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

At the outset, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and the work that he has done on this Bill in the past. The House will know from that that it is very much an agreed measure. It was considered in another place last Session. I hope that, now that it is again being examined by Parliament, it will be welcome as a broadly agreed measure because it constitutes a useful step in the protection of the marine environment and will be of assistance to this country in playing its part in marine pollution control matters internationally.

The Bill has two primary purposes. First, it will enable the United Kingdom, because it is a United Kingdom Bill, to ratify the Oslo and London Conventions for control of dumping in the sea which have been signed by this country.

Secondly, it will provide statutory backing and enforcement procedures for the voluntary dumping control arrangements which have been operated in this country for a number of years. These arrangements have been well supported and have worked efficiently. But with the negotiation of internationally-agreed systems of control the time has come for the arrangements to be codified.

The extensive consultations which have been undertaken with the authorities and organisations affected by the Bill show that the proposals command general assent. It remains our policy to ensure that these arrangements, as far as possible, work through persuasion and co-operation as under the voluntary control system. We certainly do not envisage a new or emergency situation arising with which the powers provided under the Bill will be called upon to deal. By and large the arrangements which have been operated in the past will continue, although there will be adjustments because the scope of the statutory control arrangements will be broadened —for example, in relation to the dumping of dredged materials.

Our view, and that of the previous Government, is that dumping at sea under controlled conditions and subject to the criteria set out in the two conventions to which I have referred is a legitimate undertaking. It is, in the Government's view, reasonable to utilise the sea for this purpose, provided that we ensure that no harm arises to the marine environment, to consumers of fish or to the fishing industry. For these reasons, Government Departments answerable to the licensing authorities as defined will be responsible for operating the arrangements in the Bill.

There are one or two points on which perhaps the House will welcome clarification, or, if not, outside bodies involved might welcome it.

The Bill is designed to control dumping in the sea from ships and so forth and by a limited number of means through which dumping can take place directly into the sea below high water mark from the land. It would cover the operations of vessels specifically designed to dispose of waste at sea as part of their normal operations—for example, dredgers, sewage vessels and incinerator vessels.

Problems arising from oil fall within the responsibility of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation in which this country plays a prominent part. There have been extensive consultations within the organisation on the future controls to be maintained for oil disposal at sea and for the discharge of substances from ships as part of their normal operations. These discussions culminated in an international convention in London for the control of pollution from ships. This will supersede an earlier convention of 1954. Therefore, the Bill is not designed to cover such matters as oil discharges, the disposal of garbage or the tank washings of bulk carriers, because these are covered by the new convention. Careful attention has been devoted to avoiding any overlap of functions and responsibility between different organisations.

There are no direct proposals in either the Oslo or the London Conventions for controlling radioactive waste disposals into the sea from ships, and so on. Arrangements for controlling the disposal of these materials are dealt with under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. I think that most people would agree that they should be subject to separate, specific and special legislation. However, the dumping of radioactive substances would still be subject to the criteria of the Oslo and London Conventions, quite apart from their radioactive content, and a licence would be required under the Bill in view of the fact of the dumping itself.

I will go quickly through the Bill because I think it is clear and precise. Clause 1 sets out the policy underlining the Bill. Under its provisions it would be illegal to dispose of substances in the sea without the authority of a licence granted by one of the licensing authorities. In effect, it means that nobody may dump in the sea without a licence from the Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment.

Clause 1 makes it an offence for substances to be loaded in the United Kingdom without a licence for dumping, thus bringing foreign vessels within the controls. The Bill is principally concerned with the disposal of substances at sea from ships and other craft. It does not cover the procedures for giving consents to discharges through pipelines, which will be dealt with at length in another measure.

Clause 2 provides that licensing authorities may grant licences where it is reasonable to do so having regard to the need to protect the marine environment. That means that before granting a licence for the disposal of substances in the sea a licensing authority will consider the proposed disposal against the criteria in the Conventions.

It I heard the hon. Gentleman aright, he said that this did not apply to discharges through pipelines. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall attempt to raise the matter of sewage coming out through pipelines. On a quick reading they might be regarded as being covered by the words

"marine structure, or from a structure on land constructed or adapted wholly or mainly for the purpose of depositing solids in the sea."

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that point?

That is a special point. I may be able to clarify it later. If not, we will no doubt discuss it in Committee. It is an interesting point and I will see whether I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman an answer.

The Government are concerned to ensure that there is an integrated approach in controlling pollution in the sea and that no problems of administrative co-ordination with other pollution control authorities remain unresolved. Therefore, normal liaison on an administrative basis on the lines upon which detailed consultations have taken place will ensure that there is no confusion about responsibility.

Clause 2 also gives a licensing authority power to vary or revoke licences if circumstance change. The fee provided will be charged on application for a licence and is designed to cover administrative costs. It is not for any other purpose. It therefore represents an insignificant proportion of the total costs incurred by a dumper in disposals into the sea, whether an individual or a local authority dumper. There may be exceptional circumstances where special monitoring of the sea has to be undertaken in relation to a specific dumping where that is on a significant enough scale to justify such an approach. In such cases an additional charge may be made. For example, we would think it reasonable that a dumper undertaking disposal on this scale should bear the costs of the related monitoring work that would be involved.

Clause 3 provides for those aggrieved by a refusal or the conditions which are attached to licences to make representations to an independent committee.

Am I right in assuming that the licensing authority will be set up by the Minister and that the committee will then be set up by the authority? In that context, is it not difficult to understand how it can be an independent committee?

There are a number of independent committees established and appointed by various authorities in this country which behave in an independent way in looking at and exerting control over the operation of various statutory bodies. I instance the consumer sections in some of our present legislation. From that point of view a committee would be independent, but someone has to establish it. It could be done by the Government. Of course, in that case it could be accused of not being independent of the Government. We believe that the licensing authority, which knows the conditions and the people better, is the right body to set up a committee.

Clause 4 provides that licensing authorities will make available to the public, free of charge, access to the details of substances licensed to be dumped in the sea. This clause also deals in part with the access of the public to such information. It will also strengthen the independence of the body which may be judging the situation, because it gives a fair flow of information.

Clause 5 enables the licensing authorities to appoint British enforcement officers for the purposes of the Bill. It sets out in detail their powers. We think that this clause strikes the right balance between the provision of the necessary powers to inspectors and the need to avoid undue interference with those who might be subject to such arrangements. The British enforcement officers, in carrying out their duties, will restrict the demands that they make to the minimum necessary and in a way that will allow supervision to take place. The inspectors will be fully qualified on sea-going matters.

Clause 6 deals with a matter related to the powers of British enforcement inspectors. It provides that where any procedure under the conventions is agreed internationally, joint enforcement arrangements can be applied by participating countries on each others' vessels within the areas defined by the Conventions. Clearly, this is an important provision, and we recognise this in the Bill by providing that, before assent is given by the United Kingdom to joint enforcement arrangements outside our territorial waters, an order will be laid before Parliament. Such an order would allow examination of the implications of any such proposals to be made by Parliament before assent was given to them.

Clause 7 deals with ancillary enforcement matters, making it an offence for a person to obstruct an enforcement officer in carrying out his duty. It also makes it clear that an enforcement officer will be expected to act reasonably in exercising his powers—not an unusual provision.

Clause 10 represents a type of provision frequently made in such measures. It deals with the arrangements for the inspection of Crown land which is occupied by a third party. The Crown Estates Commissioners, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster have assented to these arrangements.

Clause 11 provides for payment by the Government of subscriptions to the international organisations for the control of dumping in the sea which the United Kingdom has joined. In addition, the clause enables other expenses arising under the Bill to be met. The explanatory and financial memorandum shows that these are unlikely to be significant.

Clause 12 is the usual interpretation clause. It defines "sea" essentially as seawater up to the level of high water tides. That is the extent of coverage of the Bill.

Clauses 13 and 14 make it clear that the restrictions imposed by other statutes are not affected by the Bill, that no new civil liability will be created and that existing rights of action will be preserved.

Clause 15 makes it clear that the Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom and may be applied by Order in Council to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony.

I now have the answer to the query raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). Clause 1 does not deal with pipelines. Subsection (2) refers to "depositing solids". Since pipelines discharge liquid, almost by definition they are not caught by these provisions.

Although these may be arguments about the definitions in Clause 1, I hope that the detailed comments I have made on the clauses in the Bill will help hon. Mem- bers to understand the various points involved, and I am sure that the general intention of the Bill will be approved by the House. I know it has the support of the Conservative Party, and I hope that the third largest minority in the House will also give it support.

The Minister of State's speech has a certain familiar ring about it. I must thank him for what he said about my interest in it. Indeed, so far as I recall, one of the last things I did before leaving the room he now occupies was to change, from the slightly more formal language with which these drafts are sometimes presented to Ministers, the Second Reading speech which I had, perhaps not totally unreasonably, expected I might make in introducing the Bill into language I would more enjoy using. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's tastes and mine may be one on this matter.

The Bill is identical to that approved by another place in the last Parliament, apart from one new clause and the slight rejigging of another, and it is a good Bill. But I am here to speak for the Opposition, and to oppose, I notice from the dictionary, is to

"Set oneself against (person, thing): contend against with physical force by the exercise of influence or by argument; endeavour to hinder, thwart or overthrow; withstand, resist, combat; stand in the way of or obstruct."

Therefore, perhaps this is the exception which proves every rule. It is quite clear that I have no criticism to make of the principle of the Bill.

The last occasion on which I conducted an exercise of this kind was on a Bill which had a slightly sombre title as well—the Registration of Births Marriages and Deaths (Scotland) Bill. It was one that I had also prepared. The same circumstances surrounded it. If it is of any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, I may remind him that we dealt with 60 clauses of that Bill in two sittings of the Scottish Standing Committee, which I should think must be an all-time record.

Therefore, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, having read one of the daily newspapers within the last few days, that our opposition will not be factious—which is, I understand, characterised by party spirit—fractious, which is fretful or peevish, or factitious, which is I understand, artificially got up for the occasion.

I think that this Bill is sparked off by a most significant and highly desirable awakening of interest in what is generally called the environment. This is due, of course, to the problems of disposing of many toxic or poisonous substances. Some are manufactured, some are deposited naturally, but all are an unhappy part and parcel of a highly industrialised society in the second half of the 20th century. It all adds up, if the pollution is on land—which is being dealt with, I suspect, by a similar Bill—to a desire for cleaner air and less polluted rivers, a keen interest in the use made of our limited land area, with the beauty of the countryside and the public's access to it being considered together with its use for farming and forestry. All this is common ground.

It goes without saying that we should participate in every way possible in preserving and improving what is technically called "marine environment"—what I think perhaps in simpler language one could call the "purity of the sea". This Bill will allow the Government to ratify the Oslo and London Conventions, which are aimed at having adequate control exercised internationally over dumping stuff into the sea.

We have had good voluntary arrangements, so far, by the agricultural departments both in Scotland and in England. The hon. Gentleman will notice that I have now reverted to being a Scot. For the last three years, I have had to say "England and Scotland", just as, no doubt, pressure will probably be brought upon the hon Gentleman so to do, as he, too, is a Scot who is now an English Minister. The agricultural departments in Scotland and England have done a good job with their voluntary arrangements, which have achieved a tremendous amount in protecting fish and, indeed, the sea itself around our coasts.

Added to that, there is very little evidence of any efforts to evade what hitherto have been merely administrative provisions. But this problem is international. It is not entirely domestic. I think that the ability statutorily to enforce provisions now becomes necessary—hence, the need for this Bill. I have very little time for legislation unless it is going to work, and the guts of this Bill are to be found in Clauses 5 and 6.

I think it essential, if anti-dumping in the sea is to be taken seriously, that convention States agree on the way in which international ships can be inspected. There is no great difficulty about a British enforcement officer keeping an eye on British ships, aircraft or marine structures. It would be intolerable were a convention State's vessel to dump material just outside our territorial waters without our being able to interfere, and of course the converse applies in relation to inspection of British vessels by officers of convention States.

Clause 6 gives Ministers the necessary powers to ask Parliament for approval for these inspections to be made outside territorial waters, provided that we have reciprocal agreements. Provided that appropriate consultations take place with the shipping interests, I can see no reasons why difficulties should arise. After all, as every hon. Member knows, inspection of fishing vessels, fishing gear and tackle by officers of another country has for long been a quite well accepted practice in the fishing industry.

I do not wish to raise any point today that would be better raised in Committee. It would not be proper for me to do so. I content myself by asking a question about the costs. They are estimated at £10,000 a year. There is to be a fee charged for a licence to dump, and this fee will have to cover such things as laboratory tests and the monitoring of an area of sea. The Exchequer is to bear the cost of what has been described, rightly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) as the independent committee. My note said, rather colloquially, "the licensing court". These details are to be found in Clause 11(2)(a), (b) and (c). I cannot see that the cost of that will come to very much. Nor will the subscriptions referred to in Clause 11(1).

Will the hon. Gentleman give an indication of the number of enforcement officers he thinks will be required for this? It is understood that they are likely to be master mariners, who know their way about. I would not have thought that we should get very many of those for £10,000 a year. That is a point that the Under-Secretary might well clarify so as to save us time later in Committee.

