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

With this clause we may also discuss Government amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 18.

The clause provides desirable extra flexibility for the director in his power to make various determinations. It is conceivable that it would be in everyone's interest at certain times that he might wish to vary or revoke those determinations, and the clause makes that possible. The amendments we are discussing with the clause are paving amendments for it.

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

With this clause we may also discuss Government Amendment No. 25.

The clause attempts to meet points which were made in Committee by the Opposition and which were contained in submissions at various stages from the credit reference agencies. The intention is not to give complete exemptions but to provide alternative procedure for the agencies to follow when they have requests for information from business consumers. The clause will in part meet the requirements sought. We do not feel we can go as far as providing outright exemption, but it will enable the director to give a direction to provide information based on entries in the files instead of providing actual copies of the files. In the event of the customer or the complainant being dissatisfied with the information provided by the agency, he may go to the director himself and the director can obtain a copy of the file from the agency and decide how much information it is in the consumer's interest should be disclosed to him.

This is a reasonable compromise to meet a legitimate problem arising in relation to sources of information for the agency.

We are grateful to the Government for the steps they have taken to bring forward the clause and it is certainly an advance on the position in the Bill on Second Reading. We are grateful for the compromise. It seems most reasonable.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1 in page 2, line 21, leave not from 'Act' to 'and' in line 23.

With it we may also consider Government Amendment No. 2.

These are purely drafting amendments. The clause as it stands was criticised in Committee because it was felt that it was not entirely clear that the Secretary of State could not give a specific direction to the director on a matter on which there was provision for appeal to the Secretary of State. These amendments should remove that uncertainty.

I beg to move Amendment No. 97, in page 5, line 18, after '(iii)', insert:

'at the time the agreement is made'.

I said in Committee that I would consider representations. We recognise that there is some difficulty for the banks and others in the probability concept in the clause. Having considered the arguments and discussed them with the draftsmen, we feel that it is possible to meet the difficulty without reducing consumer protection.

I beg to move Amendment No. 3 in page 7 line 7 at beginning insert:

'having regard to the terms of the agreement as they apply at the time of its making and to the circumstances then prevailing'.

The purpose of the amendment is to add an element of certainty in what we recognise may be an improved situation, but it is one which does not yet have the clarity we seek.

The Bill assumes the test of the status of the consumer. It defines by saying that all those who are not bodies corporate are consumers, which brings into the Bill a number of people who carry out normal commercial transactions, such as accountants, solicitors and self-employed businessmen. That seems to be in conflict with some of the considerations in the draft legislation which is being produced in Europe and which in due course we shall have to consider. We shall have to bring some unity to it.

The European legislation assumes a different sort of test—the purpose of the loan test as opposed to the status of the customer. I am an officer of the Equipment Leasing Association, which believes that that would have been a more satisfactory and acceptable way to define commercial transactions. Under the European legislation, it is simple to exempt many transactions which are under the scope of the Bill. We have to deal with the Bill as it is, bearing in mind the future European considerations.

Our amendment is designed to remove from the Bill the uncertainty, particularly in the case of variable rate agreements. They can be illustrated by those which have variation clauses referring to changes in corporation tax. The effect is that if there is a change in corporation tax there is a change in the rate and the rentals which are thereby charged. It is difficult to assess what the total rentals will be and what the amounts payable might be. There can also be provision for changes in the cost of money. That, too, at the outset of the transaction presents an element of doubt.

Such changes are beyond the control of both the lessor and the lessee. They cannot look into the crystal ball and say that they control these factors. If that is the type of transaction being entered into, there will be a doubt whether the amount of the agreement is likely to exceed £5,000. That puts in question whether the agreement will be subject to the Bill.

The doubt can easily be resolved by using what has been termed the outset concept, defining at the beginning whether under the terms of the agreement, at the time it is made, it comes under the Bill. I believe that it has been suggested that the concept is already within the provisions of the Bill. But subsection 1(c) states that the agreement does not require the hirer to make payments exceeding £5,000. If the variation clauses to which I have referred exist, contingencies can occur, dependent upon future events, to vary the total payments and bring about the element of uncertainty to which I refer.

The amendment, by having regard to the time of making the agreement, produces certainty where there is doubt. I understand that in discussions on the matter the view has been expressed that amendments might be contemplated if it were found that there was a need for more legislation after the Bill had been put to the test. I believe that it is better to accept the substance of the amendment and remove the element of doubt now.

We have covered the matter in consultation and in discussion in Committee. I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I intimated in consultation that if the industry proved to be right, against all the advice we are receiving, we should have to meet the problem at a later stage. However, the balance of advice to us is that the proposition I put to the Committee is correct and that the propositions put forward by the industry are incorrect.

If I accepted the amendment, it would open up a considerable loophole. For example, I have been told that to evade the provisions of the Bill where a hirer wanted to hire for only four years at £1,000 a year, therefore coming within the scope of the Bill, it would be possible for the owner to insist on making an agreement for 10 years at £1,000 a year, but with a term allowing the hirer to terminated the agreement at any time after the first year. That would enable the hirer to turn the agreement into a four-year agreement at any time after the first year, but then there could be a dispute as to whether it was originally within the scope of the legislation.

As our legal advice is that the hazard envisaged by the industry does not exist, but that the hazards I have just suggested of creating loopholes against the interests of the consumer do exist, I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that on balance I must still oppose the amendment.

I understand that if it is subsequently found in the courts that the industry's interpretation is correct there is the possibility of amending legislation, and in view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 12, leave out from 'where' to end of line 13.

With this amendment we are to consider Government Amendment No. 5.

The amendments deal with a highly technical point raised since the Committee stage by the Building Societies Association. I apologise to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) if the objective is not immediately clear. I am sure that if he read my brief he would still find that it was not immediately clear.

It is a perfectly reasonable point that has been drawn to our attention. The association says that subsection 1(b), as amended in Committee, does not cover the situation in which societies lend the premium for an insurance company guarantee, made under pre-existing arrangements with the company concerned, when the transaction is in respect of a house being built on land already owned by the debtor.

We took measures to ensure that where the transaction involved land the situation would be covered, but the building societies reasonably pointed out that there is the probability that where the land is already owned by the person who is borrowing to build on it the situation would not be covered without the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 8, line 13 leave out subsection (5).

We had some discussion on this matter in Committee. As the clause stands, both under this Government and under the previous Government I must concede that powers are taken by the Secretary of State to exempt certain of the nationalised industries from the provisions of the Bill. I ask why that should be necessary and whether the Secretary of State intends to use the powers given under the Bill. If it is right that there should be justice in the private sector and truth in lending, surely it is right that the nationalised industries should be covered by the Bill's provisions.

I think that it is common ground that there are many areas of the nationalised industries in which consumers would in future like more rights rather than fewer rights. I do not see why it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have the power to exempt the nationalised industries. If the nationalised industries are to have consumer hire agreements of the kind that would normally be regulated under this measure if undertaken by anyone else, surely it is reasonable that they should have to comply with precisely the same rules as anyone else in the community.

I do not wish to put the nationalised industries in a worse position. On the other hand, I do not see why they should be in a favoured position. The Bill seeks to protect the consumer. If it is right that certain constraints be put upon other industries, why is it not right that the nationalised industries should not also be included? For example, what about the offices of the electricity and gas industries where equipment such as refrigerators and cookers are sold? Surely it is right that the Bill, where it is applicable to the nationalised industries—I suspect that it is applicable in many examples—should not exempt the nationalised industries. It may be that the Secretary of State has no intention of making such an order—we accept that that is understandable—but I do not see why it is necessary to have these powers in the Bill. My hon. Friends and I would much prefer to have them taken out. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us on this matter.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, this provision was in the Bill that was put forward by the previous administration. It is nice to look back on those three and a half years and find one measure on which I can agree with them.

And the Fair Trading Act.

The hon. Lady is correct; we supported that Act as well. Let us spell out as clearly as we can the limitations of what is intended. This is an enabling power. It does not give the exemption. It enables the Secretary of State to exempt where it is considered appropriate. The hon. Gentleman says that it would be intolerable if the electricity showrooms, for example, were not covered by the same rules as private traders in the High Street. I accept that completely. I would never introduce legislation to give the nationalised industries in that sort of commercial undertaking an immunity which I believe no firm should have in its relationships with the public.

I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there is no intention that the nationalised industries shall be given any special privileges or that the consumer will lose any protection. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, some of the nationalised industries by their very nature—for example, gas, electricity and water—essentially operate by a metering system. The need, therefore, is to exempt metering. If it were demonstrated to the Secretary of State that the exemption was being used in some way prejudicial to the consumer, the Secretary of State would be able and, I am sure, willing to tell the industry that if it did not put right any misdemeanour the exemption could and would be withdrawn.

I now turn to telecommunications. We have in mind telecommunications equipment. If the exemptions are not made, it seems that virtually every household in the country will have to have a separate written agreement for such things as meters for various services which are supplied into the household. That would be required although there is no evidence of any abuse that cannot already be remedied. It would be a major bureaucratic operation for a small objective.

As Conservative hon. Members continually berate the nationalised industries and allege all manner of inefficiencies against them, I trust that they are not now wishing to impose an unnecessary administrative burden upon them. The system has worked satisfactorily until now. There is discretionary power for the Secretary of State to withdraw the exemption in the event of any evidence being brought forward to indicate that the situation was not working satisfactorily.

In exercising the power of exemption, the Secretary of State is also answerable to the House. Therefore, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be free to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State any abuses which they feel could arise from the exemption. This is an item on which, surprisingly, both administrations are in agreement. Some may say that that is a good reason for looking at it again. In fact, I considered the matter after our discussions in Committee. I am glad to say that I am still convinced that my judgment was right. It is unvaried and it coincides with that of my predecessor.

