishermen of Hastings complaining that their traditional rights to loot the "Amsterdam" were being interfered with, and I dare say they made a large hole in the Dutch East Indies Company's property.

Hon. Members may have seen a short item in today's Daily Express citing the "Mary Rose" as possibly the most perfectly preserved mediaeval fighting ship, but it shows that enormous costs are involved in doing anything about it. We have been reminded that there are legal difficulties to be settled and overcome before we can hope to do anything about the "Mary". All I can say is that the matter is very much one for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but it is my understanding that negotiations for a form of salvage agreement between the Ministry and archaeological interests, led by the City of Liverpool Museum, are in progress.

It is true, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) is right when he says, that at the end of the day there are prizes to be won, not just for individuals but for us all, and that the "Girona" is one of the most splendid examples to be seen. I hope this time next week to see this collection in Ulster.

It is fair to recognise that, adventurous though the people are, those who make this their hobby or profession—and considerable though the intellectual and physical skills are which they bring to it—can, if it is a job done responsibly, do a service to us all.

The answer to the specific point about museums raised today by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must, in a sense, be disappointing, if only because the question of providing funds for museums is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and other corresponding Departments.

The Bill has a limited effect, and that is to secure the protection of wrecks from interference by unauthorised persons. It may, incidentally, lead to a more orderly exploitation of wrecks, but that is not the prime aim of the Bill. The provision of funds is important to enable people to engage in the orderly exploitation of wrecks, and the acquiring of objects from them is desirable, but that is even more remote from the Bill's object. But I suggest that my hon Friend the Member for Ipswich should pursue this cause with all the vigour that he can command in more appropriate places than the Department of Trade and Industry.

Perhaps I may now respond to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and carry out an undertaking which ought to follow from something that I said on Second Reading. I recognise that it is desirable that we should look at the question of salvage awards. I indicated then that consideration would be given to whether increased salvage awards could be made to salvors licensed under the Bill as an incentive to report the find of an historic wreck. One thing that we do not want is these wrecks to be smuggled away to heaven knows where.

I am glad to be able to say that there is a real chance that we shall be able to be more generous in such cases. I cannot indicate any particular percentages, because they will to some extent depend upon circumstances, but I hope my hon. Friend will take it from me that there is an intention to recognise responsibility in so far as this can be done in a further increase in the salvage award.

My hon. Friend raised specific points about fishing, and it is probably important to spend a few more moments on this. I hope that the House will forgive my doing so.

The situation under the Bill is that in the case of dangerous wreck sites designated as such under the Bill entry is completely prohibited and no fishing of any kind, whether commercial or recreational, may take place within them. I think the House will accept the necessity for that. I think it is right that that should be so.

The situation of designated historic wreck sites is different. There will be no bar on any kind of fishing from the surface, either commercially or for sport. The exception will be purported fishing conducted for the purpose of obstructing the activities of a licensed salvor. Fishing operations of all kinds conducted by diving in designated sites will, however, be affected, because diving on such sites will generally be banned. I understand that only the taking of bottom-dwelling molluscs and crustaceans, such as scallops and lobsters, will be affected. It is not, however, our intention that commercial fishing—if that is the right word, since the marine creatures concerned are not fish— of this kind should be unnecessarily hindered, and we shall seek to avoid this in two ways.

First, my Department will consult the Fisheries Departments before the Secretary of State makes a permanent order and will take account of any advice which they might give. Secondly, where it is felt that an historic wreck site should be designated in an area important for the commercial taking of lobsters, and so on, by diving, we shall be ready to consider applications from the fisherman concerned for a licence as provided for in Clause l(5)(ii) to continue diving.

Needless to say, wreck sites, other than those so designated dangerous, and historic wrecks, can continue to be exploited by fishermen in exactly the same way as at present. They are not affected by the Bill.

I hope that that makes the fishing aspect clear. I have little more to add except to say that I recognise the hope expressed by my hon. Friend that enthusiastic amateurs will not be put out of business. I share my hon. Friend's hope that they will be able, either from their own resources or by combining with others, to satisfy the necessary level of competence for a licence, and I am sure that they will be able to get all the help that my Department can give should the situation arise where difficulty of this kind appears to confront them.

I conclude by adding my tribute to that paid by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, from a non-political and non-party point of view, to the Department, and by that we mean the officials who have done the donkey work and whose work has this afternoon received so much blessing from Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, West, too, has done a bit of donkey work, and I am sure that nobody will deny that. I think he deserves the appropriate congratulations and those which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland expressed to him.

It remains for me, in commending the Bill to the House, to hope very much that it will achieve the purpose which we all hope it will.

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

This Bill was conceived originally in deep, cold anger, which has now come to boiling point, because it is clear that an issue of immense importance to 8 million pensioners, at least a ½ million of whom are at risk as to life and health by the absence of proper heating in their homes, is to be frustrated by the way in which the previous Bill was dealt with. That was, no doubt, a perfectly proper Bill to bring before the House. I heard what was said in the closing speeches and I accept what was said then, but to use the device of taking that Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House at such length in order to stop proper discussion of a Bill which would provide adequate heating allowances for elderly people seems to me to be a complete negation of what this House is about.

rose—

No, I will not give way. The hon. Member took 41 minutes in speaking to Clause 1 of his own Bill and I certainly do not intend to give way to him now.

This Bill is concerned with a major social problem of our time. If we are concerned about poverty we are concerned to a very large extent about the fate of elderly people in our society. It is a disgrace, in the conditions of modern Britain, where our gross national product is some £53,000 million and when we can and we should afford to make proper provision for the welfare of our old people, that we have signally failed to do that, to the extent that people die of cold in the Britain of 1973. I will come to the figures in a few moments, but the Ministry keeps on repeating the figures in the Registrar-General's return that on average 100 people a year die of hypothermia and are classified as old people.

If that were all, it would be a scandal, and it ill betides any Government, whether of blue or red complexion, to accept that complacently, as though all that is denoted by this is the problem of heating for the elderly. For us to sit here complacently to consider 100 old people a year dying because they are cold, when we should provide means which would enable them to continue to live, seems to me a gross indictment of our society.

In fact the situation is very much worse than that. All the researches which have been done into this problem suggest that the Registrar-General's return merely indicates the tip of the iceberg. That is so because hypothermia is very difficult to detect and diagnose and most doctors are not properly trained or equipped to diagnose it as the cause of death to specify on a certificate. Hypothermia itself may be part of a general pattern of ill health which led to death or a constituent cause. But it is there and it could have been removed.

The other thing which is noticeable here is that specific studies have been done to try to find out how elderly people live in present-day circumstances, and all the indications are that a great many of them are already suffering from cold. Whatever they die of, the fact is that cold has contributed to their death. In 1964 a research project suggested that something like 20,000 deaths a year were attributable to cold.

Task Force has done a signally useful job in this area. An analysis of a number of people in eight London boroughs showed that 24 per cent. of them said they were too cold during the day, and only slightly fewer said they were too cold during the night when they were in bed. The major reason why they were so cold, the one which was given in almost every case, was that they were too poor to afford adequate heating. They had to make a choice of priorities, whether they bought food or whether they purchased fuel for heating. The choice was between eating and heating. It seems to me to be a total scandal that we should allow that state of affairs to continue for a day longer. Only 7 per cent. of those who were interviewed knew about the heating allowances from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I will come in a moment to the take-up of the heating allowances, but it is no wonder the take-up is so bad if only 7 per cent. knew that the allowances existed.

The most definitive study of this whole problem was conducted by Dr. Fox and his associates, and they reported in the British Medical Journal of 27th January. The figures they produce indicate that something like 500,000 people in this country are at risk of injury to their health or to their life by reason of the inadequacy of their heating arrangements. It is this which I would like to cure.

There seem to be three possible ways of doing so. The first is that we should increase the old-age pension to the point where out of his pension every pensioner would be able easily to provide heating arrangements for himself. I would have thought that the House would agree that to be the best possible way in the most ideal circumstances. The answer which successive Governments have given to that argument is that we simply cannot afford to do it.

The TUC last autumn was arguing we ought to raise the old-age pension to £16 a week for a retired couple and £10 for a single person. In all conscience that is low enough, since it is less than half the national industrial earnings. If we were to do that the cost would be something like £1,200 million. It sounds at first like a colossal sum for any Govern- ment to afford. In fact it is sevenpence in the pound on income tax. When one recollects that only the year before last the Government took sixpence off income tax, the fact is that we can afford to pay it if we want to. It represents about half the increase in the gross national product in the last year alone. All that the nation needs to do is to say to itself "We who are in work, we who have fuel and fit bodies, will make this sacrifice not of our present standard of living but of an expectation of an increase in the future". We could do that right away.

I am merely seeking clarification. Are both the sevenpence and the sixpence that the hon. Member mentions in terms of new pence or old pence?