I greatly welcome the Bill, in principle. Indeed, I regard it, in a way, as a personal tribute that the newspapers have described it as the only measure which the Government have yet seen fit to bring forward. I know that we have had certain announcements earlier today, but up to that time this was the only measure. As there is nothing of a Socialist nature to be found in the Bill, I suppose it must mean that the Minister of State is more moderate than I thought he was.

We may well have some points in Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) mentioned a possible one—pipe discharges—and whether they could be described as marine structures. I may be wrong about this; I am sticking out my nose to have it firmly biffed, but I had the idea that discharges into pipes were properly covered by another measure, namely, the Prevention of Pollution Act, which deals with pollution on land. This is a point which the Minister will be able to confirm or deny.

I think that there will be one or two points in Committee because, however carefully one drafts a Bill, it may very well be that some points have been missed and that members of the Committee will have good ideas. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that in Committee we shall be thoroughly constructive, to see that what I have already described as a useful Bill becomes as good a Bill as it possibly can be.

I, too, welcome this modest measure, first, on the same ground as my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart)—that it is the first modest measure of this administration—and, secondly, because it is, in essence, the same measure as that introduced in another place by the previous administration.

I welcome the Bill particularly on behalf of my constituents because I can claim that if we do not have the longest coastline of any constituency we certainly have the most vulnerable coastline, as it faces on to the Channel, which is by all accounts the busiest waterway in the world.

I therefore try to test the Bill against the situation which we in Dover and Deal and along that coast encounter. Three problems have affected us over the past few years. There is, first, the question of oil slicks. We are not alone in facing that problem. We recall with special concern the incident when the "Panther" ran on to the Goodwins about three years ago and there was a real risk that our beaches would get inundated with oil. Indeed, there was some slight spillage which affected the beaches, particularly at Deal and Kingsdown and St. Margaret's, very acutely.

The Minister of State said that there was not to be any overlap between this Bill and previous Bills designed to cover oil discharge and oil spillage. I wonder whether he is right about that; because, as I see it, the Bill is designed to cover the dumping of substances as well as articles and I should have thought that it was accurate to say that oil is a substance. If there is an overlap, I for one should not complain, because I think that we should do everything possible to ensure that this seaborne menace is adequately controlled.

I am well aware of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1971—introduced in 1970—and on another occasion I should like to take up with the hon. Gentleman the question whether on mature consideration, he is satisfied with the scope of the Act and with the measures designed to enforce that Act and to deal with oil slicks as they develop.

The second problem we have faced is that of sewage dumped into the sea, either completely or partially treated. I intervened in the Minister of State's speech to clarify one point. I am still in some doubt about it. Admittedly, Clause 1(2) talks about marine structures or structures on land

"constucted or adapted wholly or mainly for, the purpose of depositing solids into the sea."

Completely treated sewage should not involve the depositing of solids, but partially treated sewage may. I should like to ask the Minister of State whether on mature consideration, he feels that that is designed to catch, or would catch, sewage pumped into the sea from pipes.

It may be that there are other measures designed to control that kind of pollution, but I should like to hear a little more about this and to consider whether the Bill should be extended to such matters, if it does not cover them already, and how the hon. Gentleman would propose to exercise his licensing powers.

I come finally to the question of refuse from ships. I should have thought that this would be covered by the phrase "substance or articles". In East Kent we are particularly concerned with this.

A year or so ago a lot of plastic cups were washed up on the beaches. Indeed, we are still encountering them. These articles are not broken down by the process of nature—or, if they are, it happens only over a very long period. This occurrence caused considerable concern and anxiety to the residents of East Kent. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether such refuse will be covered by the Bill? Secondly, if it is covered, how does he propose to enforce the provisions of the Bill? I am a little concerned by Clause 1(3) which appears to exclude from the operation of the Bill

"a discharge incidental to or derived from the normal operation of a ship …".

I hope the right hon. Gentleman can reassure us that refuse wantonly thrown overboard from ships will be controlled by this Bill.

The question then arises: how would it be enforced? It is not practical politics to enforce it against the individual passenger who throws his plastic cup overboard. I therefore ask: could it possibly be enforced against the shipowners? I have a profound respect for shipowners who operate from Dover, and from British shores. British Rail and Townsend Thorensen operate from Dover. I do not want to appear unduly xenophobic, but there are foreign operators who may not be so careful.

I notice that Clause 1(1)(d) refers to people who

"cause or permit substances or articles to be dumped or loaded as mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above."

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that if it could be established—and I do not wish to cause any international embarrassment —that, for instance, there had been careless jettisoning of refuse from a Belgian Marine ship, the provisions of this Bill could be enforced against Belgian Marine?

Those are the problems with which I am concerned, and I hope to hear from the hon. Gentleman how far these matters will be effectively controlled by this Bill. My objective—and I hope it is an objective which the present administration share—is that the white cliffs of Dover and the beaches under them should, indeed, be white and not varying shades of grey, and I hope that this Bill and, indeed, other measures will contribute to this objective, so that our coastline is not disfigured by the reckless habits of those who may use the Channel.

I am, on the whole, rather pro-honeymoons. I think they should be times of great happiness. However, whilst I do not want to disturb the billing and cooing that has been going on between both Front Benches this morning, I nevertheless must remark upon the determination of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) to try to prove that opposition does not mean opposition. I thought he went to great lengths to try to use dictionary explanations of various words to show that opposition does not mean opposition at all. However, I am sure that this loving period will come to an end fairly shortly.

This morning I do not want to throw too many spanners into the works. The Minister of State kindly attempted to answer a question which I asked him about the committee. It seems, when one reads the Bill—I apologise for not raising this point originally—that it

"permits representations to be made by aggrieved persons to an independent committee which will advise Ministers…".

I had a word with a very distinguished legal friend of mine, and his view was that the point I was making about there being no recourse to law by an aggrieved party was not a point of much substance, because the parties concerned were not likely to have their livelihoods severely curtailed or affected or anything of that nature.

I have been studying this Bill. Unfortunately, I have no legal background at all, but it appears to me that the Minister is all powerful in all matters pertaining to this Bill, and that if a person feels seriously aggrieved all he can do is to take his grievances to this committee. But then, the committee is set up by the authority; the authority is set up by the Minister, and the committee in any case can only report and make representations to the authority. As I understand it, the authority would then report and make recommendations to the Minister. So we are back in the kissing ring of the establishment.

I know it is easy for people to exaggerate fears, but nevertheless fears about the executive should always be exaggerated and looked into. I suppose our great fault over many years has been that we have far too much legislation. Although I have no doubt that, basically, it was enormously important to have brought in a Bill in connection with the Oslo Convention, with the London Convention to support it, nevertheless, certain people are affected by these Bills and it is not enough to say that a person's livelihood will not be affected.

The fact is that Clause 3 states that

"Where a licensing authority proposes… to require payment under section 2(6) above …"

Clause 2(6) states:

"The licensing authority may require an applicant for a licence to pay such amount, in addition to any fee under subsection (4) above, as the licensing authority may, with the consent of the Treasury"—

The consent of the Treasury? Surely, at the dictation of the Treasury—

"determine, towards the expense of any tests which in the opinion of the authority"—

that is, The Minister—

"are necessary to enable the authority"—

or him—

"to decide whether a licence that is granted …"

and so on.

It is not possible for anybody to assume that no basic and deeply felt argument could arise when somebody goes with an annoyance or a difficulty before this committee. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to be able to do anything about it. All I am saying is that we should be watchful in this business. It cannot be explained by saying "This has happened in other Bills." Unfortunately, of course, this is true. It has happened in far too many Bills. Many subjects of the Crown have no recourse, in another field of their endeavours, to the laws of the land. All they have is recourse to the clemency of the Minister —and what Minister ever had clemency in the prosecution of his own business? Of course, this is nonsense.

However, I shall not impose upon your kindness and generosity any further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, beyond simply making this point: I express the hope that perhaps in some future generation we shall have Ministers who are more zealous about the liberties of the individual than, perhaps, they now are.

I assure the Minister of Liberal support for the Bill. Perhaps, as I represent an island surrounded by very busy shipping lanes, mine is the appropriate voice for my party on this matter.

We have received representations—I imagine that the Government and the official Opposition have received them, too—from the Chamber of Shipping, which has certain fears about Clause 6. I have noted the comments on that clause this morning, and I see the reasons for it, but I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Minister that the representations to which I refer will be given due consideration before orders are laid.

Finally, I add the hope that in this Parliament we shall have from the Government a Bill covering the extraction of materials from the seabed—a matter that is causing considerable concern to my constituents and, I am sure, to people elsewhere on our coastline.

May I have the leave of the House to speak again?

I do not intend to come between the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) on the question of the role of an Opposition. Perhaps the only alliterative word missed by the right hon. Member was "fictitious". I suppose that there is something a little fictitious about the idea that one should look for direct opposition in the way the right hon. Gentleman described it on a Bill of this kind.

The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, quite properly, asked about costs, asking how many enforcement officers could be covered by the sum of £10,000 mentioned in the explanatory and financial memorandum. He is quite right; the £10,000 relates to the additional cost likely to arise on central funds for the administration of the Bill. But that excludes any cost arising from the appointment of additional enforcement staff which may prove necessary in the future, up to the limit of six referred to in the memorandum. We are not, therefore, being quite as mean as all that.

Second, the right hon. Gentleman asked about inspection and control of foreign dumping, this being covered by the convention. I gather that he was largely giving a welcome to it. The only point of opposition which he raised came when he suggested that this was the first piece of legislation which we had introduced. If we have not yet introduced anything else, we have certainly begun to get rid of a great deal of unpleasant legislation, and I think it not inappropriate that the first Bill we have put before the House should be concerned with dumping.

The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) was rightly concerned—again, I find myself agreeing with much that was said by the Opposition—about the state of his coastline, and he stressed that he did not want to see the white cliffs of Dover turn grey as a result of the dumping of oil and waste of one kind and another. This problem is covered to some extent by existing legislation. However, on the question of pipeline discharge of solids or liquids, the problem is to distinguish solids from liquids. I do not want to go into a detailed examination of the substances involved, but I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the discharge of anything of that kind from pipelines will be covered by the legislation now being formulated by the Secretary of State for the Environment. I believe that this matter was discussed at some length in the other place under the Conservative Government.

May we revert for a moment to the £10,000? In the financial memorandum, there is a reference to

"other incidental expenses arising under the Bill".

Clause 11(2)(a), to which our attention is there directed, covers

"such fees and allowances for members of committees".

Paragraph (b) covers salaries and allowances, and paragraph (c) covers

"such other expenses of such committees".

These are entirely incidental, I agree, but paragraph (d) covers

"such salaries or other remuneration for British enforcement officers".

I understand the Minister to be saying that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are incidental and paragraph (d) is not. In that case, I suggest that the description of the financial effects of the Bill is not quite as clear as it might have been.

I do not think that we should get bogged down on this. The real point at issue arose on subsection (2)(d). The salaries of British enforcement officers would also be paid out of money provided by Parliament, and this would be in addition to the £10,000. The question then arises whether the total of £10,000 covers paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Presumably, there are other administrative costs subsumed in the £10,000, and also such matters, for example, as fees and allowances for time spent by members of the various independent committees, and so on. These would be added to the proposed administration costs borne by the central Government. I think that the intention and purpose are fairly clear.

The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal referred to the oil slick problem. Oil is often discharged from vessels as part of the normal cleansing operation. It is not, therefore, dumping, as we have defined it in the Bill, and such discharge is covered by arrangements under the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. Incidentally, the secretariat of that body is in London, and it will keep these matters under constant review.

I come now to the question of the incidental or accidental dumping of refuse from ships. This can give rise, I know, to most unpleasant happenings for people living on or near the coast. Having been born and brought up by the sea, in the Orkney Islands, where we borrowed boats as other people borrowed bicycles, I regard some of the things that go on as really dreadful, and I find it most distressing to see the disgraceful state of our shoreline now compared with what I knew in earlier days.

A great deal has come from incidental dumping from ships which pass at sea. The trouble is that this is an extremely difficult matter to control. To a great extent, it is covered by the recent IMCO convention to which I referred. But enforcement is another matter, and we shall require legislation to implement the convention.

Clause 1(3) excludes the discharge of substances from a ship arising out of normal operations, and this will be covered by the legislation to implement the IMCO Convention. However, as I say, it is an exteremely difficult business to handle in practice. One thinks not just of passengers but of the chef who comes upstairs with various remains and throws them overboard.

I suggest that we have to try, through legislation, to set the lead. This has often been our argument when other matters have been before the House. There was a difference between the two sides in relation to the Race Relations Act, for example. People asked how it could be enforced, and our argument frequently was that the fact of a law on the matter tended to make people realise that a practice was undesirable. We hope that the same result will follow here. However, I do not want to stray into a discussion of that Act, especially in the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell).

Is it the Department's view that, if a chef comes up and throws out waste from, say, a cross-Channel ship, it will be a discharge incidental to the normal operation of a ship?