The Minister of State says that both administrations have been in agreement about bringing the nationalised industries within the scope of the Bill.

Let us be clear. It is not a matter of bringing them within the scope of the Bill. They are within its scope. We are talking about a limited exemption for meters and telecommunications equipment. The nationalised industries are covered as is private industry.

I accept the Minister's point. All I wished to do at the outset was to remind him that in Standing Committee D on 4th December 1973, when he was speaking from the Opposition benches, he queries whether these particular operations of the public authorities should be brought within the scope of the Bill. He said at that time that he would like to look further into the matter and to give it more consideration.

I must declare an interest, as I did in Committee, in that I am connected with a British-based bank that conducts a great part of its operations abroad. I believe that the main point we should consider regarding the nationalised industries and possible exemptions from the Bill is the rôle of the Director General. This matter was raised in Committee on the Fair Trading Bill in March 1973. It was then emphasised by a number of my hon. Friends that it was highly desirable that the Director General should have as much independence as possible in relation to the rôles and duties that he has to perform. If we accept that all the metering regulations and agreements of the nationalised industries fall within the scope of the Bill, if they are to be exempted it will be by the Director General having consultations with the Secretary of State. That is bound to diminish the independence of the Director General. That is an important principle which hon. Members on both sides of the House have wished the Government to bear in mind. It is primarily on that basis that my hon. Friends and I would ask the Minister of State to think carefully about the amendment.

A further point hinges round the parlous state of the nationalised industries. I am sure many of my hon. Friends have had more letters from constituents complaining, for example, about electricity, gas and water charges than on any other subject. The man in the street feels that it is necessary that he should be protected from the nationalised industries as he sees them responsible for his gas, electricity and water bills. It is to try to give additional protection to the consumer against these monopolistic bodies that we put forward the amendment.

It was only yesterday that the Prime Minister emphasised at Question Time the parlous financial condition of the nationalised industries. He spoke of the need to raise another £1,400 million in revenue for them. Therefore, the consumer should have every reason to be worried about the effect of the activities of the nationalised industries on him and on his purse. It is a question not only of what the nationalised industries are doing today but of the possible increase in the scope of the nationalised industries.

I wish to refer to the note on the current work programme of the Department of Industry issued by the Secretary of State for Industry in which there is mention of the National Enterprise Board. On page 3 the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the board should act

"to reduce the growth of monopoly power by inserting public enterprise competition where this is needed".

The matter, in the words of "Alice in Wonderland", becomes "curiouser and curiouser". It is hard to see how the growth of monopoly power was exercised by the nationalised industries can be reduced by inserting more public enterprise competition.

There is the possibility of the scope of the nationalised industries being extended, and there is also the question of the serious financial condition in which they find themselves. For both reasons, the consumer needs to be protected against and in relation to the nationalised industries and what they may do under the Bill. I therefore support the amendment.

I was surprised at the Minister of State's grudging approbation for some Conservative measures passed during the last Parliament in view of the number of Conservative measures which the present Government have seen fit to reintroduce in this Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was right to draw attention to the fact that the consumers of the goods and services of nationalised industries are among the least satisfied of consumers, partly because of the nature of the nationalised industries. We do not blame the employees of the nationalised industries or those responsible for running them, but it is a fact that there is not the discipline of competition in this sector. I too receive numerous letters from constituents on these matters. I shall not bore the House by going into individual cases but I should point out that some of them involve credit agreements to buy major domestic appliances. I should like the Minister of State to assure us that agreements of that type come within the scope of the Bill.

We are somewhat reassured to hear that the Director General is enabled by the Bill, in a negative way, not to exempt the supply of goods activities of the nationalised industries. He is given a similar power in Section 16 of the Fair Trading Act. I should like the Minister to confirm that the powers in the Fair Trading Act to vary through the Secretary of State are introduced in the Bill. I should also like him to confirm that consumer credit agreements with nationalised industries are in no way inhibited.

The Minister raised the question of metering. Some water boards allow caravan site operators to collect water rates for them to operate the metering. The equipment is not kept in good condition and, therefore, water is wasted and the metering is incorrect. It would be unsa metering is incorrect. It would be unsatisfactory if a credit agreement either between the consumer and the site operator or between the consumer and the water board could not be dealt with in this Bill.

I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give us further assurances on those matters.

May I say, with permission, that we have peripherally skirted the amendment while procedurally keeping one big toe on the correct line.

As I have already said, the nationalised industries are covered by the Bill. The hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) specifically asked about their credit activities. This is so, and it is right that it should be so. That is our intention, and that is one of the objectives of the legislation.

The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) spoke about a reduction in the independence of the Director General. I do not accept what he has said. No reduction in independence is envisaged for the credit commissioner. In deciding what exemptions should be permitted, the Secretary of State would consult the Director General to ensure that his point of view was heard. If he had evidence which suggested abuse—and hon. Members know that the present Director General would confirm this to be the case—he would make the point forcefully to the Minister.

The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex referred to what he described as the parlous state of the nationalised industries. We discovered a £1,500 million deficit which had been concealed by the Conservative Government. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may mutter about it, but there was a deficit of £1,500 million and the senior colleagues of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who was a Minister, indicated in small print that they would have to deal with it in a post-election situation.

The hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester said that the public needed protection from the nationalised industries. In so far as that is so, they will get protection under the Bill. However, I ask her to bear in mind that the main targets of the legislation of which she is so proud—the Fair Trading Act and the Sale of Goods (Implied Terms) Act—and of our Trade Descriptions Act and of the Bill we are discussing are not the nationalised industries, but what the Leader of the Opposition has called the ugly face of capitalism. It is from the activities of capitalism that the need for consumer protection has arisen so massively and it is those activities which have prompted the procession of consumer protection legislation through the House.

Now that we have had our little political parade of the nationalisation issue, perhaps we can return to having the sort of amicable and constructive discussion that we had in Committee.

I do not know why the Minister of State should have sought to broaden the argument. I did not know that it was in order on this Bill to debate the deficits of the nationalised industries. I rebut the Minister's argument, and I can amplify my rebuttal on some other occasion.

All that my hon. Friends and I are saying is that the powers given to the Secretary of State are very wide. She can by order provide

"that this Act shall not regulate consumer hire agreements"

if the owner is a body corporate. The Minister of State has assured us that the right hon. Lady will not fully use the powers. That is partially satisfactory, although we do not think that it goes far enough.

However, as the Minister has given some assurance, I should not wish to press the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 10, line 5, after "agreement"), insert

'of which it does not form part'.

This is a clarificatory amendment. A credit sale agreement is often one docu- ment selling goods on credit. Strictly speaking, we are talking of two transactions: first, an agreement to obtain credit and, secondly, an agreement to buy goods. But they are embodied in a single document. It is not the intention that they should be covered by the provisions relating to linked transactions. A linked transaction is not a sale of goods on credit in which both transactions are financed and agreed in the same document.

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 12, line 14, leave out from 'canvassing' to end of line 15 and insert:

'off trade premises of debtor-creditor-supplier agreements or regulated consumer hire agreements'.

This amendment corrects an oversight which occurred when the provision was being amended in Committee by the deletion of "regulated" and the insertion of the words "debtor-creditor-supplier". That amendment rightly limited the provision for licences covering the canvassing off trade premises of regulated consumer credit agreements to debtor-creditor-supplier agreements. It is not unlawful to canvass regulated consumer hire agreements off trade premises, and provision is necessary for licences covering the canvassing of such agreements. The amendment is intended to rectify the position and clarify it.

I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 12, line 41, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.

This is a drafting Amendment remedying an omission when the references to "the controller" of a body corporate were altered in Committee to "a controller" of a body corporate. The amendment brings Clause 25 into line with the usage elsewhere in the Bill.

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 18, line 23, leave out 'of inspection'.

Clause 35(4) permits the director to determine that the right of inspection conferred by Clause 35(3)(a) shall be exercisable in relation to a copy of the register instead of or in addition to the original. It is now considered that there is a flaw in this in that Clause 35(3)(a) entitles people to take copies of entries in the register as well as to inspect the register.

By deleting the words "of inspection", the Amendment makes it clear that the public will be entitled to exercise both aspects of the right conferred by Clause 35(3)(a)—first, inspection, and, secondly, taking copies of entries—in relation to a copy of the register.

I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 28, line 18, leave out subsection (3).

This again is the result of a discussion in Committee. The Opposition argued the case for the Finances Houses Association and I thought that there was a fair point to be met. We made certain changes in Committee in relation to the consumer as to what would be the initial date under the legislation, and we thought that the receipt seemed to be the appropriate provision for the consumer. But it seems equally obvious that, if we are to accept that in relation to the consumer interest involved, we should make a parallel adjustment as far as the trade is concerned. This amendment puts both on the same basis.

We are grateful for the amendment, which is an improvement to the Bill. In order to save time, I will say now that the Government have made a number of concessions and we are grateful to all of them. I shall not rise on each occasion to say so. I will now express our comprehensive gratitude for these Amendments.

I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 33, line 43, at end insert—

' (1A) In the case of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for restricted-use credit financing—

(a) the doing of work or supply of goods to meet an emergency, or

(b) the supply of goods which, before service of the notice of cancellation, had by the act of the debtor or his relative become incorporated in any land or thing not comprised in the agreement or any linked transaction,

subsection (1) shall apply with the substitution of the following for paragraph (i)—

"(i) to cancel only such provisions of the agreement and any linked transaction as—

(aa) relate to the provision of credit, or

(bb) require the debtor to pay an item in the total charge for credit, or

(cc) subject the debtor to any obligation other than to pay for the doing of the said work, or the supply of the said goods".

(1B) Except so far as is otherwise provided, references in this Act to the cancellation of an agreement or transaction do not include a case within subsection (1A)'.

It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 73 and 75.