Certainly the sevenpence is new pence, and my recollection is that the sixpence is new pence, too.

The position, therefore, is this. For the increase in the social security benefits next autumn, the Government have allocated about £540 million. If they had chosen to make available the £1,200 million which I have indicated would be necessary to provide reasonably for the old people, the cost to the average worker on the stamp would have been 6p instead of 2p. I would prefer that payments came from income tax, because income tax is indisputably the fairest tax possible, and national insurance contributions, even with earnings-related payments, are still much more regressive than income tax. However, if it is to be paid by these contributions, the contributions are not out of line for average industrial workers.

If that were rejected, the second possibility is that we should create a special heating allowance for every pensioner. In its study of the matter in the London boroughs, Task Force concluded that a proper heating allowance would be about £2·50 a week. That sum for every pensioner would mean a cost to the nation of £750 million. If we gave it only to those in receipt of supplementary benefit it would cost about £90 million. That would be about ½p on income tax. We can certainly afford that, and nobody should dispute it. It is hypocrisy to say that we cannot afford it.

The third way in which we could tackle the problem is the way in which we tackle it now. This is by seeking out the areas of need and identifying those who are at present suffering from inadequate heating and trying to help them. Though we have been trying to do this for several years, the present figures indicate how lamentable our efforts have been. Therefore, it may be some criticism of this approach totally.

Already local authorities have power under Section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 to provide appliances for heating if they so wish. Circular 19/71 said that the Government would authorise the use of this power for

"carrying out works of adaptation (in the home)… to secure greater safety, comfort or convenience".

That would certainly include proper heating appliances.

In addition, under Section 45 the Minister is empowered to order local authorities to do it, although he has said he will not do that unless there is experience of greater need. I asked the Minister how many local authorities have used this power for the provision of heating appliances. He told me in a Written Answer that the figures were not available. However, he has told me in a letter written to me recently about my Bill that he is satisfied that local authorities are making every effort. I do not see how the two answers can be consistent. Either the Minister is satisfied that local authorities are making every effort or he does not know and we do not know whether they are making any effort.

What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that the powers under Section 45 are enforced by local authorities in relation to the provision of proper heating appliances? I have not very much expectation, because circular 19/71 was written in language which was almost designed to see that local authorities did not apply their power very widely. The circular says:

"The identification of need on the part of individuals and the provision of services for them must march together since there will be great disillusion and disappointment if inquiries reveal needs which are then left unmet. No scheme to identify the elderly in need of help should be undertaken without full consideration of the purposes it is intended to serve and"—

this is the important point—

"the expectation of immediate help which may be aroused."

The effect of that would be that any local authority which was parsimonious would begin to look at its purse before it began to look at the need which had to be met and to devise its rules about the provision of heating appliances according to how much it felt it could afford. We must get past that if we are to adopt the third method of looking after the elderly.

Local authorities can provide the appliances. The Supplementary Benefits Commission can give the money to the old people so they can use the appliances, but it does so very inadequately. Within the necessary allowances for supplementary benefits the commission makes some notional provision for heating. In addition, the old person can claim heating allowances separately.

The heating allowances are restricted by a decision of the commission which is administrative and not compelled upon it by legislation. The commission said that the figures should be in each case either 30p, 60p or 90p and that only in the very rarest cases will it provide more than 90p in heating allowance.

As Task Force indicated, 90p is totally inadequate for the heating needs of old people who are in danger. Most of us who have anything to do with the matter, if only in relation to our own parents, know that it is adequate, and we also know that it is inadequate for those who come to see us and who complain of their need.

Of course these figures would be inadequate if they were the sole amounts allowed for heating by the commission, but the scale rates and the long-term addition both include significant elements for heating.

I had already made the point about the basic element. The hon. Gentleman cannot tell me that, even with the new basic element of about £11·50, the amount which has been allowed for heating in that figure can be substantial. On the whole, those who are not pensioners spend about 5 per cent. of their income on heating. Those who are pensioners, spend, on the whole, 8 per cent. of their income on heating. If 8 per cent. of £11·50 is to be what is allowed for heating by the commission, it is a very inadequate part of the total, even taken with the full 90p that might be given to the elderly in heating allowances. In addition, the long-term addition is now not to be considered as part of the heating allowances under the new legislation.

The commission has restricted its heating allowances in this way, though it could pay the full heating costs of old people if it wished. Even so, only 159,000 people receive heating allowances out of 1·8 million people who are on supplementary benefit. Clearly, the take-up is grossly inadequate to the need, particularly in the light of the figures disclosed in the report by Dr. Fox.

Therefore, if we are to choose the third method—namely, identifying those in need and seeking to help them—we must do much more than simply give discretionary powers to the agencies. We must ensure that the agencies use those powers.

For that reason, when I came to draft the Bill I sought not to give the commission or local authorities any more powers than they have now but to ensure that they use them. The Bill would impose mandatory duties upon them—not that they may provide the old person either with appliances or with heating allowances, but that they must do so, provided that the old person is in such need that the general practitioner certifies that there is risk to his health by reason of the inadequacy of heating.

Clause 1 lays a statutory duty on all general practitioners to notify the director of social services of anybody who is in this state. I do not like any more than the Ministry apparently likes the idea of imposing a statutory duty upon general practitioners, but it seems to me to be the most effective way of dealing with the matter. It may be said that doctors would object to a statutory duty because it would breach the confidential relationship between themselves and their patients, but this already happens in relation to notifiable diseases when a disease is infectious and it is thought to be in the interests of the community that the disease should be notified to the medical officer of health. I am suggesting that we do no more than that.

I shall be prepared in Committee to accept any amendment to allow an old person to decide whether the general practitioner should communicate. Clearly, in this area of their social life it is for the old persons to decide, and I intended originally to allow for that protection of their privacy in the Bill, but I thought it better to leave it as it is at the moment in order that in Committee the matter can be discussed and we can get the right form of words to meet the point. I am, however, prepared to accept that point, and, subject to that, the general practitioner would notify the local authority. The local authority would then have to use its powers under Section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 or under any other statutory provision to provide the old person with a sufficient heating appliance to raise the heat in his home to 70 degrees Fahrenheit.

I chose 70 degrees deliberately because the Government, through the Department of the Environment, insist that, where local authorities build houses for old people, those houses should have heating appliances that will raise the temperature to 70 degrees. If it is to be done by local authorities in their provision for the elderly, why should it not be the right of every old person to have that degree of heating in his home? The medical authorities already insist that something of the order of 70 degrees Fahrenheit is requisite for old people in order to preserve their health, and it is for that reason that I have included it in the Bill so that it can be made more readily available.

Of course, it is true that in the provision of new housing one provides for an adequate and proper temperature. A temperature of 70 degrees has been suggested for new housing. But does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that in old housing with inadequate insulation it would involve in many cases the expenditure of hundreds of pounds on structural work to eliminate dampness and provide insulation in order to carry such a suggestion into effect? It is quite impracticable.

If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I realise that that is the case, the answer is "Yes". What I want to do through the Bill is to see that old people live in proper accommodation. There are already funds available through the improvement grant to ensure that they get that degree of comfort in accommodation to safeguard them against draughts and the inadequacy of the building. All I would say is that whatever kind of old house the hon. Gentleman may live in, if he wanted to install central heating the contractor would ensure that it would be capable of raising the temperature to 70 degrees Fahrenheit.

The result, therefore, is simply this. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to pay out of his private income the money that will provide that degree of heating in his own house, even if it is old, the real question is whether the community is prepared to make available the sums of money required to make that kind of provision for every old person. I think we should. Indeed, it is for that reason that I have introduced the Bill.

Clause 2(2) makes provision for an old person to contribute some part of his income towards his own heating. I have chosen 5 per cent. of his income because, as I indicated earlier, that is the average amount which is spent by those of us who are in work and are earning in order to provide heating in our homes. Five per cent. of the present suplementary benefit scale would be something like 50p a week, and it might be reasonable to ask an old person to provide that from his pension, but it does not seem right that old persons should have to provide more.

Therefore, the difference between the 5 per cent. and what it actually costs to heat the home would have to be paid by somebody. I have laid the duty on the local authority because, in introducing a Private Member's Bill, I cannot lay it on anyone else. I cannot lay it on the national Government, upon which it ought to be laid. But I have laid it on the local authority in this way: the local authority must pay, and, unless the Government are prepared to introduce a Money Resolution to ensure that they will provide the grants to the local authorities to help them to pay, it would come out of the rates. The local authority must pay, subject to the fact that it can recoup part of the cost from the heating allowances which will be paid to the old person by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

We shall be in a very changed situation if the Bill is allowed to go through. Instead of some frail old lady of 75 trying to find out about heating allowances and, not knowing much about them, going down to the supplementary benefits office and having to deal with a man behind the counter who may be charming and helpful, or quite the reverse, we would have a powerful local authority getting in touch with the Supplementary Benefits Commission and saying "We are having to pay for an old lady's home. She is desperately in need of some kind of heating allowance and we are having to pay something like £2 a week to heat her house. Why do you not pay her proper heating allowances?"