I think that that is right. It is a Committee point, and it will have to be discussed again on the legislation implementing the recent IMCO agreement. I think that it probably is the normal operation of a ship. However that may be, the point I am stressing is that in one way or another enforcement will be extremely difficult. I am advised, I regret to say, that the discharge of garbage is part of the normal operation of a vessel, and precisely for that reason it is subject to the other arrangements to which I have referred. Thus, the first answer is that it is part of the normal operation. Second, it is therefore covered by the convention. Third, enforcement will be very difficult.

I come now to the theoretical or, shall I say, philosophical questions raised by the hon. Member for Yarmouth. I have a great deal of sympathy with his observations. As we face one another across the Floor and develop our thinking on the necessary processes of Government, we recognise that problems are often raised for the individual. I have no doubt that that it is true here. We try to establish independent committees. All one can say in this modern world is that the committees are as independent as possible, but there is no total independence. The committees are subject to pressures, but eventually they have to report to the Minister, who decides.

The alternative to appointment to committees is election, but this would not necessarily extend democracy in any meaning. I cannot imagine posters being issued for election to a garbage inspection committee, for instance. We must appoint to the committees people who understand the problems. The committees report back to the Minister and the safeguard is that the Minister is held responsible at the end of the day. I am here at the Dispatch Box to be criticised if I go wrong.

I appreciate that point, yet I am concerned that all this will take place outside the courts. My basic point is that there is no recourse to the courts.

I accept that there could be involved aspects of loss which would be subject to court procedings, but we are concerned at present with the question of advisory committees, which is a different matter. The Minister must determine matters in the light of what the committees recommend. This procedure has been agreed by the Council on Tribunals. It is a notable feature of British democracy that there is constant supervision regarding appointments to tribunals and the Council on Tribunals feels that this is sufficient a safeguard for the individual's interests.

I note the point made in the debate regarding the consent of the Treasury. I confess I had not noticed this earlier.

I thank the Liberal Party for its support for this measure. I would have expected that representatives of the two nationalist parties would be present, as there are long stretches of coast in the areas which they claim to represent. But in their absence I am only able to thank the third minority in the House for its support, and for the pleasant passage given to the Bill so far.

I beg to move,

That the Eggs Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.

This seems to be my day. I welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). I recall that in a previous debate on agriculture I created a rhyme, or gave a variation on an existing rhyme, but I shall not do that again today. The hon. Gentleman is, or was, chairman of the Conservative Party committee on agriculture in the House and I am sure he will bring much expertise to the Opposition Front Bench, which could do with some strengthening. We are pleased to see him and we welcome effective opposition. Bearing in mind what was said earlier today this could be fractious or factitious—or whatever the definition may be.

I feel confident that the House will approve the levy scheme. It involves one or two problems but, by and large, it has been welcomed by the National Farmers' Union and by farming interests. It provides for an Eggs Authority to be financed in a different way. It will be financed by means of a levy on chicks used in egg production.

The previous Labour Government decided that the British Egg Marketing Board should be abolished and replaced by the Eggs Authority. The Agriculture Act 1970 provides the necessary statutory provisions for the formation of the authority, which has the general duty of improving the marketing of eggs. Particular functions undertaken by the authority include advertising—such as the "Go to work on an egg" motto—the collection and provision of marketing intelligence, and research and development.

At present the authority comprises 12 members, all appointed by agriculture Ministers. Five are appointed after consultation with producers' organisations, four after consultation with trade organisations, and the other three are independent members, of whom one is the chairman.

In the summer of 1973 the previous Government reviewed the need for the authority and it was decided that it should continue this year. We have accepted that it shall continue after March 1974, provided suitable financial arrangements can be worked out. The decision has been made on this and we are following the view of the previous Government.

Until now, most of the authority's finance has come from a levy on producers, which has taken the form of a deduction from the egg deficiency payments. In addition, a contribution towards the expenses of the authority's functions other than support buying and advertising may be made by Ministers with the approval of the Treasury. A contribution of 50 per cent. of the cost of the authority's eligible functions is currently being made. This will continue to be made in the coming year, but the egg deficiency payments end on 30th March. It has therefore been necessary to devise a new way of raising the levy, which has so far been deducted from the deficiency payments.

In January this year the authority submitted a scheme for raising the necessary finance by means of a levy on chicks intended for use in egg production. The scheme now before the House provides for a levy to be paid to the Eggs Authority by hatchers and importers on day-old chicks placed for egg laying. Hatchers and importers, in turn, are empowered to recover the levy from egg producers to whom they sell the chicks. The interests primarily concerned have generally agreed that this scheme is the most convenient and equitable method available of financing the authority, given the provisions of the 1970 Act.

The scheme defines a hatcher as

"any person engaged by way of business in the hatching of domestic fowls for egg laying in Great Britain or Northern Ireland".

An importer is defined as

"any person engaged by way of business in the bringing (otherwise than only as a carrier), of live domestic fowls of laying stock into Great Britain or Northern Ireland from outside those areas…".

Hatchers and importers who during any period of 12 months do not place more than 300 chicks for egg laying are exempt from the scheme.

The scheme also recognises the need to exempt from the levy chicks provided either by way of free replacement, or tolerance not exceeding 2 per cent. of the quantity ordered by the buyer, to compensate for chick mortality. The scheme also allows hatchers and importers a period of up to three months from the date when the chicks are placed before payment of the levy is due to the authority. Hatchers and importers will also be entitled to deduct reasonable costs incurred in the collection of the levy for producers.

The scheme requires hatchers to register with the authority and to keep such records as the authority may require.

The scheme embodied in the order which has been laid before the House also incorporates modifications made by Ministers to the authority's draft scheme. These modifications are specified in the order and are designed to clarify some of the definitions in the scheme. Because of the possibility that the order might not be approved in time, before 31st March, it was felt necessary to ensure that in the event of an order specifying the rate of levy for any accounting period not coming into operation until a date later than the commencement of the accounting period, hatchers and importers would be exempt from paying levy in retrospect on chicks placed before the rate of levy order came into effect.

The rate of levy to be charged per 100 chicks for the authority's 1974–75 accounting period will be determined by Ministers in a further order under subsection 2(b) of Section 13 of the Act which will, if the order receives the approval of both Houses of Parliament, be laid before Parliament in the near future. It is expected that the authority will require to raise by levy about £1,400,000 in the 1974–75 accounting period.

I was involved in earlier discussions when the Marketing Board was wound up. My opinions have now passed into history, but since the creation of the Eggs Authority most people involved recognise that it is performing a worthwhile service and that it is desirable that it should be enabled to continue its work.

The scheme we are now considering is as fair and reasonable an arrangement as could be devised within the Agriculture Act 1970.

I thank the Minister for his congratulations and the pleasant comments he made about me. Those comments were even more pleasant than those he made on the last occasion on which he congratulated me. Whether that is a reflection on him or on me is not for me to say.

I am getting mellow in Government.

I trust that the House will support the levy, because it is necessary if the Eggs Authority is to fulfil its main functions of advertising, market intelligence, research and development and consumer information. I think that it is generally agreed that those functions are very useful to both producers and consumers.

There is an example of the way in which the authority can be of use to consumers in the pronouncement which the authority made last week, when it issued a tough warning about egg market prospects for 1974–75. Because of a forecast combination of high chick placings in the United Kingdom and in the EEC, stable yields of eggs, high feed costs, the likelihood of low producer prices, and a slight decline in consumption trends, the authority is forecasting a depression for egg producers in 1974

"unless the level of chick placings is significantly reduced in the near future; and unless the slaughter of hens is increased to a high level."

I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.

The House would also like the hon. Gentleman to comment on the effect of the French prohibition of egg exports to France owing to the occasional use of arsenical antibiotics in the United Kingdom feedstuffs. What action are the Government taking about the matter? Will they concede to the French, or will they continue the endeavours of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) in the last Government to persuade the EEC to 2110w the use of such compounds?

The levy is not new, but the order involves a new method of its collection. It seems to me to be a fairer method. It will mean that all producers pay, rather than only about half of them, as happened under the old system.

I believe that the authority's income and levy are largely well spent, but it must be admitted that the recent National Egg Week was not a success. I hope that the authority will learn by its mistakes. It is perhaps fair to comment that many of the criticisms came from egg producers who did not co-operate in the week. I understand that those who did co-operate have benefited considerably. Are the Government satisfied with the way in which the authority divides its expenditure between its various responsibilities?

The Minister referred to the membership of the authority. He said that it has 12 members. It has been brought to my notice that the membership has to be reappointed by 1st April. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that? If it is true, when will he make an announcement? Will any changes in membership be made? The General Election may have caused a delay in the reappointment of the authority. It is an important matter, as we shall have an authority which is not an authority if the members are not appointed.

I hope that the House will support the order.

My constituency is largely agricultural. I have the disadvantage of not being a farmer and of having no agricultural experience. It therefore behoves me to apply myself as diligently as I can to the problems of my constituents.

I was surprised to hear the Minister say that the scheme had obtained a general welcome. County Armagh egg producers do not welcome it, perhaps for reasons which apply only to Ulster and not to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Like the pig producers, egg producers in Northern Ireland suffer from the differential in feeding stuff prices. I have already made representations to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries about the differential. I ask the Minister to bring to the attention of his right hon. Friend the fact that our egg producers also suffer from a differential of £8 to £10 a ton for their feeding stuffs. Because of the differential, egg production in Northern Ireland is rapidly becoming uneconomic. Therefore, when such a scheme as the one before us is introduced it causes a great deal of concern, primarily because of the conditions prevailing in Northern Ireland.

At present the levy we pay for the Eggs Authority is obtained from deducting a portion of the present subsidy which our producers receive. It is suggested that by the end of the month the subsidy will be removed, and there will then be a levy on them of £2·84 per hundred birds. Therefore, the subsidy is being taken away and they are being asked for an extra £2·84 per hundred birds. In Northern Ireland this will raise about £225,000, it is hoped.

One constituent of mine will have to pay about £3,000 for his own birds and will then have the responsibility of collecting £25,000 for the birds which he will be supplying. It must be borne in mind that in large areas of Northern Ireland the rule of law does not exist. There are already people on rent and rate strikes and people who do not pay their road tax. Although legislation was introduced to enable the money to be deducted from their salaries, the Government wisely decided not to do that, because it would destroy the very good industrial relations in Northern Ireland.

Here we have a scheme which says that every hatcher and importer will have to pay a levy and then recover it as a debt from the farmers to whom he has supplied the chicks. It says clearly:

"to recover as a debt due to him from the person to whom he sells chicks the amount of levy imposed on the hatcher or importer by reference to the chicks so sold."

It will be very difficult for some of the hatchers who have perhaps enjoyed a good working relationship with a number of farmers in difficult areas, particularly in County Armagh, now to tell them "On top of the money you have paid for the chicks, we want £2·84 per hundred chicks for the British Eggs Authority." There is every likelihood that the farmers will refuse to pay, and a good working relationship between the hatcher and the producer will be destroyed.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that in County Armagh there are various group production schemes in which the hatcher supplies the chicks, feeding stuffs and other items on credit for perhaps six to eight months and then hopes to recover his outlay by receipt of the eggs. The scheme provides that the levy is payable to the authority—

"on such a date or dates (not being sooner than the end of the second month next following the month during which the chicks were placed)".

Does that mean that, in addition to the the credit that he is extending to the farmer, the hatcher must meet this levy, which could in some instances amount to £4,000 or £5,000? That is asking a little too much of him.

The scheme provides that the expenses incurred by the hatcher can be recovered but that the sum will be calculated in such manner as the authority may determine. Does that include the whole range of recovery activities which a hatcher might use? In Northern Ireland that might amount to a considerable sum of money. Might this involve the taking of legal action against a farmer? Once again, that might destroy the relationship which exists between the hatcher and the farmer.

We should examine the whole question of the value of the Eggs Authority. The first week in February was National Egg Week, and that apparently cost £120,000. During that same week 100,000 boxes of French eggs were imported. The price of eggs dropped between 6p and 7p per dozen. Many people in Northern Ireland wonder whether the egg week was an attempt to ensure that the French eggs were sold. May we have an assurance that that sort of thing will not happen in future?

With the permission of the House, I will reply to the questions which have been asked.

The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr Morrison) asked about the appointment of the Authority. The Authority will be appointed next week to be ready for 1st April. He asked about the use of arsenical antibiotics. I assure him, and others, that the previous Government's attitude is being maintained. He also asked to what extent the work of the Eggs Authority had been successful, and referred to criticisms that had been made of the National Egg Week. He also said that those who co-operated most were the ones who felt that they had benefited most, so perhaps the week was not such a failure as some people think. There is always general resistance to being involved in an arrangement whereby money goes out on a Monday and the returns do not come back for a few weeks.