This Amendment again meets points argued previously and raised in particular by the Mail Order Traders Association. It deals with cases where a debtor cancels a credit agreement after the goods to which it relates have been supplied to him and after he has himself fixed the goods into land or into something else in such a way that they cannot readily be returned to the firm.

Originally, there was to have been no redress whatever for the mail order operators, but I promised in Committee that I would meet anyone who wished to come and see me about the matter. I had a constructive meeting with the mail order traders and I felt that they presented a valid point. I have therefore made this change in relation to goods fixed to land and so on. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) will recall the precise terminology. The same provisions have been made in relation to an emergency.

Accordingly the amendment provides in effect that where a debtor cancels a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for restricted-use credit financing the supply of goods after he has incorporated them in any land or thing, the debtor shall remain liable to pay for the goods themselves, but not any charge for credit, because the credit agreement has been cancelled.

This goes a long way to meet the objections of the mail order traders, and to my personal knowledge they have not come back with any complaint since I said that I would try to meet their case in this way.

We are extremely grateful for this concession, which will be helpful. Will the fact that the consumer will not be able to cancel such an agreement in any way interfere with the rights under the Sale of Goods Act? Is it also the case that where the goods have been fixed by the mail order supplier himself, and therefore are not merchantable, it will not be a cancellable agreement? Where they are not fixed but are incorporated—for example, like paint on a wall—would that be a cancellable agreement?

The Sale of Goods (Implied Terms) Act provisions would not be affected. The duty is specific in relation to the quality of goods. I made this clear to the mail order traders. They made the counter-point that of course they allow the customer to have the goods on approval so that the customer has time to consider whether the goods meet his needs and whether they are of adequate quality.

I am sorry, but I did not quite get the second point raised by the hon. Lady.

My second point concerned where goods have not been fixed by the mail order suppliers but where they have been incorporated beyond the point where they could be returned.

That, too, is intended to be covered. There is an amendment later dealing specifically with paint, petrol and other items.

I beg to move Amendment No. 80, in page 35, line 6, leave out from 71 ' to end of line 10.

With this it will be convenient to take at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 81 and 82.

This amendment deletes paragraph (b) of subsection (1). It is consequential on Government Amendment No. 76 to Clause 69, to which the House has just agreed and which introduces new subsections (1A) and (1B). Amendment No. 81 is no longer necessary following Amendment No. 76. These new subsections have the effect of preserving a debtor's rights in relation to goods or services he has received to meet an emergency, notwithstanding that he has served a notice of cancellation in respect of a credit agreement relating to them.

I do not quite understand this. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Amendment No. 81 is no longer necessary? Is he not now intending to move it?

Amendment No. 81 leaves out certain provisions, and those were the provisions which I said were no longer necessary.

I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 35, line 27, at end insert `consumer credit'.

It will also be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 72.

Both amendments are drafting matters. Amendment No. 71 applies only to credit agreements and not to hire agreements. At present this is not expressly said. The amendment makes sure that there can be no doubt about the situation.

I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in page 37, line 22, at end insert:

'(aa) goods which by their nature are consumed by use and which, before the cancellation, were so consumed, or'.

I understand that it will also be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 84 and 85.

These amendments are drafting matters to clarify what is meant in Clause 72(9)(c) by goods which "were consumed". The phrase is intended to cover not only goods that are eaten but goods consumed in other ways—such as petrol, which is consumed in cars, or paint, which is consumed by being daubed—at least in my household—rather than in any artistic way on walls or woodwork. Wallpaper comes within the provision. The amendments are intended to make it clear that such goods are covered by the phrase "consumed in use". Amendment No. 85 is consequential.

I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 39, line 4, at end insert:

'or

(c) a debtor-creditor agreement to finance the making of such payments arising on, or connected with, the death of a person as may be prescribed.'

It will be convenient also to take Government Amendments Nos. 17, 19 and 77.

The amendments meet a point raised in Committee on behalf of the clearing banks. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) then dealt with the problems of estate duty in regard to banks and the need to make loans in those circumstances. I promised to look at the matter and see whether I could accommodate the point. We have tabled an amendment the intention of which I am sure is fully understood by the hon. Gentleman. If there are any questions, I shall deal with them; but I think that the amendment goes a substantial way to deal with the requirement.

I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 39, line 27, leave out 'like' and insert 'joint

It will be convenient to take also Amendment No. 67, in page 39, line 28, leave out 'accordingly'.

In answering points made in the Standing Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said he felt it necessary to establish that credit card companies were jointly and severally liable with suppliers in cases dealt with under Clause 75. The Minister wanted to make it clear that there should not be a primary liability for the debtor to have redress on the supplier, but that the creditor should stand pari passu jointly and severally liable with the supplier where people sought redress.

We have tabled those amendments to deal with the situation, but at the same time we seek to cover the situation where the debtor, the customer, may well be likely first to go back to the creditor, the bank, rather than to go first to the supplying company. We believe that this is a mistake from the point of view of the consumer as well as of the creditor. If a customer has bought goods and used his credit card to buy a deep freeze and that piece of equipment goes wrong, it is right that to gain redress he should go back to the supplying company, the deep freeze concern, which will have a technical service department available and will know the ins and outs of the deep freeze sold to the creditor. That firm should be able to deal with the complaint in a proper, technical and speedy manner. We have tabled these amendments to make certain that the first recourse of the debtor, the customer, is to the supplier rather than to the bank, the creditor.

It will be clear from the amendments, particularly No. 69, which in many ways is the most important, that the creditor is accepting liability. The wording of that amendment is

"the creditor shall be liable…"

but, none the less, the debtor is put in the position that he should first obtain redress from the supplier; namely the company servicing the facility, the technical company. It is only after that redress has not worked that he is in the position of going back on a "jointly and severally liable" basis to the creditor.

In Committee the Minister referred to the credit card companies being in much the same position as are hire-purchase lenders, but surely they are in a different position. The hire-purchase lender often has owned the goods concerned and has good knowledge of them before he sells them to the customer. The credit card company is in a quite different position. It has never owned the goods but provides facilities purely in substitution for purchases by cash, thus enabling the card holder to acquire a large number of goods from many outlets. Against that background such companies do not know the goods, but are providing facilities for the consumer in place of cash. We hope that the amendment will be helpful to the consumer and seek to put redress where it should lie—namely, with the supplying company.

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any more helpful reply than I gave him in Committee. He made the point that credit card companies, unlike hire-purchase companies, do not own the goods. Nobody suggests they do, but nevertheless they decide which shops and traders will be allowed to make use of the credit card facility. They are, in a sense, putting the stamp of approval on certain traders. They carry a certain responsibility since they have a share in the deal so to speak.

Does the Minister consider that objection to be feasible? Some credit companies have responsibility in relation to the shops they allow to accept their credit cards, but there is a wide chain throughout the country. We are dealing with a problem involving technical matters where a piece of electrical equipment goes wrong and where only the supplying company will know how to deal with that technical matter. We suggest by our amendments that the proper place to which the customer should have recourse for his own sake is not a bank, which simply lends the money, but the supplying company which knows the goods and has the technicians and facilities to put the goods right.

I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Nevertheless put to him the argument, which seems to have little weight on the other side of the House nowadays, that it was his own Ministers who felt that our proposal was the appropriate way of dealing with things.

The fundamental difficulty is that the average consumer—this was discussed by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and myself, when discussing small claims courts—is nervous of legal action and does not want to get involved in difficult litigation. He is afraid of a court action. If we agree with what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting it would mean that a consumer, far from having to undertake an unwanted legal action on only one occasion, may have to do so on a number of occasions. It may be, for instance, that the trader involved has gone into liquidation, or that the initial trader cannot be traced.

It is greatly to the convenience of the consumer that there should be a joint litigation. I assume, as a non-lawyer, that that is the appropriate term. This is clear when it is borne in mind that there is an indemnity under the Bill so that in the event of there being a default of the supplier the credit card company has an indemnity against that supplier. The position of the credit card company has been covered as far as we can go, but, on balancing all the problems so far as the consumer and the firm are concerned, we believe that it is right to minimise the amount of possible legal action which the consumer should have to take. The creditor is, after all, a party to the deal in which he gets a share of the profit, or a discount, as he may call it, and as such he has certain responsibility. We feel that this responsibility is fully met by the present arrangement, but the creditor then has a fall-back position of being able to get protection vis-à-vis the supplier, because the supplier will want to sustain a source of credit for his customer.

One would have thought that the credit card company was more likely to get an expeditious and a fair response from the trade than was the small consumer.

I am not happy with the Minister's arguments. I do not think that what he says is likely to lead to a lessening of litigation. The amendments were designed to meet and went a long way towards meeting, the Minister's point about joint and several liability. But I have rehearsed the amendments previously, and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 43, line 53, at end insert:

'and any action by the creditor stopping the right to further drawings under the credit shall not be treated as a separate agreement or as providing fixed-sum credit'.

This amendment, which has been suggested to us by the clearing banks, is primarily designed to deal with what can only be described as a disagreement between leading counsel on both sides. The Minister believes that the point made by the clearing banks is unnecessary and he has received legal advice to that effect, but the clearing banks are not of the same opinion.

The amendment is intended to deal with a situation in which, if a bank has given an overdraft to a customer and he overdraws his facility on it—perhaps having issued cheques against uncleared cheques which he has paid in and which are later returned on a refer-to-drawer basis—the bank may decide that enough is enough and that the overdraft cannot continue. The overdraft is then stopped, but at the same time the bank says to the customer that in order to help him it will not take him to court or ask him to repay immediately but will enable him to open a new current account which he must keep in credit. He will be told that he must pay his monthly salary cheques into this account and that sums from it must be transferred to the overdraft account which will be frozen. I am told that this is normal practice by banks.