Even if the scales were still at a maximum of 90p, the local authority would get that 90p and the take-up would be immeasurably improved. Even more important, however, it would put pressure on the Supplementary Benefits Commission to raise the general level of heating allowances. That is what I want to be done.

I hope that if the Bill becomes law the Supplementary Benefits Commission will actually pay the weekly costs, but I cannot stipulate this myself as a Private Member. This is a device for seeing that that happens. It would not require a Money Resolution to do that because the Supplementary Benefits Commission already has the power to make these payments and to breach its own limit of 90p. That is what I intend it should do.

I am not clear on one point, namely, whether the 5 per cent. or more to which the hon. Gentleman refers embraces the capital cost or merely the running costs, or whether the assumption is that the whole of the capital cost will be dealt with under the other provisions and that this merely refers to the running costs.

The provisions in the Bill are clear. The capital cost is dealt with by Clause 2(1) and the running costs are dealt with by Clause 2(2). I have broken it up in that way because I am dealing with the powers of the existing agencies. The local authority can provide only the capital requirements, and the Supplementary Benefits Commission can provide for running costs. I hope to deal with the matter in that way.

The Bill is a genuine attempt to deal with an important problem. I should welcome the Government's assistance in meeting the requirements on the principle of the Bill. I am prepared to consider any suitable amendments in Committee. I have deliberately drafted the Bill in a straightforward way, which will require some amendment at that stage, because I wanted to get the principle across. Moreover, I have strong views about the way we draft our legislation, and I have made this complaint to the parliamentary draftsmen on several occasions. We make our legislation far too complex, and I have been anxious that the Bill should not fall into that category because old people have to know about it.

As I say, I am prepared to consider any amendments in Committee. All I ask from the Government is that they deal with the matter on the basis of the principles of the Bill as introduced. If the principles are inadequate, let us discuss them. If, on the other hand, the principles are adequate, let us have no Committee points in an effort to defeat the essential requirements of the Bill. The matter is too urgent for that. We must ensure that not 100 people die a year, nor 7,000 die a year, but that no one in our society dies of cold in any year.

The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) suggested that we should deal with this subject on the basis of the Bill as presented. That I shall do, and I intervene at this stage only so that I do not interfere with the time which hon. Members on both sides may wish to use in contributing to the debate. I shall confine myself largely to the details which the hon. Gentleman sets forth in the Bill, but, since he began with a few general remarks about the need of this section of the population, I wish to say at the outset that I endorse the concern he expressed that there should be no hazard or suffering for people in this group in the Britain of the 1970s.

The hon. Gentleman was quite indiscriminate and fair in allocating blame for shortcomings on the part of public auth- orities and parties of whatever colour, but I think that the House will agree—I am sure that we cannot be challenged on this—that the Government, and my Department in particular, have shown more practical concern in measures, financial or practical, brought forward to help the groups encompassed by the Department of Health and Social Security than any Government since the war. Against that background I approach the details of the Bill which the hon. Gentleman has introduced.

Clause 1 places a duty on general practitioners to give notification to the director of social services if they believe that the health of any elderly person is, or is likely to be, seriously affected by the inadequacy of heating in his home. I must explain the reasons why we are not able to accept that. This is not a niggling Committee point; it is a major point of principle.

First, there is the small objection, which one is bound to raise since it will involve a change in the Bill, that the term "general practitioner", as the hon. Gentleman knows, may embrace three different types of practitioner. I presume that the hon. Gentleman means the medical practitioner, but there are general ophthalmic practitioners and general dental practitioners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not irrelevant—

It is a Committee point.

—it is not—because there are some old people in respect of whom the reference to general practitioner will not necessarily imply the general medical practitioner. Many elderly folk in a particular state of health will make more frequent use of a general dental practitioner or a practitioner dealing with their eyes than they will of the family doctor. We must be precise about it. I am sure that the sponsors of the Bill are thinking of the ordinary family doctor providing general medical services under the National Health Service Act, but it must be made clear, and we should have to attend to it.

A more substantial objection to this part of the clause relates to the specific duties and responsibilities of a general medical practitioner. These are set out in Schedule 1, Part I, to the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations, the well-known Statutory Instrument No. 1602 of 1972.

General practitioners are what we call in the National Health Service "contractors". In other words, they have a contract for services, not a contract of service. This is an important point of detail, because if it is a contract for services the services which the contractor is expected to render have to be agreed and spelled out in detail in regulations.

Very briefly, his duties can be summarised as being to render to his patients all necessary and appropriate personal medical services of the type usually provided by general medical practitioners. Such services include arrangements for referring patients as necessary to the hospital and specialist services, the general ophthalmic services and the local authority health services, and

"advice to enable them to take advantage of the local authority social services."

This wording was very carefully chosen and agreed with representatives of the profession in the course of the recent comprehensive revision of the regulations and terms of service and, in particular, the requirement that the doctor should advise his patient on how he should go about taking advantage of the local authority social services represents the agreed limit of his responsibilities in this direction.

In essence, the Bill aims to place upon general medical practitioners a duty in regard to something which is not strictly medical, or, if it is, belongs more to the province of the local medical officer of health. It would mean that at any time of the year a general practitioner would be under an obligation to inspect the heating in a patient's home—a most unreasonable requirement in view of the wide range of his duties and the pressure on him. It would also introduce a principle about notifying something an individual might not wish to be notified.

There are, of course, occasions when the general practitioner may initiate action, which may be unwelcome to his patient, simply for that patient's protection. But this proposal would go much wider than that. In any event, general practitioners are not equipped either materially or by experience to assess whether the accommodation inhabited by an elderly person is adequate.

There is, of course, nothing to stop the individual doctor from going beyond his formal responsibilities in a particular case, where, for example, he feels that his patient may not be capable, for whatever reason, of taking full advantage of the various forms of help now available through the welfare services, and has no younger relative or friend who would be able to help.

In such cases, he may personally go to a great deal of trouble on behalf of his patient; or he may need to do no more than mention the circumstances to a member of the local authority health or welfare staff—possibly one who has been attached to his practice for the very purpose of helping in the general management and care of his patients. It would, however, be wrong to seek to go beyond the present formal position, and to seek to impose a rigid pattern of additional responsibility on the family doctor in the way suggested in this Bill.

If this additional responsibility were to be imposed on NHS general medical practitioners, the proper, and only, way to do so would be to negotiate with the General Medical Services Committee of the BMA, the body representing general medical practitioners, an amendment to the terms of service that I have referred to in exactly the same way as we shall have to negotiate with it about, for example, the possibility of extending the scope of family planning services.

Surely the Minister realises that general practitioners have a duty to notify certain kinds of infectious diseases. That is a statutory obligation upon every medical practitioner irrespective of whether he is employed by the NHS or not. That could be done without changing the context of the service.

That would not enable us to secure the objectives of the clause. Disease may arise at a later stage as a result of coldness, but in the first instance to require general practitioners to go round and inspect the premises would be expecting them to go far beyond the scope of their duty to notify about infectious diseases.

This would not only make it easier, if we are to try to negotiate the necessary arrangements with the BMA, for the average family doctor to remain aware of his duties and responsibilities—and this is essential if we are to get the full effect of the Act. General medical practitioners have got to be able to participate through their elected representatives in the negotiations which are made about what precisely they are expected to do. It would also ensure that any failure to carry out this additional responsibility could be dealt with by the well-established procedures laid down in the National Health Service (Service Committee and Tribunal) Regulations 1956, as amended.

Briefly, these provide that if a patient, or the representative of a patient, considers that a doctor has failed to carry out his responsibilities under his terms of service, the patient may make a formal complaint to the appropriate executive council, which then has the duty—through certain of its committees—of investigating the complaint and taking suitable action if it finds the complaint to be justified. The Bill gives no indication of what would happen to any family doctor against whom it was alleged that he had failed to carry out the new duty imposed by Clause 1 —what penalties or actions he would be liable to.

Clause 2(1) places a duty on local authorities to ensure that any elderly person—denned in Clause 3 as any man over the age of 65 years and any woman over the age of 60 years—has heating appliances in his or her home capable of maintaining a temperature of 21°C or 70°F, in the living area, bathroom, bedroom and kitchen when the outside temperature is just under freezing point during the period the room is in use by that person.