The hon. Member asked whether there was a right balance in the authority's expenditure. That is difficult to judge. Those who criticised National Egg Week would perhaps say that the advertising should be cut, but the evidence is that the expenditure on advertising has been successful. Where expenditure on advertising has dropped, there has been a drop in egg consumption. The general feeling is that the expenditure of a large amount of money on advertising benefits the industry. Marketing intelligence organised by the authority has been of immense benefit to the producer.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of anxieties, created by the Egg Authority's statement of the prospects for 1974–75, that the trend, if unchecked, would result in a decline in consumption because of the increased cost of production. Egg prices have been low in the past—for example, in 1972—with the result that confidence declined and production was cut. Throughout 1973 there was a reduction in supply and a significant increase in prices. The market, therefore, remained firm. Throughout 1973 egg prices were high, the industry recovered a great deal of its earlier confidence and chick placings increased. Placings for the second half of 1973 were about one-third higher than they were for the second half of 1972. Since then the market has remained steady and no major price changes have occurred. We are hopeful that there will be no price changes immediately. It is difficult to forecast future prospects, but it appears likely that further price reductions are in the pipeline.

I know that there are fears in the industry that over-production might lead to an unprofitable situation for producers, but it is difficult at this stage to judge what the position of producers is likely to be later this year. A lot will depend upon food costs and the movement in food costs, as well as the readi-Eggs Authority. That applies to pigs as well as to poultry. Given all that, ness of producers to co-operate with the it is not inevitable that producers will move into a serious loss-making situation. We may be over-alarmed about this, and I appeal to the industry not to lose confidence. No one can say for how long the cost of feed will remain at its present level. I feel that the prognostication given by the Eggs Authority is undeservedly gloomy, and I hope that what I have said will restore confidence to the industry.

I understand the background to which the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) referred. Even when we are discussing eggs, I suppose it is difficult to divorce ourselves from the problems of Northern Ireland. I will deal specifically with agriculture rather than with law and order. He has taken an unnecessarily gloomy and inaccurate view of the situation facing the producer in Northern Ireland. The Government pay a sea transport subvention. I was instrumental in bringing in a Bill in 1970 which provided for sea transport costs for Northern Ireland and Scotland. The subvention assists the Ulster producer to maintain markets within Britain, and it remains.

The burden on Ulster producers of this levy scheme will be less than was the burden of the old scheme. Although we are imposing a burden, it is a lighter one, and we should be thanked rather than criticised in Northern Ireland. The producers who received the subsidy bore all the cost of the Eggs Authority, and most farmers were in that category. All producers, including producer/retailers—which are not very common in Northern Ireland—will share the cost. That means that there should be a disproportionate benefit to Northern Ireland.

The egg authorities have reached arrangements with the hatchery interests to deal with recovery of expenses. I cannot go into details on the law and order implications at present. I hope that the hon. Member for Armagh and the producers whom he so ably represents will be reassured.

The hon. Gentleman has spoken rather optimistically about the prospects for egg producers. As we have seen in other schemes, such optimism has not always proved to be well founded. The pig industry is a good example of this at present. What action do the Government have in mind should trouble arise and the present optimism prove to be ill founded?

The hon. Gentleman will surely not expect an answer to that question. He knows why we have not been able to answer these problems, certainly in the pig industry. These are not problems of our making. Since the autumn I pressed a course of action upon the last Government. If they had taken steps to help reduce the cost of feeding stuffs agriculture would be in a better position. That did not happen, and we now have what is perhaps the most difficult situation ever to face a new Government's Minister of Agriculture. It is an almost intolerable position to have inherited, certainly on the livestock side. I get a little irritated when over the past few days we have been pressed for action, yet the Conservative Government took no action over the past six months.

On that happy note I commend the scheme to the House.

I beg to move,

That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.

The object of this scheme is to encourage the rearing of calves for beef production. Hon. Members will be disappointed to see that the scheme retains the lower rates introduced last year by the previous administration. They were left unchanged in this year's annual review settlement, which came out during the election. That settlement was the responsibility of the last Government. I must explain why we are recommending the scheme in its present form.

My immediate objective is to act as quickly as possible to preserve the continuity of the grant, which means that I must have the scheme operating from 1st April. If there is a desire to change the level of grants at a later date steps can readily be taken to produce a simple scheme to do this.

There are two small changes. Since 1969, subsidy has been payable at stage B on the carcases of young bulls which reached the required standards of eligibility. Because at that time bull beef production was a relatively new development it was considered that certifying officers would find it difficult to judge a young bull's beef potential on the hoof. Beef calves develop bullish characteristics which are not apparent until slaughter.

The Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture in England and Wales recently produced a comprehensive and useful report on bull beef production. Its view is that by making it impossible for the producer to obtain subsidy when his bulls are alive we are putting him at a disadvantage. We have accepted that there is no longer any justification for refusing to certify young bulls live. We shall allow them to be eligible under stage A instead of only under stage B. Stage B continues the existing scheme dealing with the payment of subsidy on carcases of any home-bred clean cattle which did not attract the subsidy as calves.

The second administrative change in the scheme was also the subject of a recommendation by the Advisory Council. Although the subsidy is already being paid on eligible bull caracases it has been conditional upon the bull being slaughtered before the appearance of its incisor teeth. This dentition requirement was felt to be necessary in the early days of bull beef production to encourage producers to have bulls slaughtered at a relatively early age. The industry is now sufficiently experienced in this type of production to be able to manage without this condition and we are accordingly removing the "teeth test"—known as the dentition test, according to my notes. Thus producers will be able to send bulls for slaughter at whatever age they consider most suitable to meet market requirements.

The House will no doubt want some expenditure details. During the last financial year the total spent was £31·9 million, with the expenditure then divided as follows—England and Wales, £21·2 million; Scotland, £6·4 million; and Northern Ireland £4·3 million. Estimated expenditure for 1973–1974 is almost exactly the same, at £31·8 million, and, because of the slight reduction in last year's level of subsidy, it will be lower in 1974–75.

No one would deny that the calf subsidy has played an important part in encouraging an expansion of beef production. That is particularly true of times when the return from beef has not been very good, such as the period we are passing through now due to the fall in beef prices, the high cost of store cattle, until a few months ago, and very high feed prices. It is to be hoped that the subsidy will act as an encouragement and incentive to farmers and help maintain their confidence. This is necessary if trends in beef production are to be maintained.

It is remarkable that in the last two years of Conservative Government the beef herd expanded by 10 per cent. and 14 per cent. The total breeding herd expanded by 6 per cent. between June 1972 and June 1973. To a considerable extent those statistics give the lie to what the Minister said in his closing remarks at the end of the short debate on the last order. In spite of expansion, this year's Farm Review White Paper shows that home production of beef still provides only 86 per cent. of total home supply.

There remains considerable scope for expansion. The calf subsidy is an aid and I welcome the extension of the Scheme under Stage B to cover carcases of fat bulls. That should help to stimulate bull beef production. It should assist in increasing home beef supplies and also provide a possibility of a growing bull carcase export trade as and when opportunity arises.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman three brief questions—the first on a matter of clarification. On page 9 of the Schedule, in the second line, referring to stage B carcases, there is mention of

"fat steers, clean fat heifers, bulls and other male cattle".

It would be useful if the hon. Gentleman could clarify what is meant by "other male cattle", in view of the earlier reference to fat steers and bulls.

Secondly, paragraph 4(a) of the Schedule refers to ineligible bull carcases. It is important that farmers should appreciate that some bull carcases will still be ineligible, and I should like to ask what estimate has been made of the proportion or the type of carcase which will be ineligible for the subsidy.

My third question refers to an item in the explanatory note, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clarify it. The third paragraph in the note says:

"…rates of subsidy at stage B are such amounts as are determined to be approximately equivalent…"

Can we be told what is meant by "approximately equivalent" in terms of the average payable at stage A? It seems to me that they will either be equivalent or not equivalent, and if they are not equivalent will the Minister specify in what way they are not equivalent?

We all constantly emphasise the need for confidence in agriculture if an increase in production is to be maintained. I make no apology for emphasising this point yet again now. The calf subsidy is a help, but the wider actions of Ministers are still more important. The Government and the Ministers will be judged on those actions, whether they occur at home or arise from deliberations in Brussels. So far it is fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture's words have been mildly encouraging, but so they were when the Minister was last in office—yet only too often his words were belied by his actions. This time it is even more important, in the interests of the consumers, that his actions should match his words. This is as true of the beef scheme as it is of any other scheme. Only then will farmers have confidence to continue to expand production.

The Minister said that he was an Orcadian; and I am sure he knows all about the problems which I am about to repeat to him ad nauseam. I respect the Minister's difficulties and appreciate what he said about the lack of time which the Government have had to take action on this matter. However, this instrument merely extends the payment of calf subsidies at a rate similar to those which have been in existence since 16th April last year.

The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) is in a difficult position, since it was a Conservative Government which agreed these figures at the price review. This is one of those payments which we expected to be phased out over the next few years if we were to comply with the common agricultural policy.

I feel strongly that an excellent opportunity is being lost to give a much-needed shot in the arm to our livestock-rearing industry. I welcome action taken over young bulls and bull carcases, but if there is not to be a complete lack of confidence it is essential that an immediate cash injection should be made. One way to do this is to restore the calf subsidy to those rates which pertained a year ago. Better still, this could be done by increasing those figures, and I wish to remind the House that the figures were £11·25 for steers and £8·50 for heifers.

My information is that calves, many of which are fit for rearing as beef, are being slaughtered at an ever-increasing rate. If we are not very careful, there will be a wholesale scramble to get out of livestock production altogether. That slide has already got under way in the pig industry. It can only lead to a severe shortage next year and a subsequent increase in imports, which we can ill afford at present. People who should know are predicting falls of up to £30 per head for suckled calves next autumn, if action is not taken now. If the Government are serious about encouraging the maximum economic production of food in this country, to which they referred in the Gracious Speech, they are hardly backing up their words by their actions today.

The long-term forecast is that the cost of feeding stuffs will remain at least at the present levels; and, although I agree that the long-term outlook for meat is also favourable, the short term is disastrous. It is the next year that is critical, and I hope that the Minister will think again about the proposals which he has brought before the House today. What is more, he should give serious consideration to extending the scope of the Livestock Rearing Act 1951 to enable this to apply to the whole of the country and therefore permit many more beef herds to qualify for the hill cow subsidy. It is action upon these lines, as well as some firm commitment on extended credit facilities, for which the cattle breeders are looking—men and women who have spent a lifetime building up herds of which we are justly proud. I trust that they will not have to wait in vain. In the long run, the inevitable fall in production which will follow if these measures are not implemented will mean higher prices to the consumer.

I should like to make a few comments, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in replying to the debate.

I very much agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) that the next 12 months are critical, and I am sure that nobody would dispute the truth of that statement. I have found when answering these matters during the early days of the Government that one either does not know the answers to questions or one is unable to give information because other discussions are taking place. Most of the hon. Gentleman's points come within the latter category. At this stage I cannot say anything. The hon. Gentleman was right to take the opportunity to press the Government further, but he knows our difficulties. I must tell him that if I were able to give him an answer I should be very glad to do so.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the level of subsidy in the scheme is at the same rate as before but I pointed out that this was partly contingent on the necessity for putting the scheme through at all. If we desire to do so—and I am not saying that we shall do so—we shall have an opportunity to change the situation easily and rapidly—with the support, I hope, of the Conservative and Liberal minorities in the House.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the slaughter of calves. I do not want to make any propaganda point about previous happenings since we are responsible for these matters at present, though I hope the hon. Gentleman will not attribute previous actions to us. I was interested in his remarks about rejigging the hill cow subsidy scheme. We shall look at all possible means of dealing with the situation. I appreciate the problem the hon. Gentleman raised about the cash situation.

The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) raised a number of specific points, and he put up, this time from the Front Bench, the sort of defence of the Conservative Government's record which he used to put up as a back bencher. First, we have the curious phrase "other male cattle", and the hon. Gentleman wanted to know what was meant by that since we have already mentioned both steers and bulls. One of my hon. Friends suggested to me that it might refer to buffalo and bison. However, the other male cattle are immature followers which would not be called bulls. The suggestion is in some doubt, but I presume that it refers to age.

Second, there is the problem of some safeguard to avoid paying on carcases which do not come up to standard for slaughter. I think that this is a reference to page 12. There is a certain safeguard on this.

The hon. Gentleman also wanted to know what kind of proportion it would be. I am afraid that I cannot give him an answer. If I can get any closer to the proportion in the Department, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

The important point here is to make sure that farmers realise that there will still be some carcases which will not be eligible for subsidy. That is more important than the estimate.

This is known. The hon. Gentleman wants figures about the proportion left in this category. I will see whether anything can be done about that.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the penultimate paragraph and this approximate rate. I think that we shall have to leave it as it is. Certain matters could arise which might make it difficult to put down the exact equivalent. The two items have been certified at different stages, and the factors involved might make it difficult to see that the equivalent at one stage was the exact equivalent at the later stage. We had better leave it in the form that it is, as an approximate equivalent.

I beg to move,

That the Representation of the People Regulations 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, in the last Session of the last Parliament, be approved.

It will not have escaped notice that these regulations were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) on the day before the General Election was announced. This in itself is an indication of the fact that there is nothing in the regulations which is controversial in a party political sense. Indeed, they are the outcome of very thorough consultations which my Department has had with the political parties during the past year.