The banks are worried that the frozen overdraft account, which has ceased to be a running account, will become a regulated agreement for which documentation is needed. The customer, who in such circumstances is clearly in difficulties, may refuse to sign the documentation which the bank presents him with. He could claim that this involved an agreement which had gone wrong and which was not within the provisions of the Bill, and he could endeavour not to repay.

I envisage that the clearing banks, because of the legal advice they have received, will, instead of taking the action I have described, insist, as they have the right to do under the Bill, on the overdraft being repaid as soon as possible. That would be a serious disadvantage to the customer because he would not be likely to have funds to repay and may have to turn to another source of credit to whom he may not be known. In many cases it would be better for the customer if the overdraft could be frozen and a new current account set up, and kept in credit, from which the overdraft is repaid.

I remind the House that Mark Twain said that a banker was a fellow who lent his umbrella when the sun was shining but took it away when the rain started. That is not in any way the purpose behind the amendment. The purpose is to enable the banks to continue to provide to a customer who has got into temporary difficulties the sort of alternative help which they have provided in the past, but they may not be able to provide this help unless the amendment is accepted.

We have looked at this matter again since our previous discussion, but we are still firm in our belief that the fear put forward on behalf of the banks is not justified. We do not accept that the freezing of an overdraft account changes it into some other form of agreement. It remains a running account agreement.

The sort of situation which the hon. Gentleman envisages, where there is an agreement to set aside a certain sum and make it, in effect, a separate loan account is quite permissible. There is nothing to stop that sort of conversion. We would not wish to stop it. But when a more formalised agreement with an overdraft arrangement is set up it is right that the customer should have the necessary documentation that is normal in such circumstances. We see nothing to stop the freezing of overdrafts. That would not run against the intentions of the Bill. We see nothing to stop the desirable practice of the good management of loan accounts.

12.30 p.m.

Should our advice be wrong, I am sure that evidence would soon be available and we would obviously want to take account of such a situation. However, all the advice that I have from within the Department and from our own legal sources is that the banks are not justified in their concern and that the problem should not arise.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as circumstances develop, this point will be solved only by litigation? If there is an area of doubt—clearly there is—surely it will end in the courts and lead to the litigation that the hon. Gentleman wishes to avoid.

It is inevitable that the situation may arise. I defy anyone to produce legislation and then say that it will not lead to litigation. On occasions that seems almost to be the objective of some legislation. Obviously we hope that the Government's intentions are sufficiently clear to avoid the need for litigation.

If litigation took place and the banks were successful—in other words, if the Government's views on the precise significance of the Bill in this respect were confirmed—the matter would be resolved to absolute satisfaction. If, on the other hand, the banks lost, I should certainly expect them to talk to me or to my successor or the Director General as soon as possible. At present we feel that we must stand by the advice we have been given.

If we accept that the purpose of the Bill is to protect the consumer, as we have previously tried to make clear, our interest must be to have clarity and certainty in the legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has revealed only too clearly the areas of doubt and uncertainty in this matter. It is an alarming prospect that we should have distinguished legal opinions which are already in doubt about a matter which is not yet on the statute book. We are seeking clarity for parties. We are seeking clarity for the banks and for the consumers. If there is any possible doubt about legislation in prospect, surely it is desirable that an amendment of this kind should be accepted. The Minister suggested that we should wait and see whether something turns up and that, if it does, we should then do something about it. Here we have a tangible and constructive proposal to remove an area of doubt. I think that my hon. Friend has illustrated the need for the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 44, line 14, at end insert:

(7) This section does not apply to a noncommercial agreement.

This is a move to correct an error that crept into the Bill in Committee when, in the substantial redrafting of the clause, we omitted subsection (5). We still do not want the provisions governing the variation of agreements to apply to noncommercial agreements—for example, agreements between friends.

I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 46, line 21, at end insert:

(2A) Subsection (1) applies only where—

(a) a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the executed agreement, and

(b) that period has not ended when the creditor or owner does an act mentioned in subsection (1) but so applies notwithstanding that, under the agreement, any party is entitled to terminate it before the end of the period so specified.

The wording of the amendment is exactly the same as the Government's amendment to another clause. The wording appears in Clauses 76 to 99. It was put in by the Government in response to the points made strongly by the clearing banks that on overdrafts which, by agreement and regulation, are exempted from the Bill there should be repayment on demand.

I know that my hon. Friend will join me in thanking the Government for accepting those amendments in Committee. If they had not been accepted, the whole ability of the banks to grant facilities for overdrafts which are available and repayable on demand would have been brought into serious doubt. If this matter had been thrown into doubt the interest costs to customers would have risen because these are the cheapest borrowing facilities available to them.

We want the amendment added to the clause for the simple reason that in the other clauses I have mentioned repayment on demand is allowed to the bank where a customer is not in default.

Clause 87 covers the situation where the customer is in default. In that case the bank will not have the possibility of claiming repayment on demand. This is a mind-boggling situation. It seems odd that where a customer is behaving himself in accordance with the terms of the facility granted to him the bank can claim repayment on demand, yet in circumstances, which I described earlier when moving another amendment, where the customer may be in default the bank will not be able to claim repayment on demand.

This could have serious effects on customers. Where the security was shares on the stock market and the bank manager saw their value falling every day—this would apply even more where the security was perishable goods—the bank would not be able to obtain the best possible value on the customer's assets that had backed the loan given to him until the seven-day notice period had expired. This could have a poor effect on the realisable value of the customer's security that had been lodged with the bank.

In Committee the Minister's main objection to accepting that repayment on demand should be available where there was default was that there might be a computer mistake—that it might spew out information to suggest that the customer was at fault when he was not. With respect, that is a totally fallacious argument. If the computer reported that a customer was at fault when he was not and the bank consequently disposed of his security, once the fault was established the bank would have to repurchase the shares or the asset for the customer. I cannot believe that any bank in those circumstances would not act immediately in that manner. The amendment seeks to rectify that strange and anomolous position.

Perhaps I may attempt to unboggle, if there is such a term, the hon. Gentleman's mind. There are two completely different situations here. The bank covers a situation where, for example, in the case of a special deposit, it has a change in liquidity requirements and has to call in loans. That is an exigency upon the service and it is one of the hazards of that form of loan. We are dealing with the situation in which there is no monetary or economic need for the money to be called in. The loan is called in simply because the individual is in default. That being so, it is reasonable that he should have a right to remedy that default.

The hon. Gentleman regarded the computer error argument as fallacious. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has on many occasions com- plained about the billing procedures and the problems that arise from computer errors. I assume that the banks' computers are as "human" as any other computers and are just as likely inadvertently to throw up an error. But errors arise in several ways. A payment that is due to be made may be overlooked. Perhaps someone who was supposed to put a cheque into the account on behalf of a customer forgot to do so. To go to the extreme of calling in the loan when there may be a simple explanation and a simple remedy would be to go too far. The customer is entitled to a chance to remedy the default, especially if it is not a default but an error.

Despite all that has been said, where there is a default of the kind envisaged by the hon. Gentleman the bank already notifies the individual of the default and does not automatically call in the loan. I suspect that we are trying to formalise an activity that most good bank managers would automatically undertake.

I agree with the Minister's last remark. In practice, when there is a default the bank will normally notify the customer and give him time to remedy it. But surely that destroys the validity of the Minister's argument. He implied that a bank, because of a change in its liquidity requirements, may suddenly wish to rearrange the ratio of security to debt. Instead of having a 50 per cent. margin, the bank might require a 100 per cent. margin. It is inconceivable that, because the bank was making an internal readjustment, it would at that moment call in an overdraft. Nor at that moment would the customer be in default because of a rearrangement of the overdraft terms.

I come back to my basic argument that there is logical inconsistency in repayment on demand being available to the bank for customers who are not in default but not for customers who are in default.

With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman is looking for logic and consistency, may I resort to a different tier of argument? It is clear that our minds to not match on morality vis-à-vis default. The amendment does not do what the hon. Gentleman wants to do. I tried to spare him this slight to his drafting capacities. The amendment refers to the executed agreement, but the bank will not have an executed agreement for an overdraft. Even if the hon. Gentleman's argument were correct, the amendment could not be accepted, and it does not achieve what he intends to achieve.

I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 48, line 9, after 'apply', insert

'(in relation to the possessor of the goods)'.

This is a drafting amendment. It makes clear that the provision of Clause 90, which protects debtors, will also project a person in possession after the death of a debtor who has failed to go through the necessary formalities to become "the debtor".

I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 50, line 5, after 'writing', insert 'expressly'.

The Government amendment to Clause 173 has to a great extent met the object tions, but there is still an outstanding problem that has been expressed to us, in that Clause 97 is the only clause in which a statement can be requested but where no fee is advanced.

The Minister of State will know that the clearing banks have said that the fee would act as a red light to them in warning them that there was a danger. If the bank manager failed to comply with subsection (1) he would not be entitled to enforce the agreement, and if he continued to fail to supply the statement he would be subject to a £50 fine.

Nearly all local branches of banks give statements on demand or at the request of the customer at any time. If such a request from a customer is not recognised as a request for a Clause 97-type statement, the manager could be in a difficulty and the bank might be unfairly penalised It has been suggested that the drafting is loose and could be tightened by the addition of "expressly", although a more specific amendment would have been preferable.

I understand that the Department has given the clearing banks to understand that the type of statement envisaged is the one where the customer wants to terminate his agreement and to know the total amount of his indebtedness. As this wording is not included in subsection (1), there may be confusion and some statements may fall into the grey area.

I am, possibly, making the Minister's argument for him. My mind, like his, is consumer oriented. It is important, too, that customers should know what sort of statement they are asking for. Perhaps the bank could supply customers with a formal printed statement of the Clause 97-type to enable them always to ask for the right type of statement, when needed, and so avoid precluding their rights. I hope that the Minister will think that the tightening up of the drafting will in no way inhibit consumers' rights. The amendment also seeks to strengthen the fundamental objective of the clause and to avoid the possibility of confusion.