The clause suggests the use of Section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 for the purpose of action needing to be taken by the local authority under this provision. In specifying the use of that Section, which the hon. Gentleman was at some pains to elaborate, the Bill at one and the same time recognises that powers to help the elderly are already held by local authorities' social service departments, but fails to take account of the important part played by local housing authorities in providing suitably heated housing for the elderly. Further, in specifying the achievement of a particular level of heating in certain rooms the Bill fails to appreciate the practical difficulties likely to be encountered in implementing such a statutory provision.

In 1969 a circular issued by the Department of the Environment required housing authorities and housing associations building new dwellings for occupation by elderly people to install heating appliances which would achieve the temperature set out in the Bill. The cost of doing so may be reckoned for subsidy under the Housing Finance Act 1972, as may the cost to housing authorities and housing associations of bringing their existing dwellings up to standard. Where an improvement grant it paid to local authorities or housing associations converting or improving property for old people, they are expected to achieve where possible the standards of the 1969 circular, including the provision of central heating. Thus the provisions of the Bill could well cut across existing work being done by district housing authorities under separate financial arrangements, and that would be quite wrong.

The Bill requires that the heating appliances shall be capable of maintaining a specified level of temperature in certain parts of the house

"during the period when the room is in use by that person".

In theory this requirement could probably be satisfied in most households by the provision of a single, moveable, two-bar electric fire. But presumably that is not what the Bill intends, and its real aim is to bring the general standard of heating in an elderly person's home up to a level equivalent to that of a new, usually centrally heated, dwelling for elderly people provided by local or public authorities.

Can my hon. Friend say definitely, then, that under present practice the local authorities could, if they wished, bring the accommodation up to the standard envisaged by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon)?

Subject only to the limitation on resources, which is implicit in the Bill.

It is one thing to stipulate that a certain level of temperature must be achieved in a new dwelling and quite another to try to impose such a level by law in respect of any type of housing accommodation irrespective of its age or condition. The maintenance of a specified temperature level is not simply a matter of heating appliances. There is the all-important problem of dampness and insulation. Thus, in an average sized room of 100 sq. ft. a 2-kilowatt fire might be sufficient to maintain the temperature level specified in the Bill but not if there were poor wall or window insulation.

Most elderly people probably have satisfactory heating appliances of some kind, but to ensure compliance with the provisions in the Bill it would most likely be found necessary in many cases not only to provide completely new installations—which alone might cost in the region of at least £150 to £180 per unit—but to undertake structural improvements, insulation, draught-proofing or other works. The total cost of this would be quite considerable, and even if such expense were incurred there could be no guarantee that the person concerned would use the improved heating provision in the manner and to the extent required to maintain temperatures at the specified level.

The Minister has not read the Bill. It says that local authorities should provide appliances capable of achieving this temperature. It does not say that the temperature shall always be at such-and-such a rate. The temperature would depend on what the old people wanted. But the point is that they should have in their houses appliances which are capable of achieving the temperature. That is all the provision says.

This in a sense is a legalistic point.

No. It is not.

We are concerned to provide some means of ensuring that old folk in all possible circumstances are provided, in terms of the structure of the building, their resources and the appliances available for heating, with the combination of temperature which will secure that they survive the winter.

The maintenance of temperature at a specified level is particularly difficult to achieve in bedrooms where many elderly people will not entertain the idea of heating and may even leave their windows open all night, however cold the temperature.

A further point, as was shown in the recent survey report on hypothermia by Dr. Fox in the British Medical Journal, is that, whether or not the heating in an elderly persons home is sufficient when fully operative, the temperature in any one room may be low when the person first enters it in the morning or evening to switch on the appliances.

The hon. Gentleman will know from Dr. Fox's survey that this is a not unimportant point in relation to elderly people, who are extremely vulnerable when they are near the borders of the hypothermia danger level. The House will be interested to learn that Dr. Fox will shortly visit my Department for a series of discussions on the precise implications of the survey, many of which remain in some degree obscure. I am advised that there is no correlation between body temperature or temperature outside indicated by any of the figures produced by Dr. Fox in the survey.

The results of the survey made it clear that further work is necessary to demonstrate the measure and extent of the link-between heating provision, hypothermia and low body temperature. The survey found an extremely low incidence of hypothermia—only nine cases out of the 1,020 studied, less than 0·1 per cent. Those cases were not wholly hypothermia Although they were found to have abnormally low deep body temperatures in the morning, they were above hypothermic level in the evening The authors themselves considered it would be unwise to make firm projections from these findings of the incidence of hypothermia for the population as a whole because of the variation found in body temperature at different times of the day.

It is true that the survey also found that about 10 per cent. of those studied— 97 out of 1,020—had lower deep body temperatures than normal. Whilst this may constitute a health risk in that it could lower resistance to infection and may lead to serious hypothermia, especially when the person does not perceive his surroundings to be dangerously cold, it would be premature to conclude that 10 per cent. of the elderly are at risk of developing hypothermia or that there exists a serious or widespread hazard to life.

None the less the Department recognises that steps need to be taken to enable the elderly to keep warm in winter. To this end, jointly with the Department of the Environment, a circular was issued to local authorities last autumn asking them to consider what action may be desirable and practicable in their areas to help deal with this problem. However, it had to be recognised that the action required to meet the needs of all elderly people would, clearly, be long-term and could only be taken to the extent that the many demands on manpower and other resources allow. It was suggested that the elderly at greatest risk of inadequate heating in their homes were possibly those in the less active higher age groups—75 and over—living alone, including elderly couples living alone, and particularly those who are housebound or severely handicapped. Authorities might therefore well decide that this group should first receive the closest and earliest attention.

There was no suggestion that the cost should necessarily fall on the local authority social services department; rather than, in the case of private dwellings, volunteers might undertake the work and the owner, landlord or tenant as appropriate may be ready to meet the cost. In relation to public sector housing, the matter would fall to be dealt with by the local housing authority. Mention was made in the circular of possible scope for an improvement grant or rehousing as a solution of the problem in some cases. It also said that the Supplementary Benefits Commission might be able to help where the person concerned was in receipt of supplementary benefit.

A leaflet, "Keeping Warm in Winter", issued to all local authorities, provides simple guidance notes for those engaged in helping elderly people. The leaflet recognises that it may not be possible with the available resources, whether the occupier's, the local authority's or any one else's, adequately to heat the whole of an old person's house or flat during the coldest spells in winter, but suggests the possibility of choosing a suitable room or rooms, or for that matter part of a room, where the occupier can keep sufficiently warm at a reasonable cost. The leaflet does not go as far as the Bill in that it suggests that it is principally the living room temperature which needs to be kept at about 21°C when the outside temperature is below freezing. It does, however, go on to say that, where possible, bathrooms and bedrooms should be kept either at the same temperature or, in any event, warm. It points out that sufficient bed clothes and a hot water bottle may keep an old person comfortable in bed provided the bedroom windows are closed and the bedding is dry.

The leaflet advises on a number of simple steps that can be taken to minimise the unpleasant effect of draughts which can make a room feel uncomfortable even when warm. I will not list the specific remedial steps which can be taken for an individual, but no doubt the hon. Member has seen the leaflet. However, adequate ventilation is essential to avoid stuffiness and to supply air for heating appliance combustion. This point may be overlooked if care and attention is not paid to particular premises.

The hon. Member referred to a recent answer I gave him. We know from our regional social work people that local authorities are helping with heating provision. We have not said that we are satisfied with what the local authorities are doing because we do not have the full statistics. Until we can review progress, it would be premature for any form of direction, such as the hon. Member asked for, to be given to local authorities.

Statistics are far from fully satisfactory in relation to the activities of local authorities. We need more statistics, but we are hesitant to press for them, since this work involves considerable surveys. They already have to do such work under a number of statutes, including the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. They are at the moment reorganising their social service departments and they are about to enter local government reorganisation. Whether we can implement the statistics as rapidly as may be desired is still uncertain. Until we have a full range of statistics, it would be premature to attempt this.

But local authorities are aware of the importance of this job, and there is no reason to believe that they are not doing their utmost within the resources available to them. Assurances have also been given by a number of voluntary bodies of their willingness to co-operate in the implementation of local programmes. In the circumstances there seems no necessity to impose a statutory requirement on them to do what they already have power to do and what we know they are doing to the best of their ability.

Here it might be pointed out that Section 45 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968, referred to in Clause 2(1), is a wide-ranging power given to local social service authorities which enables them, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, to make arrangements for providing for the welfare of old people. Formal approval has been given by way of DHSS Circular 19/71 to arrangements being made within a broad framework which give social service departments full scope for developing a comprehensive range of services to help elderly people. Of particular interest in the context of the Bill is the approval of arrangements to assist where appropriate in the provision of facilities to secure the greater safety, comfort or convenience of elderly people.