The regulations now before the House are substantial: they deal with matters of the greatest importance in connection with elections—particularly the registration of electors and the arrangements for absent voting. But they contain relatively little which is new. In essence, they are the same as the 1969 and 1973 regulations which they replace. Such changes as are made are nearly all consequential on local government reorganisation and on the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972. The changes of title and wording involved were so numerous, however, that it was thought best to make new regulations rather than seek to amend the existing ones. Certainly this decision will be welcomed by all those—local government officers and political parties alike—who have to use the regulations from day to day.

The most important new provisions in the regulations are those in Regulation 5. These stem from the provision in the Local Government Act 1972 that each district and London borough council shall appoint one of its officers to be electoral registration officer. This in turn means that where a constituency cuts across district boundaries one registration officer has to be designated to be acting returning officer for the constituency. The effect of Regulation 5 is to ensure that in such a constituency there is some consistency in how the register is prepared and in how absent voting applications are dealt with.

Regulation 22(3) contains a new provision which allows every serving member of a local authority to receive a free copy of the register for the area he or she represents. This follows on the provision made last year for Members of Parliament to receive such a free copy.

I turn now to Regulation 29(2)(b)(ii), which deals with applications for a postal vote on grounds of physical incapacity. There is no substantial change in the regulation itself. This is because, when the draft regulations were being prepared, any substantial change was not thought right in advance of consideration which was due to be given by the Speaker's Conference to the question of absent voting. What has been changed is Form Q in the schedule. This is changed in two respects. First, the certificate is now to be signed only by a registered medical practitioner. This is in deference to the General Medical Council's very proper view that only a medically qualified person should sign what is essentially a medical certificate. Second, there is now added a declaration, which may be signed by anyone else; and Note 2 to the form makes it clear that the application will be accepted if the certificate is signed by a doctor or if the declaration is signed by a Christian Science practitioner, and it may be accepted if the declaration is signed by someone else. This is the existing law, more explicitly stated. I am sorry if it still sounds rather complicated, but I am satisfied that the present form is an improvement on its predecessor. If we can simplify and clarify it later, we shall do so.

All the other changes in the regulations are minor ones, of either a consequential or a technical nature. The new regulations, if approved here and in another place, will come into operation on 1st April next, when the new local authorities in England and Wales take over. Perhaps I should add that new Welsh or bilingual versions of the amended forms are being prepared, and regulations will be laid for their approval by Parliament.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Lady, my successor, on her appointment. I am sure that she will find, as I did, great satisfaction in her work and magnificent support from her officials.

From the Opposition benches we shall be vigilant, whenever necessary, to press Home Office Ministers hard in the direction in which we believe the national interest points, but we shall not oppose just for the sake of opposition.

Today we give a fair wind to these regulations, which were fathered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) when Minister of State. As the hon. Lady said—and as is true of so much of the work of the Home Office—these regulations raise no violent party political controversy, and we are grateful for the clear explanation that she has given of certain points in them.

There are two matters to which I wish to make brief reference. The first concerns the compilation of the register, which I think is covered by Regulations 12, 13 and 14.

At the General Election I found in my constituency—I think that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House found much the same in their constituencies—that many electors—certainly more than in any recent General Election that people recall—were, for one reason or another, left off the register when they thought that they should have been included. I suggest that we look urgently and carefully at any ways that may be open to us in the next few months for improving the machinery, even within these regulations.

In passing, I welcome the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in his Private Member's Bill. Although he is concerned mainly to extend postal voting rights, I understand that he also intends to try to do something towards improving the completeness of the register. If that can go further than is possible within existing regulations, I am sure that it will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The only suggestion that I can make now—I hope that the hon. Lady and her advisers will consider it carefully—is to increase somewhat the period during which the draft register is available for public inspection.

The situation is that 28th November in any year is the latest date for publication of the draft register and 16th December is the latest date for receiving claims and objections. For many reasons, we cannot push back later than 16th December the deadline for receiving claims and objections if the new amended register is to be ready to come into force in mid-February. However, I should have thought that it would be possible, particularly with modern aids, for draft lists to be published rather earlier than 28th November and for them to be given still greater publicity than hitherto.

Regulation 12(2) provides that:

"The electors lists shall be published on or before the twenty-eighth day of November".

Therefore, we have scope to bring that forward. I hope that the Minister will tell us that in any guidance to electoral registration officers she will urge them to aim at publishing these lists at least a week before 28th November, if possible. This was a matter of considerable concern to some of my constituents who had been left off the register. Coupled with extra publicity, this seems a commonsense way by which we can put the matter right without changing the regulations.

The second matter that I want to mention is somewhat wider, but I hope in order, because it is of general interest. I refer to Mr. Speaker's Conference, which is concerned with changes in the basic law, of which these regulations are simply the working expression. In the last Parliament Mr. Speaker's Conference made considerable progress. It made recommendations on a number of matters—for example, Service voters, the problem of multiple registration, the minimum age for election and the timing of by-elections. Certain other matters on its original agenda, when it was set up in 1972, were still to be considered when the last Parliament was dissolved.

I should like to ask the hon. Lady two questions to which I hope she can give answers or indications today. If not, perhaps there will be another occasion soon on which she can make the Government's intentions clear.

First, when and with what time scale do the Government expect to have any further consultations which would be helpful and to publish their reactions to the recommendations already made by Mr. Speaker's Conference?

Secondly, when may we expect Mr. Speaker's Conference to be reappointed in this Parliament, so that it may complete the unfinished business left over from the last?

We regard some of the matters that were on the original agenda of Mr. Speaker's Conference as both urgent and important. I hope that today the hon. Lady will assure the House that the Government will treat them with suitable speed.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and good wishes and offer him my congratulations on his being appointed as a shadow at the Home Office even if he can no longer be the substance.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the two matters that he has raised. I think that I can give him some of the information for which he has asked and meet some of the points that he has made.

The electors' lists, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, must be published on or before 28th November, and claims and objections must be received by 16th December. Although that gives nearly three weeks for checking the lists, I agree that some people have been left off in the past. There are two solutions. One, which is extremely important, is to make people aware that they can and should check the lists. However long they are given to check the lists if they are ignorant of the fact that they can do so or of the way to do it, it will make no difference.

We shall have to review the publicity that is given to this whole procedure—Press advertising, slogans on postmarks of envelopes, and so on. At the moment, that alone costs £17,000. However, if it is found that the publicity can be improved, it certainly should be.

Assuming that people have the knowledge that they can check the lists, there is the administrative question whether the electoral registration officers are able to publish before 28th November. As has been pointed out, they cannot be required to publish before 28th November, but there is nothing to stop them doing so. We shall ask registration officers, if possible, to publish before 28th November. I am hopeful that the large majority will do so. Therefore, I can meet the hon. Gentleman's point by assuring him that within the existing regulations we shall ask electoral registration officers to publish before that date. Some find it difficult, particularly those who publish draft registers rather than electoral lists, because they find it hard to meet the printing deadline of 28th November. The 16th December deadline cannot be put back, because that would make other registration officers short of time for considering claims and getting the registers printed.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reconstitution of Mr. Speaker's Conference involves the Prime Minister and the Leaders of the other two major parties. The reconstitution is now being considered by the Prime Minister and the Leaders of the other two parties and it will be put to Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Government's reaction to the work already carried out by Mr. Speaker's Conference. There is approximately one more year's work to be done. The previous Government made no commitment to major electoral legislation before the Conference completed its task. A similar course was adopted by the last Labour Government. The conference produced five interim reports between 1965 and 1967 and legislation was introduced only after its final report in 1968.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the recommendations made by Mr. Speaker's Conference involve major amendments to the parent statute, the Representation of the People Act 1949. Following the precedent adopted by previous Governments, the present Government will state their intentions as regards the decisions of the Speaker's Conference at an appropriate time.

I beg to move,

That the Customs Duties and Drawbacks (Revenue Duties) (Morocco) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 143), dated 31st January 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th February, in the last Session of the last Parliament, be approved.

As this order was drafted by the last Government, and as I understand that the Opposition Front Bench, understandably enough, are content to let it go through on the nod—although I am armed with an admirable, eloquent and comprehensive brief—I do not seek to detain the House any longer on the matter.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to a matter which has occurred in my constituency just outside Beaconsfield. About two years ago the A40 trunk road running from London to Oxford was superseded as a trunk route between Beaconsfield and Denham by the newly completed stretch of the M40, and as part of the appurtenant works the alignment of the carriageway of the old A40 just east of Beaconsfield was slightly moved to accommodate the access roundabout.

This meant the construction of a new length of road and the abandonment of the old carriageway over a stretch of a few hundred yards. One of the residential roads of Beaconsfield, on its outer extremity, had emerged, both for vehicular and pedestrian purposes, on to that stretch of carriageway of the old A40. When that bit of carriageway ceased to be a trunk road and to connect with anything at either end, a new access had to be constructed for the people who live in Pyebush Lane, the road concerned.

So, for purposes of vehicular access, they were connected to the new stretch of road, which is a dual carriageway. But it was obviously both inconvenient and dangerous that the people of Pyebush Lane should go out on foot on to the dual carriageway, which has no pavement for pedestrians. Therefore, they were left with the old stretch of road—half of it—as a footpath to the shops and the centre of Beaconsfield.

When a thing like that happens the normal course, which is being followed in this case, is that a closure order is made discontinuing the public right of way over the stretch in question, and then the land is usually conveyed back to the adjacent owners from whom earlier in time it will have been taken.

But, like all administrative processes, that takes a long time, and, indeed, one finds that it often takes a long time even to get round to starting to do it. So it was foreseen that there might be a misuse of that stretch of road and its verges during the time that would intervene before it would go back to landowners who would make positive use of it, and the residents of Pyebush Lane and the people of Beaconsfield were apprehensive that the land might come to be used for a settlement of tinkers in caravans or gipsies in caravans, which happens all too easily in the green belt around London.

The residents approached the Department of the Environment about this, because trunk roads, as distinct from local roads, come directly under the Department and are usually owned by it. They were given an assurance that the sort of situation they feared would not be allowed to arise in the interval before the road was conveyed to the adjacent owners. Sure enough, the Department put up a fence where Pyebush Lane came on to the old stretch of the A40—a fence on both sides of the lane.

The fence had two gates in it, rather like the case of the man who had two holes cut in the bottom of his door, one for the larger dog and one for the smaller. The larger of the two gates in the fence, which I suppose would be kept locked, was for any vehicular access that might be needed; a smaller wicket gate was provided as the entrance to the footpath, which was the old trunk road itself. At the other end, where it actually reached the built-up area of Beaconsfield, a gap 6 ft. wide was left in the fence—6ft. being wide enough to accommodate even the most ample of my constituents. Unfortunately, it was wide enough also to admit quite a few vehicles, and once the tinkers had got busy with their saws and had sawn down two of the posts it was wide enough to admit their caravans.

Of course, the predictable thing happened. About a year ago, on the first occasion, we had an incursion of tinkers. The gate was indeed locked, but that presented no problems. They lifted it off the hinges, took in their vans and a general spoliation began. On that occasion, by various means of pressure they were got rid of. But the months went by and the procedure for detrunking and closing and conveying seems never to have got off the ground. Unfortunately, my attention was not drawn to all these problems until the beginning of this year, otherwise I do not think I would have left the Department of the Environment alone for so long.

The next thing that happened was that shortly before Christmas about 30 to 40 tinkers' vans descended upon this stretch of road. Again the tinkers either opened or removed the gate. Certainly it is removed now and is lying on adjacent land. They cut down the posts at either end, as I have described, and an encampment of about 30 caravans with, as far as one can estimate, about 30 appurtenant lorries and a very considerable number of piles of scrap metal and so on built up.

So the inhabitants of Pyebush Lane have, since just before Christmas—which is now over three months—had on their footpath this assembly of tinkers' caravans with all the appurtenances going with it. The result is that even in broad daylight it is a fairly bold person who goes along that so-called footpath. A man might do it; none of the womenfolk cares to do it. After dark, no one cares to do it.

There are two aspects of this matter which need to be looked at. The first is the footpath aspect. It is the only pedestrian access for all these people to Beaconsfield. They cannot go on the dual carriageway, with its fast-moving traffic. They have to use this footpath or else wait until someone comes home who can take them in a car. They have to run the gauntlet of this encampment. I am not suggesting that people have been attacked or assaulted, but I ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider what is involved. First, of course, there is the tribe of dogs—and dogs have fewer inhibitions than their human owners about being nuisances to people and, indeed, frightening them as they go through.

Secondly, no one can walk along that footpath, certainly in wet weather, without getting covered in mud. It started life as the carriageway of a trunk road, but after use by all these caravans and as the venue for a junk business for three months, with lorries using the verges for parking at night, picking up mud and leaving it on the road in the daytime as well, the footpath is now a mud track. This is what the people of Pyebush Lane have to walk along if they want to get into Beaconsfield.