I must oppose the amendment. I accept that conceivably there could be difficulty in some instances. The hon. Lady in a sense highlighted the other side of the problem when she said that the bank could have printed slips which people could sign to make clear their expressed request for such information. She and I on numerous occasions have tried to explain to others that the more legalistic the requirement imposed upon a consumer the more difficult it is for the consumer to meet that requirement. The amendment would mean that an extremely precise form of statement would be required, which would be difficult for many customers who would not realise that they had to go to the bank to acquire a slip for this purpose or that they had to put the request in so precise a form.

It is more likely that the bank will be able to detect the meaningful application in terms of the Bill than that the average customer will be able to put in a submission to meet absolutely the requirements of the amendment. I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Lady. We have met many of the points she and her hon. Friends made in Committee on other aspects, but I prefer not to accept this amendment.

In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

There remains a long list of Government amendments. Does the hon. Member wish to discuss any particular amendment?

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Subject to what my hon. Friends may have in mind, apart from Amendment No. 28 we should be prepared to take formally all the Government amendments.

That is a very encouraging intervention. I shall put formally Government Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 46 and 27.

I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 55, line 10, leave out from "hirer" to end of line 14.

This amendment, together with Amendment No. 29, deals with a highly technical matter relating to a legal difficulty which has been raised by the clearing banks. The Government have moved an amendment to Clause 106. I need not worry the House with the technicalities. I am sure that the Minister of State will understand them. But the banks take the view that what the Government have put forward does not meet in full the difficulties which may rise. The banks have taken counsel's opinion and put forward this amendment in the hope that the Government may be able to meet their point. I do not know whether that will be possible.

I hope that I shall not disappoint the hon. Gentleman too much if I say that I am willing to accept both amendments, as long as both are moved. I cannot accept them separately, but as a combination they commend themselves to us and we gladly accept them.

With the agreement of the House, which appears to have been given, perhaps I may put the Government amendments formally. I should notify the House that there are some manuscript amendments, of which I think the Opposition are aware.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is one Opposition amendment still outstanding, No. 45. That goes with Amendment No. 44. If we could comment on that it would be helpful.

Yes.

It has been pointed out to me that we have an alternative amendment, No. 45, and that, although the Government's amendment is a step forward, it does not go far enough to meet the reasonable requirements of those who will have to operate this new section of the Bill. If one is asked to provide details about a "Mr. A. Williams", it is surely much clearer if one can be told exactly who the person is whose name and address or addresses are given in the notice, so that it is known exactly about whom one is asked to provide the information.

The Government's amendment uses the words

"such particulars as the agency may reasonably require to enable them to identify the file".

There is still, however, considerable worry that this would still put them under a very onerous duty to look at all the files of people who may live miles away. "Mr. A. William" may live in Glasgow rather than London.

Amendment No. 45 is an alternative and would make it much clearer. It would not weaken any protection for the consumer; it would probably help the consumer if it were known exactly about whom one was making inquiries rather than about some amorphous group of people. The Government's amendment would still lead to that situation.

I looked at the hon. Gentleman's amendment, obviously, as we had one working to a similar objective. I know that we both want to resolve the problem which faces the agencies particularly. In our part of the world, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where the names are often coincidental, a large number of people with similar names have similar initials. However, we have looked at the two options, but we feel that the amendment put forward by the hon. Gentleman would dilute the concept of the file too much and could lead to too many escape routes for agencies. Our amendment should meet the requirements because we "reasonably require" to enable them to identify the file. On the instance that the hon. Gentleman put forward of a "Mr. A. Williams" in Glasgow and a "Mr. A. Williams" in London, I should think it would be of some relevance if Mr. A. Williams had neglected to mention that he also had a Glasgow address.

It seems that our use of the term "reasonably" would cover the agencies. The concession that we have made—perhaps not a concession—the modification that we have made as a result of representations we have received is such that most of the requirements of the agencies have been met where both sides would agree that there is a reasonable point. But I cannot urge the House to accept the amendment put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

May I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your help in speeding the proceedings today and for removing a major headache from my hon. Friends and me, with all the amendments that we had ahead of us. I should like to feel that it was somewhat out of regard for the proceedings of the House. In Welsh Grand Committee, and so on, we have been in debate, fortunately on the same side, so often together Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I suspect that it is that you are now so impressed with the potential length of my speeches that you would resort to almost any procedural device to avoid that.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I still have worries that what is proposed will not be "reasonable", but we shall now have to await the outcome. If there are serious representations after the passage of the Bill, I hope that the Government will be prepared to look at them. However, I do not wish to press Amendment No. 45.

With the permission of the House, I shall put the remainder of the Government amendments, including the manuscript amendments.

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

With this we can alse discuss new Clause 5 (Supplementary provisions relating to pipes), and Government Amendments Nos. 30, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24 and 28.

I share the concern that it is necessary to take such an important Bill on a Friday. Nevertheless the circumstances are well known. I am encouraged by the fact that there has been considerable co-operation on all sides during the proceedings of the Bill to date. I hope that that will be the case this afternoon. In moving amendments I shall seek either to give the briefest possible outline or to move them formally. Of course, if the House wants further information I shall do my best to give it.

In another place my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal announced on Second Reading that we would be considering the incorporation of measures that would give waste disposal authorities powers to utilise heat produced from the incineration or processing of waste either for district heating schemes or for the generation of electricity. The new clause will give disposal authorities necessary powers and relieve them of the necessity of seeking Local. Act powers for individual schemes.

New Clause 5 places a duty on collection and disposal authorities to prepare maps showing the location of their pipes for transporting waste or heat. A copy of the maps will have to be made available for public inspection at the offices of the collection authority in whose areas the pipes have been laid. That is in every way an eminently sensible proposition. It will obviously be essential to maintain proper records of the location of waste or heat pipes, as it is at the present time for drains or sewers, and to make these records open to inspection. New Clause 5 is consequential upon the powers we are seeking in new Clause 1 and I hope that the House will approve.

The Government are to be congratulated on the principle of the clause but I see one or two difficulties associated with it. First, the disposal authority will have the right to sell anywhere the heat which is produced from the burning of waste, but electricity is dealt with in a different way. The clause says that the authorities may not sell to any other person and that it shall become the duty of the electricity boards so specified to buy electricity from them.

There is to be free disposal of heat, and that may become important to the chemical industry which could be a free buyer in the open market. However, the electricity produced by the disposal authority in England and Wales would have to be sold to the CEGB and part of the value of the scheme is thrown away. I dare say the Government have in mind the Wilton power station of ICI which in 1973 produced something of the order of 300 megawatts of electric power and 1,200 tons per hour of steam. The heat was produced from chemical waste. It seems an extremely good idea and it gives some idea of the type of waste that can be utilised—for example gas, liquid petroleum gas, tars, waste lubricating oils, emulsion residues, waste from aromatic and olefin plants and hydrogen gas from the nylon plant. This sort of thing shows how we advance in technology and it is a good indication of the way in which the Government are moving ahead to take advantage of the use of waste to produce electricity.

It must be remembered that we are not first in the field in this direction. Amsterdam already provides about 6 per cent. of its electricity from waste disposal. Plants are already planned in the Federal Republic of Germany, and in the United States more than 136 million tons of refuse is consumed every year in the production of heat and electricity. If it was all consumed in the production of electricity it would supply 11 per cent. of the nation's requirements. Bearing in mind our responsibilities to the miners of this country, the Government should take note of the fact that in East Bridgewater in Massachusetts it is possible to produce a fuel which will generate as much steam as pulverised coal on an equivalent weight basis, and that all comes from refuse. It is worth noting that the amount of fly ash produced is comparable to that produced from coal.

I therefore welcome this proposal. I have only one criticism apart from my point about electricity having to be sold to the CEGB, and that is that perhaps it should be specified for the sake of industry which types of fuels may be consumed. It might be interesting if the Minister gave some guidance on the methods he has in mind. Is he moving towards hydrogenation, pyrolysis and bioconversion? I realise that there has not been a great deal of research work on the last of these, but the first two have reached the trial stage and it is well known that with optimum conditions with hydrogenation as much as 99 per cent. of the carbon content is converted to oil—about two barrels per ton of dry waste—and with pyrolysis, which has been operated to a great extent in the United States by Monsanto, Union Carbide and the Garrett Research and Development Company, great results have been achieved. These processes could be of great value to the Government in pushing forward with this proposal.

May I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your kind reception of my proposition earlier about the suspension of the sitting. I know that I echo the opinion of everyone in the House when I say how pleased we are that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) is now in his place. We sympathise with him for the hard stint he has had during the last 26 hours. He said that he had difficulty in getting down to his papers, but that difficulty applies to many of us because the papers have been tardy in coming up. There are a number of Government starred amendments which it has been difficult to have the chance to look at, and I think we shall find that quite a number of the amendments have not been edited to fit in with the redrafting of the Bill.

This is an intolerable situation in which the House has to conduct its business. I know that it is in no way the Chair's responsibility but I think I am reflecting the views of hon. Members on both sides about the unreasonable pressure there is on business, as reflected by your decision to suspend the proceedings. I am sure that we are determined to get on with the business and to deal with it as purposefully, promptly and effectively as we may.

I welcome the new Clause. The Minister referred to individual schemes, but I do not know whether he meant that disposal authorities as individual authorities would need to have schemes of that character or whether the authorities could get together on a joint basis.

Was my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) correct in saying that the power had to be sold to the CEGB? Surely schemes of this sort will enable local authorities to use the power generated for their own purposes. It has been common practice in the past for the burning of waste to be used by local authorities to generate power to pump sewage disposal units and arrangements of that sort. Was my hon. Friend correct in saying that the schemes envisaged are of such a magnitude that the power produced will be put into the national grid?