Thus, without the Bill, social service departments may, where they feel an elderly person's need to be best met in that way, provide or assist in the provision of new or replacement heating appliances. But Section 45 is intended to allow local authorities to consider the overall needs of elderly people within very much broader terms of references than simply the need for additional warmth—important though this is—and it would hamper such an approach if the resources, financial and manpower, were largely pre-empted for one specific purpose over all others. In the last year for which figures are available—the year ended 1971/72—local authorities in England spent a total of £12 million on services under Section 45. Of this about £4½ million was spent on meals services, about £1·9 million on recreational facilities, nearly £4½ million on general social work and £1·3 million on other services.

This expenditure is, of necessity, largely focused on the most frail and most vulnerable old people. By contrast the Bill, by virtue of the opportunity it provides for pressure to be placed on general practitioners, may eventually lead to a situation where anyone above pensionable age can have an almost automatic entitlement to help with heating provision and this at possibly considerable expense but with very little likelihood that more than a very tiny proportion would be well spent in preventing unnecessary illness and discomfort among elderly people.

Clause 2(2) requires local authorities to contribute to the running costs of heating appliances required to bring the temperature up to the level specified in Clause 2(1) but the intentions of the Bill on this point are obscure.

Clause 2(2) seems to envisage that a person should be expected to spend up to 5 per cent. of his total income on heating to the specified standard, and that the local authority should make up the difference between that amount and the actual expenditure incurred less any heating allowance given by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The low figure of 5 per cent. has presumably been chosen with the object of ensuring that local authority payments are relatively generous. It is certainly lower than the proportion of their income which old people actually spend on heating. But it is certainly not self-evident that 5 per cent. is the right figure. It is not clear, moreover, whether local authority help would be given on a weekly, monthly or annual basis—presumably it would be weekly, in line with supplementary benefit. There should be little difficulty in calculating 5 per cent. of a person's total income. To ascertain the actual expenditure on fuel in every case would, however, be a substantial task, requiring, unavoidably, old people to keep their bills for inspection.

The hon. Gentleman has gone in for means testing. It means that old people would have to do the necessary paperwork. It would be necessary to provide that only expenditure which was reasonable in relation to the accommodation and equipment concerned would be reimbursed, so that local authorities would not have to underwrite profligate expenditure. All this would involve a substantial bureaucratic operation.

It is also not clear what is meant by "any heating allowance" given by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Does this mean the total amount of supplementary benefit provision for heating, which includes part of the basic scale rate; or does it mean only the discretionary additions for heating which can be made where a person has exceptional heating expenses? If the former, it would be necessary to specify the amount within the basic scale rate which was attributable to heating, but this would be arbitrary and unfair because in practice people spend different amounts on heating. If the latter, those who do not receive a discretionary addition, either because they do not claim or because they do not know about the help available, would get more from the local authority than those who do receive such an addition, and would, therefore, have it deducted before deciding how much the local authority should pay. Moreover, since the Bill does not exclude them, retirement pensioners who are not on supplementary benefit would appear to quality for help with heating costs from the local authority, but they would not be affected by the requirement to deduct any heating allowance given by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Thus 5·5 million retirement pensioners above the supplementary benefit level would get more from local authorities than 2·2 million pensioners actually on supplementary benefit. In other words, more would be given to those who already have more. It is thus clear that Clause 2(2) has not been properly thought out and would produce unacceptable anomalies.

More important, the Bill ignores the fact that the supplementary benefits scheme already provides for heating costs. As already noted, the basic scale rates contain provision for normal heating expenses. The scale rates for supplementary benefit pensioners are being increased by £1 single and £1·60 married next October, well in excess of the amount needed to compensate for price increases. These increases will, therefore, enable supplementary pensioners to spend more on fuel than hitherto. Moreover, where a person has exceptional heating needs and expenses because of the state of his health or accommodation, or both, heating allowances can be paid at the rate of 30p, 60p or 90p a week under the Supplementary Benefits Commission's dis- cretionary powers. Full details are given in the leaflet "Provision for Heating", which was issued to local authorities and voluntary bodies last autumn, to help them advise old people at risk. These allowances were increased by 20 per cent. in 1972, and the criteria of entitlement were widened in 1971. The Supplementary Benefits Commission keeps both the amounts and the criteria under review, and it has just introduced a more direct and systematic approach to identifying extra expenses.

As from October this year, under a special provision in the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefit Bill, these heating allowances will be payable in full on top of the long-term supplementary benefit scale rates, instead of, as hitherto, being offset against the long-term addition. For many people this offsetting has meant that, although they have recognised extra expenses on heating, they have not received a heating allowance because the expenses have been covered by the long-term addition. The change, which has been urged on the Government by such bodies as Age Concern and the Child Poverty Action Group, is expected to benefit up to 400,000 people in all at a cost of about £6 million a year. It is an indication of the Government's awareness of the heating problems of old people and of their determination to take action to deal with them.

CPAG, which brought the legal action which prompted this change, tells me in correspondence that Lord Collison takes the view that if people have heating allowances in full their long-term addition will be reduced. I hope that is not the Government's intention.

The Government's intention, as I have already said, is as it appears in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman stated when he introduced the Bill, although he made some general comments about the background and the different ways he thought we might approach the problem, that he wanted the provisions of the Bill to represent an instrument in principle which would be suitable for making the changes that he wanted.

I have deliberately considered the Bill in detail and given it a fair scrutiny. My conclusion is that it is not a suitable vehicle for seeking to make changes so immense in an area where we all want to do more if we possibly can. A great many of the powers which the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring forward are in the hands of local authorities, and on a more flexible basis than that which the Bill poses.

That is particularly true in respect of the crucial contact point of general prac-tioners under their existing contracts of service. It would be wrong to legislate in advance of discussions with the BMA. It is almost certain that general prac-tioners would refuse to operate, as part of their contracts of service, such wide-ranging responsibilities as having to be ultimately responsible for the possible cause of death resulting from hypothermia and for failing to have gone to a house to assess whether it contained a person to whom reference should be made to the director of social services. The Bill does not contain the terms of the penalties which should be imposed in the event of a failure by the general practitioner concerned.

It is for those reasons that I cannot recommend the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about imposing upon medical practitioners a duty to report. If a medical practitioner is unaware that a registered patient has a certifiable disease, he cannot be prosecuted for not having gone to that person's house, not having had any reason to do so. Surely that takes care of the point.

Hardly. Clause 1 refers to

"A general practitioner who has reasonable grounds for believing that the health of an elderly person is, or is likely to be, seriously affected."

There will be ample scope for litigation and prosecution if a general duty of that sort is laid on general practitioners. It is unlikely that the profession would be prepared to accept that in any negotiations about contracts of service. So sweeping and general a duty could not be laid upon medical practitioners by this House without the most far-reaching discussions with the profession.

This is a small Bill, with a big and clearly humane purpose. It is a measure whose aim it is to end preventable suffering and to improve the quality and dignity of life among elderly people in need.

The Under-Secretary of State made some bold points. He says that he is opposed to my hon. Friend's Bill because it is not a suitable vehicle by which to achieve his purpose. We on this side of the House are becoming tired of the vehicular excuse from the present Government. The hon. Gentleman even sought to congratulate the Government, and by implication himself, in a remarkably blue passage of his speech. I shall return briefly later to what he said.

First, I should like warmly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) on promoting what I believe the House as a whole should regard as a worthy and necessary Bill of deep human importance. The drafting of the Bill may not be incapable of improvement. This he concedes, but any constructive amendments put forward in Committee will be accepted by my hon. Friend.

It is wholly typical of my hon. Friend that he should introduce a measure of this kind. We all appreciate that he is a man with a very genuine and abiding sense of social concern. Almost my first discussion with him after he entered the House—at the time we were both youngish new Members—was about a hard-pressed woman in his constituency. Her husband, who had for long been disabled, had recently died and she was left to care for several young children. My hon. Friend was, clearly, much moved by the suffering of this unfortunate lady. From my knowledge of my hon. Friend's work on the case, I must say that she was fortunate to have as her Member of Parliament someone who was so determined to help.

As my hon. Friend has recognised, it may be argued that the answer is not to provide benefits of the kind suggested in the Bill but, instead, to increase retirement pensions to an adequate level. That may be so, but there is no immediate prospect of it happening. We on this side of the House have argued for a pension of £10 a week for a single person and £16 for a married couple, but our proposals have been rejected by the Government.

Earlier this week there was a Second Reading debate on the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefit Bill.

As the hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Front Bench, may I ask whether, in the context of the request for the uprating of pensions, he can guarantee that immediately on being voted to office the Labour Party will raise pensions to that level or by the same proportion in relation to the value of money at that time? Will that be done immediately on assuming office, or will pensioners have to wait for a while?

One of the first actions of the Labour Government on being returned to office in 1964 was to improve the standard of living of retirement pensioners. Again and again we have emphasised the need for urgency to improve their standard of living. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, I cannot extend this debate to one about pensions, but our proposals were both firm and sincere. The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length. I shall try to speak much more briefly.