Then, of course—I say "of course" repeatedly, because one knows, unfortunately, what these encampments are like—the rubbish is indescribable. There is every kind of rubbish there. There is food lying about. There are tins, rags, dirt of every kind, on what was, until the tinkers arrived, an attractive stretch of roadside. There are piles of scrap metal. There are three entire wrecked chassis of motor cars.

In an attempt to deal with the situation, the local authority has put up three large metal skips, each of which is capable of holding 6 cubic yards of material, in the hope that these people would put their rubbish there so that it could be collected and taken away by the local authority. Need I tell the Under-Secretary that the skips have been used as receptacles for those parts of the scrap metal collected that the tinkers do not want? The local authority finds itself in the agreeable position of removing from the site for them the scrap metal which they have brought on to the site; and the rubbish just goes, as before, on the ground.

There are no sanitary facilities. There are a couple of little woden huts beside the footpath used by some, but the public health inspector tells me that the great majority simply use the hedges, the verges and the adjacent fields. This also has to be seen and, if they venture it, walked through by my constituents.

The tinkers have cut down whole trees and burnt them. There are stacks of brushwood. If I attempted to describe their dimensions I would make myself vulnerable to the charge of exaggeration. I hardly know why so much brushwood has been brought on. I am told that it serves, perhaps, two purposes. First, these people have done some hedging in the neighbourhood and brought some rubbish in and dumped it. The second is that they have used the brushwood to keep themselves warm in the cold weather. The fact remains that there is an enormous amount of brushwood on this site.

The public health inspector tells me that apart from the tribe of dogs there are horses—I have seen them myself. There have been chickens, ducks, and even, astonishingly enough, at least one sheep. I know enough about tinkers' encampments—so does the hon. Gentleman—to know that tinkers do not bred sheep. I gravely doubt whether they actually hatch ducks and chickens either. I strongly suspect that the sheep, chicken and ducks all belonged to somebody else originally.

The adjacent farmers are very unhappy about this situation. On the eastern side of Pyebush Lane, which is not a footpath, the adjacent landowner cannot get access to his land most of the time. I went there this morning. I could not have got access to his farm gate if I had wanted to, because the whole place was blocked with caravans, lorries and vans. This farmer has from £250,000 to £500,000 worth of machinery on his farm land. The hon. Gentleman will know that one man's machinery is another man's scrap metal and one man's fire is another man's fence.

I regret to say that throughout this time the Department of the Environment has done nothing. The complaints have flooded in. Originally they were made direct to the Department. They have been made through the council, which has complained to the Department. Finally, and rather late in the day, they have been made to me, and I have complained to the Department. I was told "An order will be made on 26th February closing the highway. The period allowed for the objection procedure means that the order will not be made finally until June." Even that is running late because the Beaconsfield council received its copy of the closure order only yesterday, I think. So I suppose that the time will not run out until July.

Here I must refer to the different concepts of time scale from the point of view of the residents and of the Department. The attitude of the residents, when this thing suddenly happened to them and they started to complain to their councillors and then ultimately to me, was "We have had this since last Thursday. Are we still going to have it tomorrow night and perhaps even the night after?" This was what they were thinking—"How many hours shall we have to put up with it?"

In the Department we found a detached and relaxed atmosphere. "We will get this sorted out in June or July. Then there will be the question of conveying the land." One knows the time a quite simple operation like conveying the land can take. After all, the Crown owns it in fee simple and has done so for unnumbered years, so in this case it need not take more than a day. My goodness me, it would, though. We should be lucky to get it in three months.

As to questions and complaints as to what the Department is going to do while all this goes on, the Department has delivered itself of the oracular utterance that it is not the policy of the Department of the Environment to harass gipsies—not that these people are gipsies, but let us pass that by—until they have somewhere else to go. What about the respectable, useful citizens who are living here, who work and do not steal, who do not create a shambles of the countryside in which they live, who pay rates and taxes, while these tinkers pay nothing? If they are found stealing something, no doubt the police will prosecute. But how does one find them doing so? One knows perfectly well that certain things that one sees on the site cannot have fallen from Heaven; neither can they have been made there, and they are not likely to have been bought. But nothing can be proved.

It is no defence to split this up into little compartments and say "If they are guilty of any offence, that will be a matter for the police; if they commit a nuisance, they offend some other branch of the law." Of course, the public health inspector says that there are manifest breaches of the Public Health Act 1936, the principal Act. He has tried to serve notices under Sections 92 and 93 of that Act. But the first thing one must do in order to serve a notice is to get the name and address—if that is not too absurd a concept—of the person on whom one wishes to serve the notice. One cannot serve general notices, any more than one can serve general warrants. So the public health inspector sends an official from his council to the site to get the names and addresses of the people occupying the caravans. He gets some names. The next day when he goes there, most of those people have gone and another lot are there. This operation was carried out a fortnight ago. Nine names were obtained. Nine people went and seven new ones were in their place.

Sections 92 and 93 of the Act provides also for the service of the summons on the owner of the land. The owner of the land is the Department. So the public health inspector—I hope the hon. Gentleman will note this—three weeks ago asked the Department of the Environment for particulars of the extent of the Department's ownership in order that summonses might be served on the Department for its breach of the law which it had committed in allowing these nuisances to persist and for failing to take any action to abate them. Need I say that no reply has been received in three weeks? But what is three weeks in the life of a Department?

Whereas if I were to cause a defacement like this of the countryside, to cause nuisances of these various kinds, something would happen fairly quickly, it seems to be assumed that a Department of State can suffer this to continue without taking any abatement action in flagrant breach of the law and can shrug its shoulders and say "It is not our policy to do anything about these people unless we have somewhere else to put them."

I will leave it there. I am sure the Under Secretary gets my point. A nuisance is a nuisance whether it be a sanitary nuisance, an injury to the visual amenity or any of the things defined in the law. It is a nuisance whether it is committed by a Department of State or by an individual, if the law is made to apply to the Crown as well as to the individual. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not for one moment seek to defend the inactivity of the Department in this matter.

I wish finally to look at this question of the Department's policy. It is so easy to say that under a fairly recent Act county councils were given wider power to set up a certain number of allegedly adequate sites for the settlement of gipsies. The Bucks County Council still has some distance to go, for a very good reason that this is part of the green belt which, as countryside, is densely inhabited. Frankly, nobody wants a gipsy encampment, still less a tinker encampment, anywhere near at hand, and full use is being made by residents of the objection procedures. One can understand that. It is not one of those bits of rather empty countryside which one finds further from London. It consists of swollen villages with very vulnerable and important bits of green in between them. Therefore, it is not an easy problem.

So-called gipsies can be various kinds of people. There is perhaps a mix here, but basically they are Irish tinkers. I am told that normally at this time of year such people would be in Ulster. But in the last few years, for fairly obvious reasons, they have preferred to be in Britain at this time of the year. It really would be absurd if the ratepayers of Buckinghamshire had to provide permanent accommodation and sites for Southern Irish tinkers who come over here and run this somewhat shadowy kind of business.

One must have a little bit of sense. We know that there are Romany gipsies who have been in the British Isles for many generations, and when one is dealing with them one appreciates that they have been here for perhaps a couple of hundred years and, therefore, one has to consider what to do with them and not just push them from one spot to another. But one must make a distinction between those people and those who are not gipsies in the traditional sense, but are itinerant tinkers from goodness knows where, usually from Ireland. One must limit very sharply the responsibility of any county council to find and set aside permanent sites for such people.

That is the situation in my constituency at the moment. It has persisted for over three months. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that he came to it only a week ago. I recognise that fact, but I am sure he will acknowledge that this is not a situation which can be allowed to continue. It really must be brought to an end, and it is not very difficult to do so. These people should be evicted from this site. There could not be a worse place than a footpath. From the end of Pyebush Lane to the shops in Old Beaconsfield must be about a quarter of a mile. If one is to have a gipsy or tinker encampment it must not be in such a situation. This is the only access for people. The other end is a cul-de-sac. This does not make sense. These tinkers are not just on the roadside. They have for all practical purposes destroyed the only pedestrian access for residents from their homes to the shops at Beaconsfield, and this makes the matter a special case. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this cannot be smoothed over with general principles. It must be considered in the light of the facts, and it must be solved on the basis of those facts.

I can well understand the concern of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), and I fully sympathise with his anxiety and that of his constituents at the situation, which he described rather vividly, on the disused length of the A40 at Beaconsfield. I am afraid that I shall offer the hon. and learned Gentleman little consolation when I say that this is but one example, as he knows, of a widespread problem. It affects many parts of the country and there is no easy straightforward solution to it. I shall return in a few minutes to the points which the hon. and learned Gentleman made regarding the footpath in question.

I must begin by putting this matter into its wider context, and, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will permit me, I shall say a few words about the gipsy problem generally. I use the term "gipsy", as I must, speaking for the Government, in the broad sense employed in the Caravan Sites Act 1968, as including all people of a nomadic habit of life, irrespective of their origin. The tinkers to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman refers certainly appear to be gipsies, in this sense, whatever other term the hon. and learned Gentleman would prefer to use. I understand the bit of social history which he gave us, but there is no question that under the terms of that Act the people here referred to are gipsies.

There are, I understand, only about 5,000 gipsy families in the whole of England and Wales, yet, I admit, they present a most difficult problem, out of all proportion to the numbers involved. Essentially, the difficulty arises from the fact that the gipsy's traditional way of life is increasingly threatened by the ever-growing complexity of our society and the pressures on our limited supply of land, especially around the large conurbations, such as London. It has become more difficult every year for them, and for our own community, to reconcile their way of life with that of normal house dwellers.

I must say, however—I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman in his better moments agrees—that it is inconceivable that a country such as ours should be unable to accept, cater for and absorb such a small minority group, however non-conforming they may be. That is why successive Governments of all shades of opinion have sought for many years to persuade local authorities to deal with the problem by providing sites for the gipsies in their area. They had the necessary powers—in particular, under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960—and it was felt that the problem was essentially one for the local authorities since they alone were in a position to know the extent of the problem and the best way of dealing with it in their own areas.

I am afraid that these efforts at persuasion by the Government met with very little success, and a more determined attempt to tackle the problem was made in 1968 when, with the support of all parties in the House, the Caravan Sites Act 1968 was passed.

Part II of that Act placed a duty squarely on local authorities, principally county councils, to provide sites for gipsies residing in or resorting to their areas. I underline the words "or resorting to", since the nomadic gipsy does not fit easily into traditional local authority thinking. We sometimes hear local authorities denying responsibility for some group of gipsies as not really belonging to their county. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is too sophisticated to think that gipsies draw a line and say that they "belong" to Buckinghamshire or North Hertfordshire—whatever it may be—and make divisions of that kind. It is important, therefore, to include the words "or resorting to".

I have no doubt that the general approach adopted in the 1968 Act was right. Properly equipped and managed sites in suitably chosen locations provide the gipsies with the facilities they need, and they enable those who wish to do so to settle and secure a better education for their children. Also, such sites get rid of the squalid and insanitary conditions so often associated with casual encampments, so vividly described by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Unfortunately, the rate of site provision has remained disappointingly slow. Since Part II of the 1968 Act came into force in April 1970, only about 70 new sites have been established, accommodating fewer than 1,000 caravans. In all, only about 1,400 gipsy families can be accommodated at present on local authority sites. The majority must perforce camp where they can.

Although a handful of gipsy families are able to camp on private sites or on land which they themselves own—there are a number of such cases—the vast majority have nowhere they can go. While this situation persists there seems to be no escape from the conclusions that we shall have unauthorised encampments on odd bits of land, such as that at Beaconsfield.

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the non-harassment policy of successive Governments. In the situation as it is, when there are insufficient permanent sites, successive Governments, again irrespective of party, have consistently advised local authorities over many years that gipsy families encamped on unauthorised sites should not needlessly be moved on where there is no official site for them. It is no solution to the problem simply to transfer them to some other part of the county—or, preferably, in the view of many counties—to some other part of the country.

It would be inconsistent with this advice, therefore, for the Department to seek or agree to the eviction of gipsies from land which it happens to own or control and for which there are no immediate development proposals, unless there were special grounds for doing so and that a more suitable site existed somewhere close at hand for the gipsies.

I emphasise that this is not a blanket policy. Obviously, every case will need to be looked at on its merits. We cannot follow the policy blindly, without regard to the particular circumstances. There may be occasions when the conditions, and especially the risks to public health, are so bad that urgent action is imperative.

Moreover, the policy is not to be interpreted as a licence for any sort of behaviour by gipsies. Some of the matters referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman—I do not wish to spell them out—would come within the category that we should not regard as open to gipsies to do, as it were, under licence.

There may therefore be exceptional circumstances in which action must be taken to disperse an unauthorised encampment. However, as I say, it is not sufficient simply to disperse an encampment. That merely transfers the problem to some other area. I repeat that until there are enough permanent sites local authorities must give thought to where the gipsies are to go, and should consider temporary arrangements in the way of basic sanitary and waste disposal facilities.

At this point, I take up what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the rubbish skips on the site in Beaconsfield. I understand—I am open to correction—that these skips were put there by the Gipsy Council and not by the local authority. Many organisations are conscious of and concerned about the problem that is created. I should put on record the fact that according to my understanding it was the Gipsy Council which put the skips there precisely for the sort of things—scrap metal which is of no use to the gipsies, and so on— which would otherwise be dumped on the roadside.