Is the question of mineral recovery dealt with? Warren Spring, for example, we have seen prototype schemes of the disposal of waste by burning and the recovery of minerals as a result. I do not know whether that is dealt with.

I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said on the subject. We are creating new powers, and I shall be glad to hear what the Minister has to say.

It is welcome and refreshing that we should have some discussion about what the Department of the Environment and my Department feel about the matter.

The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) raised many interesting questions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy recently published a document on the conservation of energy. The House has also had the advantage of the publication of the CPRS report on conservation, which says that incineration can make a contribution towards conserving energy resources. The hon. Gentleman's contribution is timely.

I shall consider the impact of the clause under three headings. First, the clause will enable local authorities to make a small but welcome addition to the country's energy resources by supplying electricity to the system and supplying heat for district heating schemes from the burning of waste. I was recently sent to Scandinavia to examine district heating. The Scandinavian countries have far more experience of incineration than we have. In trying to learn from their experience I visited up-to-date incineration schemes where the Scandinavians burn household refuse in towns and localities. In Stockholm, I understand, some 40 per cent. of buildings are heated from district heating schemes, and there are a number of incineration plants.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) talked about mineral waste. We and local authorities will be examining the whole question of recycling material. I received from America last week a postcard on which it was stated to be the result of the recycling of paper in a particular State. The question of recycling material, something that is already happening in many parts of the world, is relevant when we talk about incineration. For example, 40 per cent. of incineration is of paper, some of which, together with other materials, can be recycled.

Secondly, the clause is an enabling provision. We cannot predict what the local waste disposal authorities will do, but we shall examine each proposal sympathetically from all points of view.

The hon. Member for Bedford asked whether research and development were involved, and he introduced the question of coal. This Government set up the tripartite examination by the unions, employers and the Government. The examination has also set up a working party to deal with the whole question of research and development on coal conversion and other sources of heat. I am the chairman of the working party. I hope that we shall very shortly be able to publish a report for the scrutiny of not only the House but the whole nation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, because he takes an active interest in these matters.

The Central Electricity Generating Board is ready to give local authorities the benefit of its experience and advice in considering plans to generate electricity from the incineration of waste. The local authorities will sell the electricity to the electricity boards. The House is aware that we have a national grid system. We are talking about an infinitesimal part of electricity capacity and generation. There will be two-way co-operation. The electricity authorities will make their expertise available to the local authorities so that they may decide whether they should go in for heat production from waste disposal.

To encourage the conservation of energy and to encourage people to utilise waste in that connection, would it not be more appropriate to encourage schemes such as the ICI development by which ICI produces its own electricity?

The hon. Gentleman is talking about something else, which may be the subject of a debate on another occasion. We are talking about a new clause dealing with refuse disposal. I hope that the House will have a debate about the whole question of energy conservation, when it can go into matters of refuse disposal and incineration.

I do not think that the Minister has covered the point about the use by local authorities of the power generated.

They can use it themselves or sell it to the electricity boards.

We are talking about something that is very small. There will be co-operation between the electricity undertakings and the local authorities, and there will be close collaboration between the Department of Energy and the local authorities with regard to the sums of money involved. I think that the House would wish that.

The principle of incineration is a substantial subject to which I hope the House will return one day.

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

With the new clause we are to discuss Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27.

On Second Reading I expressed my astonishment at finding that there was no obligation to clean the streets. I mentioned that such an obligation would obviously raise the question of moving motor cars to allow local authorities to carry out the cleaning. As the House will want to have regard to the great shortage of labour and the use of new mechanical means, I think that that is a reasonable proposition.

The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will be glad to know that this provision comes directly from Haringey Borough, where it has proved to be extremely helpful. Two steps will be required to activate it. First, the highway or local authority will have to serve advance notices on the occupiers, and it will also have to exhibit notices stating the day and hours when it intends to clean particular streets. That will be helpful. It will guarantee that the streets are cleaned, which is not always the case now.

Secondly, there is Provision that parking spaces and meters can be suspended during certain periods. It has been suggested that we should go further and make it an offence for people to leave their cars in such areas. I am sure that I carry the House with me when I say there is no need to go to the Draconian lengths of saying that someone has committed a criminal offence if he has left his motor car in a relevant area. Nor are we suggesting or envisaging that cars will be moved great distances. Local authorities will have power to move a car from one side of the road to the other or just around the corner. In other words, they will have the power to move a vehicle sufficiently for the purpose we have in mind. We must tackle the problem of litter in our streets and the cleaning of the streets. This is a sensible step forward which I hope commends itself to the House.

I am grateful to the Minister for the manner in which he has moved the new clause and for the tribute he has paid to my local authority for pioneering this provision in a Private Act during the three years in which my party happened to be in control of the local authority. There were other provisions, such as the banning of heavy lorries in residential streets throughout the borough, which have been of great benefit to the residents in my constituency.

We must bear in mind that with a provision of this kind local authorities must take care that it does not become an instrument of harassment for motorists. That can so easily be the result. Once the power is in the hands of a local authority, it should become a matter of mutual co-operation between the authorities and the motorist. The motorists who leave their cars in the residential streets of boroughs are mostly those who live in the same streets in which they park their cars. That is because they happen to have a house without a garage. It is in their interests as much as anyone else's that the streets are kept clean and that the environment and the amenities are well maintained.

The Minister will gather from the trend of my remarks that I give a warm welcome to this proposal.

I also extend a warm welcome to the new clause. I thank the Minister for the cooperation which he has given in the background by enabling me to see the new clause prior to the debate.

It has been brought to my notice in my constituency that where a street has become filthy, and where cars have been parked seven days a week, Sunday is generally the day when washing-down takes place. I am told that there is a growing practice of emptying oil sumps into drains in the gutter. That, of course, leads to blockages and when there is a thunderstorm flooding takes place. This is a growing practice to which local authorities will have to attend. With these few words I welcome the new clause.

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

The clause concerns itself with the laying of pipes for the transporting of sewage sludge. Its purpose is to enable water authorities to lay pipes for the disposal of sewage and other materials from sewage disposal works. At present water authorities do not have that power although they have the powers to construct sewers to bring sewage to disposal works. The new power is essentially the same as the power being given to the disposal authorities to transport waste by pipeline. I hope that the House will find that explanation satisfactory.

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

I am sure that this is a matter that has the support of both sides of the House. The immediate purpose of the clause is to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the provision of the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources which we signed with the support of all parties on 4th June.

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

This is not a new clause in the sense that it has already been considered in identical terms in another place, and indeed, in Committee. It deals with the unsatisfactory situation on the railways in that sanitary appliances in British Rail passenger trains discharge what is essentially untreated raw waste directly on to the tracks. In theory, this happens only when the train is in motion, but as we know it happens from time to time when the train is stationary, despite notices requesting passengers not to use the facility when the train is in the station.

We are seeking to introduce something which the Bill already does in respect of vessels on rivers. The Bill already gives water authorities wide-ranging powers to regulate by byelaws the use of sanitary appliances on inland waterways. We recognise that it would be unreasonable to require British Rail immediately to carry out extensive and extremely expensive conversion work to all passenger trains. Therefore, the new clause is so phrased that the Secretary of State may make orders specifying the standard to which British Rail should work and the date by which the work should be completed.

Hon. Members will know that if the Channel Tunnel comes into being it will be necessary for British Rail to produce rolling stock with sanitary appliances which do not discharge into the tunnel. That work will have to be put in hand, and eventually there will have to be a degree of harmonisation with the whole of our rail system linking to the Continent through the Channel Tunnel. When the matter was discussed in Committee the Minister indicated that there were items of cost that he felt made the question prohibitive. He mentioned a figure of about £25 million simply for providing the means whereby the discharges would not take place when the train was still but would be discharged later. Even that would not be regarded as a very satisfactory system.

In Committee there was discussion about it being possible to build jumbo-jet airliners carrying several hundred passengers for flights of seven hours or more and yet be able to containerise the sewage produced during the flight. One would have thought it possible for British Rail engineers to start planning a system whereby that may be done with our trains. This is essentially a long-term operation. If the Government are as anxious as they say they are to control pollution, I hope that this is a matter that they will treat in a more forthcoming manner than they have so far. It is a matter of concern for very many people. There has been a great deal of correspondence on this matter and I ask the Minister to give it sympathetic consideration.

We wait to hear whether there has been between Committee and Report any further thoughts on the matter so that the Minister can give us more welcome news than on the last occasion.

I cannot accept the new Clause but I can assure the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that a great deal of additional thought and activity has occurred since we debated the matter in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), said in Committee, we have talked to British Rail about the principles that are involved. Indeed, a conference met on 11th July, which was attended by representatives of British Rail and my Department to go over the whole matter in the light of the proceedings which took place in Committee.

We are here dealing with the dirty business of society and the question of how British Rail should dispose of sewage. It is clear from investigations we have made that the adoption of either of the systems suggested by the hon. Gentleman would add considerably to the costs of British Rail. I was concerned about the public health aspects of this matter rather than the question of cost, but I have discovered, much to my amazement, that the present system does not give rise to any public health hazards, and I am informed that it is almost universally in practice throughout the world. Few authorities, if any, adopt a system different from that which we adopt.

There is a problem about the Channel Tunnel and sleeping cars. Here I can bring some joy to the House, because it is the intention of British Rail to have a retention system for train waste on sleeping cars and in respect of the Channel Tunnel. Offence can arise when sleeping cars are pushed into stations. The cost here is £500,000, and British Rail has agreed to get on with it, so we do not have to worry about that.

We are, therefore, left with the matter of ordinary trains. It would cost £25 million to re-equip British Rail trains with a retention system which kept waste and sewage while the train was stationary and discharged it when the train was on the move. In other words, we would not get much for our £25 million, except, so to speak, a holding operation. I am sure that the House would not suggest that British Rail should accept that.