Let the hon. Gentleman note that a spokesman for Age Concern has said that the latest proposed increase in retirement pensions

"… represents the smallest possible increase the Chancellor could have made"

There has been an explosion in food prices under this Government. In the first quarter of the present year, there was a movement of food prices equal to an annual increase of 22·8 per cent. Since stage 1 of the Government's so-called prices and incomes policy came into force, meat prices have rocketed by 40 per cent. This is utterly shocking. My hon. Friend rightly emphasised that for some elderly people the choice is between eating and heating. Far too many old people now have the very sombre choice between buying a meal and lighting a fire.

At the same time, they are advised by successive Ministers of Agriculture in the present Government to shop around if food is too dear. If most elderly people shopped around from Lands End to John o' Groats they would not find food at prices they can afford.

The Under-Secretary of State referred to Dr. Fox's survey, which was reported in a paper on "Body temperatures in the elderly" and published in the British Medical Journal of 27th January 1973. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of this important paper, why is he doing nothing about it?

We find that two large-scale surveys—

I said that we have asked Dr. Fox to come into the Department to have full discussions with us on some of the detailed implications of the paper.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will show a much greater sense of urgency in acting on the findings of this important research.

Two large-scale surveys of body temperatures in the elderly living at home were carried out in the winter of 1972. Most of the homes visited were cold, with room temperatures below the minimum recommended by the Department. Deep body temperatures below 35·5°C were found in 10 per cent. of those studied, and the difference between the skin temperature and the core temperature was also reduced in this group. We know that such individuals are at risk of developing hypothermia, since they show evidence of some degree of thermoregulatory failure. Further research is needed, but meanwhile there are practical measures which could be taken to reduce the risk of hypothermia in the elderly. My hon. Friend's Bill is just such a measure.

Many on both sides of the House have been deeply shocked by the findings of the survey. I say again that I hope the Minister will see Dr. Fox at the earliest possible date and decide what action should be taken, in the very near future, to avoid any repetition of the tragedies of last winter.

We appreciate that extra cost is involved in my hon. Friend's Bill. It does cost more money to keep people alive. Our point is that we oppose the alternative of unnecessary deaths. If a Money Resolution is required for the Bill, I hope that the Chancellor will help my hon. Friend by tabling a suitable resolution.

I appeal to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to give this Bill a fair wind. My hon. Friend has made a compelling case for the Bill. There is time now for me to speak only very briefly. It is always easy for Governments to think of reasons why improvements should not take place at a particular time. We believe that the Bill is of vital importance if more elderly people are not to die preventably during the next winter, as so many elderly people died during the winter of 1972–73.

The Under-Secretary criticised my hon. Friend for placing new responsibilities on the medical profession. All my hon. Friend was saying was that where, in the normal course of his duties, a doctor found a person in need, as defined in the Bill, the doctor should help. It is not necessary for the Under-Secretary to make a big issue of this. My hon. Friend said again and again that he was prepared to consider any amendments to improve the Bill. I am satisfied that most hon. Members on both sides of the House would want the Bill to go forward, and I hope that no one will be responsible for delaying its passage today.

The House is agreed on the serious need for improving the condition of old people and accepts that heating ranks high among the problems facing them. We know that old people tend to feel cold more than other people do and that they tend to be less well off financially than others, and often they live in houses that are old, damp and draughty. Old people in the nature of things are liable to have less energy to put things right themselves and are naturally not so good at "do it yourself", and they have less energy for getting other people to put things right for them when those things should be put right.

I do not think that anybody would dispute the seriousness of the subject, nor the value of the debate today in that it has drawn attention to an important problem and elicited certain useful information. But we have to face the question of whether the Bill would bring an appreciable improvement in the situation and whether its provisions are reasonable. I do not believe that it passes those tests.

It is not only that there are faults that may be put right. We all accept that if the general pattern of a Bill makes sense, some things may be put right in Committee. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that there are serious deficiencies in the substance of the Bill. This is one of those classic cases where one has to separate genuinely good intentions, put forward in all honesty, from the possible consequences of the Bill. One has to ask whether this is the right way in which to go about solving what we all know to be a serious problem.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary talked about the different elements in our approach to the problem and he spoke about the provision of advice. He quoted the leaflet on the subject put out by his Department some time ago and making the important point that what is at stake is often not a matter of financial resources but the fact that people do not know how to make the best use of what is available, and that they particularly do not know how to organise their households so as to get the maximum benefit from such heating as they have and the building itself. We all know that giving advice is an important part of what has to be done.

The leaflet was addressed to social workers and others visiting the households of old people. It seems to be eminently sensible for it to be more widely distributed. Could not my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that it has wider distribution beyond the strictly agency world for which it was primarily designed?

Then my hon. Friend spoke a little about the housing requirements, which are important—the fact that regulations now ensure that at least new local authority and housing association houses are built to a certain standard of heating, in fact to the standard which the hon. Gentleman adopts in the Bill.

My hon. Friend legitimately outlined the financial help we give for this category. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) was a little cavalier on one point, on which I intervened; the hon. Gentleman seemed to be equating 6d. with 7p. The tax cut was 2½p or 6d., but the hon. Gentleman was talking about an increase of 7p, which was a little naughty of him.

My hon. Friend covered the basic and important question of just what we are doing in terms of financial provision for heating. He particularly made the point that the supplementary benefit scale rate and the additional charge both include a heating allowance and that from October next that heating allowance will be added to the other allowances and will in no sense detract from them.

Although I know that the hon. Gentleman's intentions are serious, I do not think that the Bill has the stamp of one which is seriously intended to become an Act. There are too many signs of carelessness about it, of its not having been thought through. One quite understands that an hon. Member who does not come all that high in the Ballot might put forward a Bill which commands a certain amount of instinctive public sympathy and that he might not take a great deal of trouble about its structuring. There are deficiencies in the Bill which justify my suggestion that it has not been thought out as seriously as it should have ben.

It is not for me to defend my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), who is well able to defend himself. However, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that when the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Bill was introduced as a Private Member's Bill, it, like this Bill, had to be structured in an unsatisfactory way. Because of the limitations on a Private Member's Bill perhaps, the Government gave their support in principle. As a result, the Bill was totally rewritten and restructured in Committee. If there is support in principle for the Bill, on the precedent I have quoted the whole thing could be changed, with Government backing.

Will my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) inquire in terms of the sponsor of the Bill whether he has seriously thought out the general practitioner implications and whether he had discussions with the British Medical Association about those implications before introducing the Bill? It would be impossible to get the necessary negotiations with the British Medical Association through within the time scale for Private Members' Bills.

That is a valid point. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) said that it is sufficient to name a topic and expect to be able to build a Bill on it afterwards. That is not so. I turn to what I believe —[Interruption.] It would at least be wise of hon. Members opposite to listen to the arguments I am trying to advance before they sweep them out of court.

There are major objections to the Bill, one of which has just been touched on again by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary, and one of which has not so far arisen in the debate. I am against the increasing tendency to impose on doctors duties which are not strictly medical. It is not a sound principle to treat doctors as agents of social policy rather than of medical policy.

This tendency has been developing in important spheres, particularly in family planning. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary knows only too well that in the debate on Clause 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill in Standing Committee—Clause 4 deals with the extension of family planning practicesI said that one of the serious problems about the clause is that it uses doctors as instruments of social policy rather than as true medical practitioners. I am not saying this is an easy thing to answer, but it is a serious point. It is questionable whether it is justifiable to impose requirements on doctors to act as agents for social policy in this way.

It is absolutely fair and legitimate for my hon. Friend to make the point that to toss out this sort of idea without any kind of discussion with the medical profession is not acceptable. I regard this as a very serious clause and not a mere Committee debating point. Of course, as my hon. Friend has said, we accept that if a doctor discovers that an old person's house is seriously inadequately heated and if he is concerned with the possible medical implications, it is a very good thing for him to notify the appropriate authorities. But to move from that on to the laying on the medical profession of some duty of this kind seems to me to be a step which one would have to think about very carefully indeed.

Will my hon. Friend also stress the fact that a great many doctors get in touch with the social security people and ensure that heating is provided by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in many appropriate cases?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is a valid point.

I will conclude on this first point by saying that one would have to think very hard about the sanctions which would be imposed on doctors who failed to carry out this duty.

Let me come to the second point, a point which has not been brought out in the debate—

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you consider the situation in which, before this Bill was discussed, two and a half hours of the time of the House was devoted to a Bill which was agreed by everyone, a Bill to which there were no amendments, which was put down for the Committee stage in the House a fortnight ago by agreement with the Gov-ernment on a motion that was not opposed, when the sponsor of the Bill, a Conservative back-bench Member, took 41 minutes to debate a clause in an agreed measure, and then made a Third Reading speech for about 25 minutes, in order to frustrate this Bill that was designed to help half a million old people who would otherwise die? If there was ever a reason for granting the closure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, surely there is a reason now for granting the closure on this issue.