That may be true. The skips are, of course, emptied by the local authority. But I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have noticed a diminution of numbers since the Gipsy Council began to take an interest. If there is one thing the gipsies do not like, it is the Gipsy Council.

Local authorities may empty the skips, but I have no personal knowledge of such an arrangement. I shall look into the matter to ascertain the position between the local authority and the council.

The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the council may not be popular with the gipsies, but I suggest that in the long run such a body can only be beneficial. The society tries to bridge the gap between non-conformity and over-conformity, and can do nothing but good. The facilities which local authorities could provide could be either on existing encampments or on other more suitable sites in the vicinity.

The hon. Gentleman said that site provision in Buckinghamshire did not represent a glorious record. I understand that in Buckinghamshire there is at present only one official gipsy caravan site, providing 25 pitches, at Iver. It was set up nine or 10 years ago by Eton Rural District Council.

Local authorities and local people use all possible means to try to prevent having gipsies in their areas. There is often similar local opposition over road schemes—a matter close to my heart—in which people acknowledge the need for new roads but prefer to have them over the hill, rather than close to where they live. Likewise, people oppose the siting of borstals, prisons and mental hospitals. They accept the need for such institutions, yet use every means possible to delay the construction of them in their areas.

It seems that the county council in Buckinghamshire has provided no sites at all during the four years since Part II of the 1968 Act came into force, although I gather that the county council has plans for two sites. I do not know where these sites are, and perhaps there have been difficulties over this matter.

In September 1970 the council acknowledged the need to accommodate at least 70 gipsy families in the county, but I am bound to regard the lack of progress as a principal cause of the continued existence in the county of unauthorised encampments, such as that at Beaconsfield, which is on a section of an old trunk road made redundant by realignment. The land is not owned by the Government. When the necessary highway closure procedures have been completed the land will revert to the adjoining owners, with the exception of a narrow strip which will remain as a footpath for local residents.

The question of the closure order being delayed was due purely to the holding of the General Election. All matters which may be regarded as controversial were immediately stopped in the Department until the General Election took place.

I appreciate that that was bound to happen during the period of the election campaign. I accept that the delay was not the hon. Gentleman's personal responsibility, but at least a year expired between the road ceasing to be used and the time of the General Election.

I take that point, and I shall look into it. I understand that the closure order was, in fact, made today, although it was originally intended to be made in early February.

I fully recognise that one of the main obstacles to establishing more sites more quickly is local opposition, which almost always arises whenever a site is proposed. This is understandable, especially when people have known only the appalling conditions in some of the unauthorised sites. I have passed some of those sites—for instance, the one near the A41—and I am aware of the situation.

Experience has demonstrated, through a number of examples in various parts of the country, that, given a well-thought-out site and co ordinated action by the education, health and welfare departments of local authorities, fears and suspicions can be dispelled and many of the problems can disappear.

However, the fact remains that responsibility for dealing with the problem created by unauthorised camping by gipsies has been firmly placed upon the local authorities and the basic solution—properly equipped sites—lies with them.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that concerns the Home Office, and I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for having made herself available at very short notice to answer the debate.

The recent General Election has shown up certain problems of an unusual and, I trust, non-controversial kind. In my judgment, a considerable number of polling stations are unsuitable for use by disabled persons.

The Minister may argue—although in view of her normally sympathetic demeanour, I do not think that she is likely to do so—that disabled people can have postal votes and therefore should not need to go to polling stations. But disabled people wish to lead as full a life as they can, and do not want to have to opt out of the normal procedures available to us all. They wish to lead lives that are as full as possible. Therefore, I hope that the availability of a postal vote will not be used as the major argument against the suggestions I want to make.

I came across a most unsuitable polling station in my constituency—St. Luke's Church Hall, in Kidderpore Avenue, Hampstead. It is off a fairly narrow road, with one or two steps down to a long courtyard. To get into the polling booth it is necessary to go up a narrow and steep flight of about 12–15 stairs. Whilst I happened to be there on polling day I saw an elderly lady arrive. She was helped out of the car that brought her, and walked with the aid of two sticks. With people holding her, she went down the three steps and then saw the long approach and the stairs, and winced visibly.

Someone asked the presiding officer whether he would be prepared to go down to her with a ballot paper, having identified her on the register, and allow her to cast her vote in that way. That was said not to be possible. I do not know the detailed instructions to presiding officers under Home Office regulations. But when designing a new building for almost any purpose many local authorities will say that suitable access must be provided for disabled persons. When I was leading the opposition on the London Borough of Camden, we persuaded the council to pass a resolution stating that all new buildings should, wherever possible, have suitable access for disabled people. It was not a controversial matter. The resolution was passed some while before the general public conscience was awakened to the needs of the disabled.

Why should not that requirement of suitability for the disabled be applied to polling stations? I have heard of stations where there has been no problem about a staircase but where the door of the building has not been wide enough to allow a wheelchair to go through. Such a building should not be regarded as suitable for a polling station used by disabled people.

The Home Office should instruct returning officers to review all the polling stations used in last month's General Election and report within, say, six months on their suitability for future use by disabled persons. In the light of that information it may be that the hon. Lady or her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say that very few polling stations are unsuitable, and that they believe that returning officers should find other places to overcome the difficulties. But if the review provides a more general picture of unsuitability the hon. Lady may need to look more carefully at an alternative.

Why, for example, should not a polling station be defined not merely as the room in which the polling booth is situated but as the entire premises, so that as soon as one enters the courtyard from the public highway one is in the polling station? Then, in circumstances of the kind I have described, the presiding officer would be authorised to say to the disabled person, "You are Mrs. So and So?" and, after she had identified herself on the register, to give her the ballot paper and allow her to vote. There would be no further inconvenience to her. That alternative may be considered if there is found to be a general unsuitability of polling stations throughout the United Kingdom.

I said earlier that I hoped that the hon. Lady would not fall back upon the excuse that postal votes are in any case available for disabled persons, but if she is forced back on to that excuse, will she consider whether the present operation of the system is fair to disabled people? A person who moves his home fills in a form and posts it off to the local electoral registration officer, and if the next election comes before a new register is in use his ballot paper, the Post Office willing, will arrive at his new address. Nobody needs to certify that he has moved; his word is sufficient.

Yet the word of a cripple in a wheelchair is not sufficient. He has to have the document countersigned by a registered medical practitioner. Will the hon. Lady look into that question and see whether it would be possible merely to rely on the word of the disabled person that he is disabled and not require him to find a medical practitioner to sign the document? Between the announcement of an election and election day there is a desperate scramble to register as many postal votes as possible, and it is not always easy for people to find doctors who are ready to sign the document at short notice.

Will the hon. Lady consider that possibility if she falls back upon the excuse that a postal vote is necessary? When I say "excuse", I use the word in a technical sense, as I am sure that she does not wish to rely on excuses.

The problem is one that many of us have overlooked. It is perhaps with a General Election that it comes more strongly to mind, although local elections present exactly the same difficulties. Perhaps all hon. Members should have been more vigilant and should have seen the problems which were growing as public and parliamentary awareness of the difficulties of disabled people grew.

I again apologise to the hon. Lady for the short notice of this debate. I realise that because of that short notice she may not be able to give as full an answer as would normally be given, or as full an answer as she would wish to give, with her background. I shall he happy if the matter is studied by her Department. Then, if she feels that she has not been able to say enough today, she can write to me in a few weeks and we can see whether the matter can be taken further.

I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), my own Member of Parliament, for the short notice he gave me of the debate, although I was not able to have long notice, and for advising me beforehand about the points he wished to raise.

I begin on the subject of the postal vote, not as an excuse but because the hon. Gentleman asked for certain information. It is a technical point that a postal vote is available on the ground of physical incapacity. "Physical incapacity" is a broad phrase with a broad meaning, and can be so interpreted.

I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the regulations I introduced into the House earlier today, the Representation of the People Regulations 1974, which will apply from 1st April. He will see on page 15 that:

"physical incapacity shall be allowed by the registration officer if…the applicant is unable, or likely to be unable, by reason … of … any …physical incapacity to go in person to the polling station or, if able to go, to vote unaided."

The registration officer can then treat the person as an absent voter.

On the question of how the person with the physical incapacity can obtain the postal vote, I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 51, which lays out the form of the card to be filled in. The notes on the next page say:

"Where the application is made on the ground of physical incapacity, it will be allowed by the electoral registration officer if the medical certificate is given by a registered medical practitioner or if the declaration is made by a Christian Science practitioner."

Then comes the important point:

"It may be allowed if the declaration is made by anyone else."

Unless I am wrong, I do not think there is anything new in what the Minister said. She has not answered my question why the declaration needs to be signed by anyone else when that is not necessary for a person who moves his home.

I am advised that the declaration does not have to be signed by anyone else. The legal interpretation of the regulations is that it is advisable, if possible, for the declaration to be signed by a doctor or, failing that, a Christian Science practitioner, or, failing that, a social worker, a district nurse or a warden of an old people's home. If the person concerned fails to get such a signature and, in an extreme case, fails to get a relative, a friend or even a stranger to sign the declaration, it is up to the electoral registration officer to assess the position. In that extreme case there must be a valid reason why the applicant has been unable to get anyone to sign the declaration.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, wherever possible, disabled and physically incapacitated people want, like everyone else, to register their vote at the polling station. They may even arrive at the polling station intending to register their vote but literally find that they are unable to do so because the wheelchair will not go through the door.

I visited many polling stations in my constituency during the last election. Almost all polling stations are old schools, church halls or village halls. The buildings are not purpose-built but are adapted for the occasion. To adapt them to accommodate the disabled would be a major undertaking. Of the polling stations I visited, few did not have steps. Had I specially looked, I imagine I should have found doors that would not take a wheelchair.

A few minutes ago, before the hon. Gentleman spoke, I had a discussion with the new Minister for the Disabled. I told him of the debate, and I know that he will read carefully everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I shall have further urgent discussions with my hon. Friend following the debate to consider what we can do about this problem. I cannot give an instant undertaking to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman asks, but I am extremely sympathetic to his request. I have noted carefully his requests and proposals and I shall write to him as soon as possible.

Before calling the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) I should draw to the attention of the House the fact that it is customary—[Interruption.] I was about to make a comment on the absence of a Minister, but as a Minister has now appeared, I shall call Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for a few moments on the problems of recruitment. Before doing so I express my gratitude for the pier-head jump—he will understand what I mean—that the Minister has made to come here to answer my remarks. I realise that it is probably inconvenient for him, but it might be said that that is an occupational hazard of being First Lord of the Admiralty.

I start from the agreement of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the recruiting figures are very worrying. Although we all have our theories on what are the most prominent factors that affect recruiting, I think we must all agree that the greatest single factor is what the Service man himself thinks about the Service to which he belongs, and what the ex-Service men whose sons and nephews are the recruits of the future think about the Service to which they belonged.

I will mention a few topical events; first, the cause célèbre of my constituent Corporal Foxford of the Royal Hampshire Regiment. I understand that the case is sub judice, pending an appeal against conviction, and I understand the restraints thereby imposed on myself and the Minister. I am grateful that bail has been arranged for Corporal Foxford pending the hearing of the appeal, so that he has had the opportunity of being reunited with his wife in Winchester.

The Minister will understand that there is a much wider issue than the effect that this experience is having on my constituent. The wider issue is whether or not men serving in Northern Ireland, or anywhere else, on what amounts to active service duty should be liable to trial by civil courts. A young corporal going out on patrol duty tonight, or on any other night, in Northern Ireland, is bound to have some misgivings. He will think to himself, "Suppose something goes wrong tonight and there is shooting, I may be liable to civil trial for any action I may take in the heat of the moment." He may be liable to be tried by a court which has never heard a shot fired in anger.

The soldier concerned should know that any investigation of an action taken by him will, in the first instance, be by military people who understand the urgency of military matters—who understand the urgency of being shot at and having to decide whether to shoot back in a confused situation in the middle of the night at a time of extreme personal danger.

The soldiers and NCOs in charge of patrols serving in Northern Ireland, in the nature of things, are young and relatively inexperienced men. They have enormous responsibility and they have to take quickly difficult decisions. In passing, I pay tribute to them for the superlative job that they do.

In Northern Ireland decisions have to be taken at the corporal level, whereas in other circumstances decisions are taken, if not in a more leisurely way, at least by more senior and experienced people.

We have fresh in our minds the case which the Secretary of State reported to the House yesterday of mistaken identity, as a result of which two soldiers in Northern Ireland lost their lives. This raises the whole question of the conditions under which Service men work in Northern Ireland. They are in conditions of danger, and the accommodation is pretty dreadful. I have made visits to them, and it seems to me that the men understand the situation and are amazingly uncomplaining. I am not urging the Minister to say anything about bringing the troops home. I do not support those rather facile suggestions being put round in the Press as being the right way out at all. I am sure that it would be the feeling of the men that they owe it to their comrades who have been killed and maimed and done such hard work in the past three years to stay there and see the job through. Their conditions must be ameliorated to the greatest possible extent.