The remaining possible way of dealing with the problem would be to adopt a retention system which used chemicals and containers so that the sewage and waste was dealt with in that way and was discharged into the normal sewage disposal system when the train went into a siding. I am advised that this would raise serious public health problems. The recirculation of chemically treated fluids is not ideal from an amenity point of view, and the public health advisers of British Rail would be opposed to such a system on public health grounds. I think that the House would hesitate to go against that advice until a much closer investigation was carried out.

A system of containerisation is proposed in the new clause. Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Railways research centre at Derby is doing quite a lot of research work into this subject? I am sure that something will be done about it without any pressure being brought to bear.

I am glad to have my hon. Friend's assurance. His knowledge of railway matters exceeds mine. I think that all the work being done is in respect of sleeping cars and the Channel Tunnel, but if it is more extensive I welcome it.

It would cost British Rail £30 million to install a retention system, but, in addition, there would be many other local authority costs in connection with maintenance and handling. British Rail doubts whether it would be able to get the labour force needed to deal with these filthy jobs.

There are considerable difficulties about the two main alternative systems proposed to the present system, but I hope that the House will accept that what I have said about sleeping cars and the Channel Tunnel represents a satisfactory step forward. I regret that I am not able to accept the clause.

With leave, may I say that I am grateful to the Minister for the further information which he has given. I was interested to learn that there is a difference of only £5 million between the two systems. That is surprising information, because in Committee we were given the impression that the retention system would be more costly. Although £30 million is a considerable sum and one would not wish to embark unnecessarily on public expenditure, this is a matter which should be considered on a long-term basis.

I am glad to hear that British Rail is pressing ahead with studies into how this problem can be tackled. I am therefore content to leave the matter there and beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

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

We can also discuss new Clause 11 entitled "Powers of Secretary of State in respect of certain statutory nuisances".

New Clause 9 seeks to introduce a general defence into the Bill. At the moment there is, rightly, a large number of penalties for creating pollution, but some offences created by the Bill are of an obsolete nature. That is generally offensive to our legal system because we believe that there must be an element of guilty intention before a citizen can be penalised for any act or omission. That is the general common law, although there are certain statutory exceptions.

New Clause 9 seeks to make it a defence for a person charged with an offence under the legislation to prove that he has exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or by any person under his control. It is felt that this is a reasonable safeguard for the citizen and for industry as a whole. If it can be shown that proper care has been taken and there is no element of negligence, it should be a defence to any action brought against a person for inadvertent pollution or pollution outside the control of the person concerned.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting new Clause 11. I had hoped to raise this matter during the Committee stage but Select Committee business took me out of the country.

The clause relates to that part of the Bill referring to pollution of the atmosphere. The Bill as drafted seems to concern itself mainly with dirt pollution, fumes and smoke but, vitally important as those are—and clearly we must carefully consider how we can improve control of them—pollution is not simply what we see, taste or hear but is also what we smell.

A sweet scent is pleasurable; a noisome stench is incredibly objectionable. I gather that in the eighteenth century people carried nosegays of flowers because the sweet scent of the flowers counteracted the vile smell of the streets. By the same token, the purpose of the perfumes of Araby referred to in "Macbeth" was not so much to enhance the beauty of the person as to mask his or her body odours.

2.0 p.m.

Fortunately, all that is now in the past. Noxious smells are still with us, however, particularly those created within industry by operations such as chemical works, and in particular by the industry with which I am concerned—that which treats animal waste products. Here I must declare an interest. I am retained by such a company. Having said that, I hope that my words will perhaps carry a little more weight because I speak with just a marginal degree of experience.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) put his finger on what I am driving at when he talked about those who are not intent upon creating a nuisance or noxious odours. My new clause relates to this industry, which is treating a certain type of waste product and is doing so as best as it knows how within the science of the art. It is faced with a problem to which there is as yet no answer. I hope to show to the Minister that his own working party came to the same conclusion.

On page 67 of Part I of the Report of the Working Party on the Suppression of Odours, published only this year, there was the following conclusion:

"The section of the industry concerned with rendering and similar processes stands out from all the others in the severity of its odour abatement problems. Nowhere is there yet a complete solution to the problems of these trades."

Nor is there.

The trade's hope was that it would have some joy out of that report, because it would dearly like to know what is required of it to bring it within what might be described as acceptable limits. But it did not get any satisfaction. Now we are told that the working party is to produce a second report. It has stated that it wants to have a three-year period of research—which I believe started last April—and then it intends to produce conclusions which might be more binding and positive.

So keen is the trade to see the second report become an effective document that it is making a financial contribution to the working party and its work. But we may have to wait three years, and while we are waiting the trade finds itself in a position in which writs can be served against it under Section 100 of the Public Health Act 1936.

To get such a writ one simply has to prove public nuisance. One may say "The nuisance creates the writ and the company has to argue its case before the court." But with such a writ served against it the company will be very hard put to succeed in its defence.

Indeed, I have a letter from the chairman of the trade association governing the industry in which he described the importance of the trade and says:

"As an industry we collect and process more than I million tonnes of raw material per annum consisting of bones, fats and slaughterhouse offals. This in turn produces some 220,000 tonnes of protein meal (for the farming industry), 150,000 tonnes of tallow, all of which are used in industry, including edible foods, gelatine for the food industry, pharmaceutical and photographic fields.

This operation is carried out by some 150 rendering plants in 100 local authority areas, but 90 per cent. of the process and production originates from only about 10 per cent. of the total of these plants—all of considerable integrity and repute.

The operation of our plants is governed by the Public Health Acts, and despite the many hundred of thousands of pounds spent by the industry in coping with odour suppression we are still under the most severe pressure by local authorities through the courts—in fact, several of our members have had to close down because of legal action. In this connection it should be emphasised that if the industry did not operate "—

I ask the Minister of State particularly to note these words—

"and all animal wastes were allowed to accumulate for collection and disposal like other trade wastes, conditions would rapidly become intolerable and a threat to public health.

Without quoting actual figures, it should also be emphasised that as an industry we employ many thousands of people and save the country a considerable amount in foreign currency by the production of essential products in this country, which if not produced would involve us in the importation of similar products from abroad.

We as an industry would request that the Secretary of State gives us some breathing space pending the final report of the working party, and ensures that sufficient legislation is introduced to prevent the closing down of further plants."

That letter says all that I want to say. No one I have spoken to in the trade would argue for a blanket way out of the perfect right of any local authority to take action under the Public Health Act. What I am asking for is that if a company can prove to the Secretary of State that it has taken all reasonable measures to curb the odour nuisance, he, bearing in mind the national importance of the trade, may be in a position to allow that company to continue.

I remind the Minister of State that these companies are already registered with the Alkali Inspectorate and therefore they are not, as it were, trading within an environment of their own making. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept, as the trade has to do, that if there is no measure that it can now take to ensure that no odour nuisance will be created by what it does, it will not be put at the mercy of the courts and closed down, as was Dolphin-Canadian at Shoreham, but will have an appeal to an authority above the local authority—namely, the Secretary of State—with a consideration greater than the personal loss of amenity by local persons.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I have one of these plants in my constituency. The idea is to produce animal protein through the utilisation of waste. If the waste were not utilised in this way it would be unused and a great loss to the nation. I remind the Minister that new Clause 1 was for the utilisation of waste in power stations for conversion into energy. In this case waste is being utilised to form food for animals, and this can be invaluable to the community.

If we are to be consistent we must ensure that these plants can continue. The responsibility should come under this Bill and not fall between two stools—the Bill and the Public Health Act 1936. The result of that would be that until the full inquiry reported most of the plants might have to close down and we might find ourselves without any of these processing facilities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give sympathetic consideration to this argument and bear in mind that I have a fairly heavy constituency responsibility which has a strong case.

There are two important principles involved in these clauses. New Clause 9 seeks to provide a general defence of "no negligence" for people charged with pollution under the Bill. It would affect all parts of the Bill and, if it is the desire of the House, I could point to those matters in detail. If the law is to be effective, it must command public support. There are certain matters in all fields of pollution which should not happen and it is our duty to stop them occurring.

The principle is that people who cause pollution impose a burden on the rest of the community. This ranges from minor nuisances to serious hazards and grave dangers of life or health. People who pollute should be held responsible for the damage they do. We should be chary of giving polluters an escape clause of such magnitude as proposed in the provision. The general proposals of the clause would give a blanket defence of due diligence which should not be provided. As a general principle, people have to have regard to the pollution which flows from their own activities. No local authority or water authority, in my judgment, would be likely to take action against people where a genuine mistake had occurred, although in exercising that judgment it would have regard to the severity of the pollution caused.

In another place there was considerable concern on this matter. The Law Lords who took part in the debate were careful to protect and preserve the rights of citizens to go to the courts for injunctions and in other ways to have these matters dealt with. I referred to the case of Alphacell v. Woodward, which was discussed at length in another place and in Committee upstairs. It turned on the interpretation of the words "causes or knowingly permits". In that sense I have to resist the amendment.

Let me make clear that the offence provision in subsection (1) does not create an absolute offence. It has to be proved that the pollution is caused or knowingly permitted. I think that is a reasonable provision to make in the Bill, and I cannot advise the House to depart from it.

I turn to new Clause 11 which deals with obnoxious smells. I am afraid that once more I cannot advise the House to agree to that provision. The existing law contained in the Public Health Act 1936 gives local authorities two means of proceeding against the statutory nuisance. One is an abatement notice enforceable in the magistrates' court. One defence available in the magistrates' court is that the offender was using the best practicable means to deal with the situation.