With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will appreciate that there is very strong feeling on this side of the House. Is there no possibility whatever of reaching a decision on this deeply humane and important Bill? We feel that this measure is being ruthlessly talked out, bearing in mind what was done earlier today. Is there any possibility of helping us to come to a decision on this important matter?

It would not be in accord- ance with precedent to grant a closure on a Second Reading debate when the debate has gone for so short a period as this one has.

The other major point—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out to you that before the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) rose, only one other Member wanted to speak on this Bill, and that was myself.

No.

Oh, yes. I am quite happy to yield my right to speak, and, therefore, all we would be denied would be the tail end of the hon. Gentleman's speech.

I have already ruled upon this point of order. It cannot be taken any further.

The other major point is that Clause 2 depends on Clause 1. There is a very serious deficiency here— [Interruption.]

Order. I think it would be best to allow the hon. Member to have his say.

Vote! Let us go into the Lobby.

The first line—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask that we have recorded in HANSARD by whom the objection is taken?

There is no rule to that effect.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have noticed that when HANSARD records objection being taken to a Bill, it shows "Hon Members: 'Object'." Normally, it is not some hon. Members who object. One Government Whip objects. May we have it properly recorded in future that one Government Whip does it to kill the Bill?

I am sure that the Official Reporters do their duty as best they can, and when they hear an objection they record it.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what you said earlier about the difficulty for the Official Reporters in seeing who is the Member who objects, and since there are Government Whips deliberately objecting, is it not possible for you to ask hon. Members who object to stand in their place so that we may have their deplorable behaviour officially recorded?

Order. I think that the hon. Member has been present at a sufficient number of debates on Friday to know that it is not possible for that to be done.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We know that notice is never taken in the Chamber of words uttered from a seated position. If a Member wishes to speak and wants his words recorded in HANSARD, he has to rise. That is why I am standing now. I submit that those who object ought to rise in their place so that we should then see who they are. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to arrange matters in future so that, if they have the guts to stand up, the names will be recorded?

If an objection is heard, that is all that is required.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

I have already ruled upon it.

I should have said that this is another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not possible that a property speculator, for instance, could keep objecting to this Bill dealing with improvement grants and thereby hide a vested interest?

Whether it is possible or not has nothing to do with me now. So long as some hon. Member objects, that is all that is needed.

At the least the House will not object to the raising of this subject for consideration today. The Uganda Resettlement Board's interim report was published yesterday and comes at a very suitable time. For a long time I have thought that the House should be brought up to date with the position as it now stands about the Ugandan Asians who came for settlement in this country.

It was on 4th August last year that Amin, in a particularly scandalous way, decreed the expulsion of many of those who had really been native to his own country, and he ordered their expulsion within a period of 90 days. It was on 18th September that this country received the first flight and by 9th November there had been 419 flights bringing in altogether 27,194 Ugandan Asians.

On 6th December my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department replied in these terms to a Question:

"We are determined finally that the refugees should be settled with the minimum of delay in the strange surroundings into which they have been flung …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th December 1972; Vol. 847, c. 1484.]

In the course of his earlier observations, he pointed out that it would be done with the maximum of dispersal and the maximum of employment, with the minimum effect on our social services, and that, if need be, the Government would ensure that there was proper compensation for the Ugandans for any kind of expropriation of their assets.

The interim report has now been laid and in some respects it is a satisfactory report. It is right in that it sets out, and is entitled to set out, an appreciation of the successful adminstrative operation that this was. The successful administration is typical of this country. It was a first-class operation carried out not only by those in the Home Office who were responsible, but also by a "co-ordinating committee for the welfare of evacuees from Uganda" which was set up following a request from the British Council of Churches, together with the United Kingdom Immigrant's Advisory Service and the Society of Friends. Among those who assisted were the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance organisation and the Society of Friends.

All those people played a great part in giving a first-class reception for these people who had been so shamefully betrayed by what was really their own country, by this appalling black and brutal dictator. The reception teams at the airport also provided citizens' advisory committees, and the Citizens' Advice Bureau ensured that there were adequate and proper interviews and documentation. The Government, the services I have mentioned and others are entitled to feel that they provided a first-class and rewarding reception for the Ugandans who were thrust upon this country.

It would be idle of me to go on without saying that, generally speaking, the majority of people in this country found it most unsatisfactory to have the Ugandans thrust upon them in this way. They did not want them to come here. They do not feel that Amin's action was justified. They still feel that many of the Ugandan Asians should re-emigrate to other countries, and that the Government should take every possible step in that regard.

I want to ask a number of specific questions. First, the Department of Education and Science sought to teach the Ugandan Asians English. There is not a word in the report about how successful it has been. Of the 28,000, over half of whom were in the centres, how many now speak English adequately? Can they undertake effective employment as tradesmen, in professions, in other skills, or in unskilled work, with an adequate knowledge of English?

Secondly, there is not a word in the report to tell us how many of them are still without a job. We should know the answer, if not today, then very soon. Have they been fitted well into employment of great diversity?

The report tells us how the board has been able to diffuse them ail over the country into many hundreds of different areas, which is excellent. But how many of the 28,000 are still in receipt of supplementary benefit? There is not a word about that, and not a word about the total of that supplementary benefit. The country is entitled to know in much greater detail what has been the overall cost of the operation. There is a general figure in the interim report indicating a cost of just over £4 million, with a further £2½ million budgeted for the next year. But we need to know much more about how the money is being spent. Is it being spent on education, on teaching the Ugandan Asians English, on supplementary benefit? Does it need to be spent in that way? Is there nothing more we can do to ensure that they are fitted into various jobs quickly?

Many of the camps had been successfully closed by the end of March, the final date of the interim report. But there are still five. When will the Department close them all? When will Hemswell close? It has a 1,000 capacity. Greenham Common, near Newbury, has a 1,500 capacity. When will that close? West Mailing in Kent has an 840 capacity. When will that close? Falding-worth has a capacity of 685. When will that close? Gaydon has a capacity of 830. When will that close?

In the meanwhile, what is the financial cost of keeping the camps open? The people remaining in them are in the main those who cannot easily find employment. Some are unemployable, some are very old, and some are not in good health. Some are members of a family that it has not been easy to place. We should analyse the situation with a view to their undertaking self-help and running the camps themselves, if they are to remain there. We should not continue to staff the camps with kitchen staff and cooks and run them in that way. They should be run rather more like military camps, where the personnel are expected to maintain the camp themselves, to see to its upkeep and cleanliness, provided that adequate allowance is made for this. The sooner the people in the camps are put on their own feet and allowed to do the work entirely for themselves, the better it will be for them and for the country.

I ask for a clear undertaking that at least by next October the camps will all be closed. That will mean that they have been closed within a period of 12 months of opening. Secondly, I ask for a clear undertaking that there will be no re-admissions to the camps of those who have left them. Thirdly, I ask the Government to see whether those who may not be making the effort that they should be making to get out into the world and stand on their own feet—I appreciate the difficulty they may find in doing so— should have to look after themselves in cooking, cleaning and housekeeping.

Fourthly, I make a plea on behalf of the Ugandan Asians. If they have suffered confiscation of their estates or expropriation of their assets in Uganda, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will hold Amin responsible and make him pay one way or the other. This is undoubtedly the voice of the British people.

I hope it will be borne in mind that this matter is just as much the responsibility of other countries, such as India and Pakistan, to mention two examples of countries which should be prepared to play their part in securing the re-emigration of some of these Ugandan Asians to other countries to undertake their resettlement there.

It would be churlish of me not to conclude by saying that there are many Ugandan Asians who are spendid citizens, who will participate effectively in this country and who will be warmly welcome. Some of them will put our small traders in difficulty because many Ugandan Asian traders have a great understanding of business. I wish all those Ugandan Asians who have come to this country well in the future and I hope that they will be able to enjoy a good home and undoubted success in their new country.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) chose this subject for debate today, and I appreciate the many generous things he said about refugees and those who have been involved in receiving them and helping to resettle them. It is a happy coincidence that this debate is being held on the morrow of the publication of the interim report of the Uganda Resettlement Board.

I shall try to deal with as many points as I can in the time available. My hon. Friend has made a number of fair criticisms as well as making commendations and giving compliments. If I am unable to cover all his points, I shall write to him and take the matter further in that way.

I shall first answer the point about compensation for assets left behind in Uganda. This has been one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of this sad episode. I dealt with this matter at some length in a debate on 6th December, and I have not much to add. I then said, and I repeat, that we have been making the utmost efforts with the Ugandan Government to get the assets acknowledged in that country and to find some way of moving them to this country in accordance with the registration of assets which the board and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been conducting with the refugees who are here. I have not much of a progress report to make, but, as I said in December, if the action of the Ugandan Government last August leads in the end to expropriation we shall demand adequate and effective compensation.