Before coming to the question of pay it is necessary to say that soldiers and Service men generally realise that pay is not the only issue. They are doing a worthwhile job and they know it. That is the essential point. Nevertheless, their pay for what they do is disgracefully low, as is the pay of all the Services. The Minister will probably point out that the Services pay review is due on 1st April. So it is. I am particularly glad to have this opportunity a few days beforehand, to draw the Minister's attention to Service rates of pay. I hope that he will represent this to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, through him, to the Cabinet, so that it may be aware that Forces' pay cannot be allowed to run at the level it has run hitherto.

The Services pay review procedure is a fairly lumbering one. It considers pay only every two years, which means that with the present rate of inflation and of wage awards Service men get further behind their industrial counterparts. Further, the payment is made in arrears, because it is on a comparison basis. We cannot go on using soldiers as we are, when a radio report can say with some accuracy, as it did yesterday morning, that a soldier serving in Northern Ireland receives only one-third of the pay that a fit young miner can earn, following the recent settlement.

This is a big issue and I know that I would be out of order if I went into details of statistics. I draw the attention of the Minister to Motion No. 2 on the Order Paper headed "Social Justice"—a term frequently upon the lips of hon. Members opposite. It says:

"That this House, bearing in mind danger, difficulty and unsocial hours"—

also a phrase which has been much used in recent months—

"considers that the pay of all members of the Armed Forces serving in Ulster (or elsewhere on active service) should be raised to a level higher than the new rates payable to miners working underground, as from 1st March".

The motion sums up the magnitude of the problem.

I ask the Minister to announce, if he can, that he really has hoisted in this problem and will give an assurance that Forces' pay will be dealt with as a special case—again a topical phrase—if not by the Relativities Board, which seems to be under something of a cloud at the moment, then at least by comparing relativities. A special active service allowance might be possible, paid on the Ministry scale, to those who are on active service in Northern Ireland, whether or not we call it active service. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who, when Secretary of State for Defence in the previous Labour Government, said that he felt an obligation to act on behalf of Service men as a whole, who had no union to speak for them. They must not be allowed to fall behind simply because they are not in a position of industrial strength.

I have been speaking mainly of the Army, but the problem of recruitment is common to the other Services. The Navy, too, has its difficulties. Those serving in the Navy may not be on active service, as are the soldiers in Northern Ireland, but there is a point to be considered in terms of anti-social hours. What could be more anti-social than the hours worked by a sailor? Are the duties he fulfils standing on the bridge of a coastal minesweeper in a Channel gale on a Sunday night to be considered as being performed in anti-social hours? They are clearly anti-social hours by any standards and should be dealt with as such, in the same way as the anti-social hours of State employees have been dealt with since the Government came to power.

Anyone serving in the Navy has to some extent a vocation, or he would not do it. Anyone who has served in the Navy knows of the need for modern ships and equipment so that the Navy can feel that its job is not only worth while but that it has the tools to do the job properly. Here, I am referring, topically once again, to HMS "Invincible". Fortunately, the Minister with responsibilities for the Navy is to answer this debate. Will he say something to scotch the rumours in the Press today that HMS "Invincible" may, on completion, be sold to Iran? I hope that this is irresponsible rumour. Perhaps it would help the Minister to be able to scotch it.

I deplore the recent cancellation of the visit to Greece and Chile by the Royal Navy. The Minister will know what effect this has had on recruiting because he will have seen the letters in the Press from ex-Servicemen, the people with such an influence on recruiting. Without being contentious, I ask what the Government hope to gain by such posturing. They pay lip service to the importance of NATO, but it can only be to the detriment of NATO to cancel visits to an important NATO ally—important by virtue of her past and by virtue of her geographical position, out on an exposed flank of NATO, connecting Turkey with the other NATO countries. What can the Government hope to achieve by insulting—that is the only word I can use—the Greek people by cancelling this visit?

Some compensation for sailors spending these anti-social hours at sea comes by way of foreign visits, which are much enjoyed and appreciated. Sailors want their run ashore when they have been doing NATO exercises, or whatever. The dismay and disappointment which must have been in the minds of the ships' companies on "Tiger" and the frigate with her upon hearing the news of this cancellation would have been a very real thing. Possibly one needs to have been in the Services to appreciate the extent of it. This factor is not to be disregarded, and when this news is brought back to Portsmouth, or to whatever port the ship returns, surely it can have only an adverse effect on recruiting. In these important matters the Government should not spoil the work they are doing for the Services by pandering to the idealogical opposition of some Labour Members. I emphasise that this applies only to some of those Labour Members, for not all of them are so silly.

I turn to the subject of the Royal Air Force, which, like the other Services, requires modern and efficient equipment. I can tell the Minister that the Royal Air Force is desperately short of new aircraft. There is a chill in the hearts of those in the RAF who look a little balefully at the history of TSR2. They have harsh memories of the fact that the jig and tools for that aircraft were broken up. I hope that the Minister can assure this "crowded" House this afternoon that there will be no repetition of these events in terms of the MRCA or future equipment for the Royal Air Force, because there is enormous leeway to be made up.

I have spoken about the three Services, and I do not wish to leave out the Royal Marines. Rumour has it that the future of the Royal Marines is in some doubt. I hope that the Minister will categorically scotch that rumour now. The Royal Marines have often been regarded as something of an anomaly, but the Minister, both from his constituency interests and his few weeks as Minister, knows that they are not. The Royal Marines are an essential part of the Services. It would be extremely valuable to have from the hon. Gentleman some assurance that the Royal Marines will continue to serve the nation. This will be extremely valuable on the question of recruitment.

If there is anxiety about the future in the minds of Service men and ex-Service men—and indeed, in the minds of parents, schoolmasters and all those who influence recruiting—the Government have only themselves to blame. By issuing forecasts about forthcoming gigantic cuts, whether or not they intend to impose them, the Government tend to strike a chill in the hearts of all those who understand Service matters and who want to further the good of the Services. Gigantic cuts were forecast at the last Labour Party conference and were outlined in the Labour manifesto. In conclusion, I can only say that I hope the Government will experience a deathbed repentance over the extent of these cuts in the same way as they have over some other subjects very recently.

I am deeply grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) for raising this vital topic in the time which has unexpectedly become available this afternoon. We all know about his distinguished career in the Services and his unrivalled commitment to their interests. We see from the way in which he raised this matter this afternoon that he has lost none of his Service experience in remembering that surprise is sometimes an essential element in attack. I hope that we shall be able to contain his attack in the same good spirit in which he put forward his observations.

I should like first to refer to what the hon. and gallant Member said about Northern Ireland. He will appreciate that the whole issue involving Corporal Foxford is sub judice and that it is impossible for me to comment on the case.

On the wider issue of the responsibilities of Service men in Northern Ireland in general, we on this side of the House, and particularly those of us in Government, recognise the tremendous responsibilities which are placed on our Service men in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. We recognise the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made about the heavy responsibilities on young NCOs, and these matters will constantly receive our urgent attention in the vital work that is being done across the Irish Sea. I take the opportunity, because it is the first time that I have had the chance to speak from the Government Dispatch Box, to place on record the warmest tribute to all involved in those exacting circumstances.

I think it will be helpful if I say a few words about recruiting, since that topic was central to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks. He will no doubt have read in HANSARD today the full answer given by my right hon. Friend yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Siliars), who asked how recruiting was going in the three Services. If the House will bear with me, it will be useful to give some detail on this question. The recruiting figures given in HANSARD yesterday show that in 1969–70 recruiting for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines was 5,418, for the Army 20,606, and for the Royal Air Force 8,253. In the following year, 1970–71, the figures were 6,361 for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 23,434 for the Army, and 9,094 for the Royal Air Force. In 1971–72 the figures respectively were 9,175, 30,433 and 6,890. In 1972–73 the figures were 9,329, 25,734 and 3,955. In 1973–74 they are estimated to have been 6,500 in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 14,600 in the Army and 4,800 in the Royal Air Force. It is perhaps appropriate to note that in 1973, for example, the Royal Air Force figure cannot be compared with normal average annual requirements because the Royal Air Force was in the middle of a manpower economy campaign, which resulted in a reduction of recruiting targets.

It will be seen that the Army experienced some difficulties, though recruiting for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines was slightly less than we could ideally have wished. While all three Services are below their trained requirements in varying degrees, this has not occurred to any serious extent.

It is never easy to establish the precise reasons for variations in recruitment rates. Factors which we believe accounted for the change in 1973 included the raising of the school leaving age, which effectivelly cut off one year's supply of school leavers at a minimum age since we previously recruited from the age of 15. Furthermore, there were a high rate of economic activity, there was the probable effects of the continuing situation in Northern Ireland, and there were the rates of Service pay, which were perhaps less competitive with outside rates than they were in 1972–73. There were other long-term indications in respect of recruitment which were uncertain. In respect of school leavers, we cannot yet be certain how many of them will be inclined to join at 16 rather than at 15.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised the question of pay, which is highly relevant to recruiting. He will recognise that pay is a matter for the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which is due to report shortly. I cannot anticipate what that body will say, but he will realise that the problems as they exist have been fairly and squarely put before the body and will be taken into account. A constant and vital factor in recruiting is the esteem in which the Armed Forces are held and the extent to which the need for them is recognised by the public as a whole.

Here it might be relevant to take up a matter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred towards the end of his speech. He seemed to suggest that statements which had been made by the new Government were likely adversely to affect recruiting for the Services. I counter that argument by saying that in our view one of the problems which confront us is that defence policy under the previous administration was allowed to drift for too long without being clearly defined.

Our objective is at the first possible moment to make a clear statement to this House, to the nation and to the Services about the rôle and commitment of the Services into the future as we see that rôle and commitment so that Service men and those contemplating service will know what is expected of them and will be able to look to the future with a sense of security and with certainty about what is planned. That is our overriding objective.

My own objective, with special responsibility for the Navy—it is shared by my other departmental colleagues—is to see a first-class Navy fulfilling a clearly drawn up programme which has been determined within the context of this overall review.

On the immediate issue of pay, the Government have been able to intervene above the norm, so to speak, in granting certain pay settlements. Will they consider intervening above whatever may be the technical report of the Pay Review Body in the circumstances that we are discussing today?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will recognise that we have to wait and see what are the recommendations of the review body before we can make statements of that kind. We know that there has been a thorough investigation, and, obviously, the Government will take very seriously whatever is proposed by the review body as soon as it reports. Its report can be expected in the near future.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman commented on a number of other matters which it is appropriate to mention. He referred to the Royal Air Force. Obviously, I cannot speak for my departmental colleague who has responsibility for the RAF, but what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said will be put clearly to my colleague, who no doubt will take it into account.

I am, though, in a position to comment on the Royal Marines. Over the past few years I have had opportunity to look at their work at first hand—their work abroad, their training in this country, and their exemplary work in Northern Ireland. In my view, they are an exemplary body of men. I wish to put on record my feeling that in the context of Service policy generally we need pace setters and centres of excellence. I believe that Royal Marines have been pace setters. They have set standards and provided a centre of excellence within the general work of our Services. These are matters which will be very much in the minds of Ministers in the months ahead.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to "Invincible". The new Government intend to make their own decisions in their own way about defence policy. They will not be influenced by ill-informed speculative comment in the Press, especially those quarters of the Press which I suspect the hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted. If one looks to those sources over recent years, one can see very quickly with how much authority their observations should be treated.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to the new Government's policy towards Greece and Chile and participation within NATO. I take this opportunity to state unequivocally and clearly where I believe we stand. We believe that our defence forces in this country and the NATO alliance exist to defend freedom and democracy as we understand it in this country. We believe that when we look round the world the principles of freedom and democracy as we take them for granted here are under a good deal of pressure from varying directions. We are anxious to avoid unnecessarily providing certificates of endorsement to regimes which, by the way they conduct their political affairs, are contrary to everything stated in, for example, the preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty as to the basic quality of the community that we are trying to defend.

I am sure that on reflection the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that the Government's unwavering and unswerving commitment to the principles of freedom and democracy lie behind their decision to take the kind of action that has so far been taken.

I also point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because it is a point that we must bear in mind, that when looking to the effectiveness of alliances we cannot altogether discount the impact, on the outward effectiveness of an alliance as a whole, of preoccupation amongst some parts of that alliance with keeping themselves in power by methods which, by no stretch of the imagination, could be regarded as being in accord with the principles of democracy.

I conclude by again thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for what he has done this afternoon in taking this early opportunity to discuss the interests of the Armed Services which, I know, are dear to his heart. I assure him that the new administration has them equally close at heart at all times. Indeed, the whole purpose of the review announced in the House yesterday is to ensure that in future months and years we do not work from a piecemeal, pragmatic, arbitrary pattern with no logic necessarily behind it, but that we have a thorough and comprehensive look at the rôle that we have allotted to our Armed Services and the commitments that we have to fulfil, so that, having done that, we can offer to the men of the Services and to those contemplating entry absolute certainty about what will be expected of them in future.