My hon. Friend then raised the question of the teaching of English. From what I have seen in the centres, efforts have been made to overcome the language handicap, and the teaching I saw was well done. I cannot quote figures showing how successful the teaching has been, but if I can find some precise measurement of progress I shall send it to my hon. Friend. I wish to emphasise that a great deal has been done.

I was asked to say how many Ugandan Asians are without jobs. As my hon. Friend will see from page 16 of the board's interim report, the board's best estimate was that about 70 per cent. of the total number of refugees looking for jobs had found employment of some kind. Putting it the other way, speaking from memory—here I am subject to correction—I believe that between 2,000 and 3,000 are still registered with the Department of the Employment labour exchanges as still looking for jobs. I will write to my hon. Friend to confirm that figure.

I wish to pay tribute to the help we have received from many employers. Most of the refugees have obtained work of some kind, though perhaps it is not all ideal work for them. All those I have talked to in and out of the centres have been anxious to get down to work as quickly as possible and to get off the backs of the British taxpayer.

My hon. and learned Friend asked next about supplementary benefit and how many are still receiving it. I cannot give him a precise figure and I doubt whether he would get one from the Department of Health and Social Security, because its records are not kept in precisely this way. But I will draw what he has said to the attention of Ministers in that Department and let my hon. Friend know what they can tell him.

As for a breakdown of costs, my hon. Friend will have seen, in the final chapter of the board's interim report, what had been spent up to the end of the last financial year. That figure, £4·35 million, related only to expenditure falling directly on the board. That is, in the main, the expenditure on running the camps. I cannot give precise figures of cost per camp. It is difficult to generalise here, because we had to bring some of the camps up to standard to take the refugees —standards not of luxury but at least of habitability. Some had not been habitable for some years. Then there were the running costs, with a fluctuating population. We shall be giving more information later, when the board can make a final report. The total will be more than the £4·35 million to which I have referred.

My hon. Friend asked when we would close the resettlement centres. We are anxious to get them all finally closed. I am not prepared to give a final guaranteed date on which the last will be closed, but we hope to carry on into the summer and early autumn, if necessary, a progressive closure of some of the remaining five centres. Of course it is our objective to get all the refugees well resettled in the community as early as possible.

On my hon. Friend's last point, about self-help, I have mentioned already the intense efforts that most of the bread-winning refugees have made to get down to work as quickly as possible. Within the centres we have involved them already in a number of jobs—helping to clean and cook and running their own affairs— and we shall continue to do so in those centres that are still open.

Perhaps I could now give a more general progress report. Looking back over the whole operation of these eight months, one sees the justification for the comments in today's Daily Mirror, which, talking about the 28,000-odd Asians who came here last September, said:

"They have been absorbed very quietly and peacefully and usefully. All credit to them. To the Government. And to everyone who helped."

Any fair-minded reader of the board's report would agree with that general judgment.

When I last reported to the House about this, it was on 6th December, soon after President Amin's deadline had expired, and it was a time when the board was facing its severest problem in terms of the sheer numbers who needed immediate help. I can best illustrate the progress since then by mentioning one or two key figures and comparing them with the position that I reported in December.

At that time the board was running no fewer than 15 temporary resettlement centres. These have been closed down with all possible speed as the number of residents has fallen. Today the board is continuing only the centres at Hemswell and Faldingworth in Lincolnshire, Green-ham Common in Berkshire, West Mailing in Kent and Gaydon in Warwickshire— the last of which I am hoping to see for myself next week.

Faldingworth will be closed on 15th May; that will leave only four of the original 16 which had been running at the peak of the operation in November.

Early in December there were 10,300 refugees still in the centres. Today the figure stands at less than 3,000. These figures show that at least one part of the task we were set last year has been substantially finished. There is the big and continuing problem of the life and settlement of the Ugandan Asians after they have moved into the community from the centres. I will deal with that in a moment.

We could not have reached the present housing position if the board had not had such excellent support from local authorities and private individuals. The figures at the end of last week were that approximately 6,350 refugees had been housed by local authorities and about 2,180 were in accommodation which had been made available by private individuals. That is a total of about 8,530.

My hon. Friend mentioned dispersal, which has been one of our main aims from the beginning. The Government asked the board to try to persuade the refugees not to settle in the parts of the country where social services were already under strain. This was right and in the interests of those areas and the refugees. The board has had some measure of success here. We can see the details in the report. It has placed refugees in more than 340 local authority areas throughout Great Britain.

The refugees who have been resettled by the board have as far as possible been diverted from these areas of stress. The figures I have given show that these areas have been relieved of a considerable burden.

I come now to the efforts we have made to arrange the re-emigration to third countries of refugees who came here. The board says in its report that very approximately close to 1,000 refugees who came here are likely to leave in order to settle in other countries and that about half have already left. It is true that large numbers of refugees have, on their own initiative, gone to live in the areas already under strain. In a free democracy in which we could not tolerate the power to direct people where they should live this is not a matter under the Government's direct control.

If it had not been for the dispersal policy the numbers going to the stress areas would have been significantly greater. I do not under-estimate the difficulties that have been created for some already hard-pressed local authorities. I have seen several of these. I hope they will acknowledge that if we had not tried this dispersal policy their position would have been much worse.

I remind the House that all the local authorities that have had to make special arrangements to receive and resettle the refugees are eligible for various special grants made by the Uganda Resettlement Board under the authorisation of the Home Secretary. We have taken careful note of the varying problems of the local authorities most concerned, and these special measures show that during the coming months they can continue to look to the central Government for help in what we have regarded as essentially a national problem.

As well as local authority efforts, I would like to mention what has been done by the Uganda Asian Relief Trust which was set up near the end of last year under the chairmanship of Lord Sainsbury. The Government contributed £50,000, and the trust has collected £63,000 from other sources. The money is being distributed via the local authorities for items such as blankets, kitchen utensils, soft furnishings, beds, warm clothing and so on. On the present trend of help that is being directed to the refugees through local authorities from the trust we reckon that in the end the trust will be able to help about 10,000 of the refugees in this practical way.

We must look to the future. We all realise that the board has still to move out of the centres the fewer than 3,000 refugees who still remain. A number of them present special difficulties for the board's resettlement teams. The speed of resettling is bound to slacken off as the difficult cases are tackled, such as the large families, the elderly people and the infirm, who form a large proportion of the remaining population.

Recently the board made a special survey of the residents who remained. The board will continue to tackle this remaining problem with the same energy as it has shown all through the operation. I am hopeful that the problem can be overcome satisfactorily. I am looking forward to discussing it further with the chairman of the board next week.

We still have on offer from local authorities about the right amount of accommodation for the families still in the centres. However, there are some families with special needs which will need special attention both by the board and by others. We must try to keep the momentum going because we are all aware of the dangers of instirutionalisa-tion if the refugees stay on in the centres for a great deal longer.

Employment is in many ways the key to the success of the resettlement operation. That work is still going on, as I indicated, through the Department of Employment. At the end of March— this is the latest figure that I have— the Department had placed no fewer than 4,000 of the refugees in employment in a wide variety of jobs. Of course, the Ugandan Asians who are out in the community and have jobs, or those who have still to find jobs, still need a great deal of help. Some of the accommodation is inadequate. Some have jobs that may be only temporary. Many of them need support whilst they get used to a life in unfamiliar surroundings. The board has these remaining problems much in mind, but we believe that the main support should come from the existing authorities and organisations which meet similar needs amongst the rest of the population.

The board has contact with the WRVS and local community relations councils. Such organisations do everything they can on a local level to help the new arrivals to become established by giving advice and guidance. The chairman and other members of the board are now making a series of visits to areas that have received a large number of refugees in order to discuss with the local authorities the problems that remain, and to ensure that the best and fullest use is made of the special grants to local authorities.

Early in December I paid tribute to the work of the board, the trust, all the voluntary workers and the Government Departments and to the great help which had been given by the local authorities. I hope that the House will agree that I should end now by repeating the Government's appreciation and admiration of the efforts of all the people concerned. It is fair to say that the momentum built up in the early months has been sustained. The number in the centres has been steadily reduced, and a fair measure of dispersal has been achieved. All the members of the board deserve our thanks.

I am not saying that not one mistake has been made throughout, but certainly some of the criticisms which I have read this week have been exaggerated. A human problem has been tackled in a human way.

I have tried to give the House an account of what has been a success story. I do not wish to make light of the problems that remain, particularly in human terms. Against the background of the achievements which we have seen I am confident that the full operation of resettlement is going along towards an end of which all of us can be proud, and by means of which, as my hon. Friend indicated, the refugees will be able to make a new and satisfying life in this country.