The second way of dealing with obnoxious smells and odours is by an injunction in the High Court. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) wants to change the situation and quoted a case in which the High Court took action resulting in the closing down of an undertaking of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet)—an undertaking which in performing a national duty in disposing of offal and innards and other things which society has to deal with. I would be reluctant to interfere with the rights of citizens to go to the High Court for an injunction. We should not forget that such a proposal would have to return to the other place and I am sure noble-Lords would not take too kindly to a proposal to remove the right for a citizen or company to go to the court. The Secretary of State would not wish to superimpose himself into any judgment on this matter in place of the courts.

I believe the Minister has got my point, but what does he intend to do to save the industry in question? These firms will go out one by one unless he does something to assist.

In a Bill dealing with the control of pollution it is not my duty to go too far in that direction, except to say that it is obviously in the national interest to keep the matter under control. If a factory is giving out offensive odours and citizens go to the court and say that the smell is intolerable, the court may come to the conclusion, having heard the evidence, that it should issue an injunction. If that were to happen, I should be most reluctant to take any action, except to say to the firm concerned "We are sorry but you will have to build your factory somewhere else. We shall do our best to help you on another site and in planning matters." If conditions are intolerable, we must leave these matters to the courts.

The hon. Member for Newbury raised the novel concept that the House should take action to stop industrialists being at the mercy of the courts. I do not think that is a proposal which should be hallowed in legislation. We do our best to deal with pollution and it is for the court to interpret what we do. If we have to take action, we usually do so.

The report on odours has always been envisaged as being in two parts. The second part will contain an appeal to the public at the end of the year, and my Department is giving substantial financial support to research which we know will be recommended in that report.

I am sorry that I cannot advise the House to accept either of the new clauses.

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

The House will agree that motorway developments in the past decade or so have brought economic advance to the regions and have been economically beneficial to the nation. However, regrettably, economic advances have been made at the expense of residents who are unfortunate enough to live close or immediately adjacent to motorways.

When the Building (Noise Insulation) Regulations were debated in the House on 24th July 1973, the Under-Secretary of State at the time, Mr. Keith Speed, promised that a commonsense flexible approach would be adopted. Regrettably, since those regulations became law a commonsense and flexible approach has not been adopted. I know that in my constituency—and this also applies to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and Walsall, South (Mr. George)—I am inundated by complaints from residents' associations and individual constituents about noise and pollution caused by motorways and by the inflexible approach which has been adopted despite ministerial promises made in 1973.

Is it a flexible and commonsense approach to offer to double glaze a bedroom window but not a lounge window 4 feet below it? Is it a flexible and commonsense approach that a house which is only 35 feet from a motorway is not covered by the regulations because the side of it immediately abutting the motorway consists of a kitchen, bathroom or hall entrance which are not regarded under the regulations as eligible rooms?

It is likely that in the West Midlands generally appeals under the regulations will run into several thousands. Residents in my area and in neighbouring areas are considerably disturbed. The believe that Birmingham, and the West Midlands area generally, is being used to obtain case law on the regulations.

There will be a tough fight by people to get reasonable terms. I realise, as do my hon. Friends who are also concerned with this matter, that the present Government did not make the regulations. My proposal is a common sense and flexible approach which should be used. In the clause we have taken a figure of dwellings and schools within 300 metres of a motorway simply because rate reductions have been allowed in the West Midlands area at such a maximum distance from a motorway. We also propose that living rooms, bedrooms and kitchens as well as classrooms should be included within the provision we suggest. We also propose that the standard of insulation provided should not be less than that provided for under the Noise Insulation Regulations.

We ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that the well being and welfare of our constituents in the West Midlands should take consideration over any financial principles or difficulties which he may see arising from our clause.

This is a matter of some importance. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the Government are extremely concerned about this new phenomenon of noise from motorways which have been driven through urban areas. I went to my hon. Friend's part of the country to look at some of the problems associated with this matter.

The effect of the clause would be to impose a duty on local authorities to insulate from noise all dwellings and schools within 300 miles—I should say, within 300 metres. Like other hon. Members, I find it difficult to move within the space of only 10 minutes from matters of sewerage facilities on trains and offensive smells to questions concerning motorways.

The clause does not deal with hospitals. While my hon. Friend is properly concerned with schools, we are also concerned with hospitals, as I am sure he would be. Therefore, we intend to introduce as soon as possible new regulations enabling schools and hospitals to be protected from motorway noise. I hope that that meets part of my hon. Friend's concern. We also intend to review the existing regulations as a whole as soon as sufficient experience of their working has been gained. I hope that that assurance meets the remainder of his concern. Such a review would cover questions of eligibility.

My hon. Friend said that he felt that his part of the world was being used as a sort of guinea pig for experimental purposes. There is some truth in that. Indeed, it is good sense to act in that way because it is in his area, as well as my constituency, that the difficulties we are discussing are being encountered and it is good sense to base new proposals for regulations on existing experience.

However, it is not true to go as far as my hon. Friend did and say that it is necessary for a battle to be fought on this matter. Ministers are anxious to understand people's concern on matters such as this, and we shall be sympathetic and move as fast as possible to try to meet the difficulties. However, I cannot give an undertaking that any new regulations would be retrospective—

Does my hon. Friend agree that this matter also involves complexities relating to the Land Compensation Act, which are perhaps of more immediate relevance? I have in mind a problem arising from the construction of a stretch of road in my constituency. People living within a certain area are eligible for compensation arising from works undertaken in building the new road, but other people in the neighbourhood are barred from receiving compensation. There are all sorts of complexities in these matters, but I hope that my hon. Friend's assurances will result in some relief for people who are deafened by motorway noise.

If the situation regarding compensation is as my hon. Friend has described, I regard it as nonsense, and it is no part of my duty as a Minister to have nonsense enacted by regulations. If my hon. Friend will let me have details I should be happy to look into the matter. We are giving this question active concern and we shall seek to tidy up any anomalies which may exist.

I hope I have said enough to suggest that we not only accept and share the concern expressed but are moving to meet it. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press his clause.

My hon. Friend has tried to be as adroit in refereeing this debate as he was in other fields before being elected to the House. Although we still have some misgivings, not on ministerial interpretations of regulations but, occasionally, on civil servants' interpretations, we accept the assurances which my hon. Friend has given and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

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

In his report on noise in 1963 Sir Alan Wilson referred to a questionnaire which he sent to local authorities about noise abatement legislation and about how successfully it was operating. In the replies received local authorities complained about the absence of prescribed standards of what constituted noise nuisance. That was in 1963, and since then I do not think that anybody—certainly no one in any Governments during the period—has sought to establish exactly a level of noise nuisance. Therefore, it is proposed in the clause to give the Secretary of State power to do so, because without maximum noise levels being laid down within the new noise abatement zones we shall, I suspect, have a patchwork quilt of noise levels throughout the country.

As I suggested on Second Reading, if maximum noise levels are not set, how on earth can we know whether we are achieving reduction in noise in the noise abatement zones? We have to start somewhere. It is not good enough to leave it to individual local authorities to decide how keen they should be on creating maximum noise levels appropriate to local amenities.

My proposal is not just my own idea. In a draft Bill so carefully set out in its report, the Noise Advisory Council suggested that the local authority would be required to specify the level to which it was the authority's intention to restrict the emission of noise from any premises in the area to be designated.

2.30 p.m.

I like that phrasing. It seems to be about right. I am sorry that the previous Government and the present administration have run away from it and created in Clause 59 the statement that there shall be a noise level register stating noise levels from industrial factories and, in Clause 61, that if the level of noise emanating from any premises to which a noise abatement order applies is not acceptable, having regard to the purposes for which the order was made, and that a reduction in that level is practicable for a reasonable cost and would afford the public benefit, a notice to reduce the noise level may be served.

Those two clauses, but particularly the second, have all the ifs in them to make them so permissive as to be without teeth.

In the smoke control concept we had the simple idea that a certain colouring of smoke was unacceptable. Therefore, anybody could have a Ringelmann chart and use it to decide whether a particular smoke emission within the Clean Air Act was beyond the law. We must have something similar for noise. We must start somewhere. We all know what an acceptable noise level is. If we are to make speeches about the control of pollution we must be serious and accept that we can reach a common noise level which will create the right environment within what we euphemistically call a noise abatement zone.

Therefore, to produce permissive clauses and allow a local authority all the ways out that it may choose to take will not do much to improve the old Noise Abatement Act 1960.

My intention is to seek something a little stronger and more definite that the local authorities will accept as the first noise level that they must achieve. I hope that we can then get a progressive reduction in that noise level so that our noise abatement zones will be as quite as we all want them to be.

I cannot advise the House to accept the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like our new ideas about noise abatement zones which appear later in the Bill and our approach to them. They represent a radical new concept that we are writing into the Bill. I think that we all agree that a local authority should have power to register or record the totality of noise in a certain zone and ensure that nobody adds to it. Then, from time to time, orders may be made reducing it.

The idea has lots of ifs and buts. However, with any practical approach to a problem there must be ifs and buts. We have had great success with this kind of approach to smoke abatement and preventing atmospheric pollution. We have only to look at London, with its buildings cleaned up, to see the success that has been achieved. It has taken a few years, but that practical approach has produced considerable benefits. This is true not only of London but of many other cities.

We are trying to achieve with noise what we achieved with atmospheric pollution. In doing this, we realise that people have businesses and industries to run and must work in places which create noise. Therefore, we approach these matters sensibly and in a practical manner. That is not what the clause does.

The Minister is making my argument for me. The Clean Air Act sets the same standards throughout the nation. That is what my clause would do. Secondly, the noise abatement zone is not the brainchild of either this or the previous administration; it is the brainchild of the Noise Advisory Council which drafted a clause which led to the point of my clause.

If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will come to the second point.

On the first point, we did not approach the clean air concept in the way that he suggested. We gave local authorities the powers and they interpreted them in accordance with circumstances in their areas. We did not say that on some day the Secretary of State shall make an order that the only colour of smoke coming from chimneys shall be light grey, dark grey or any other shade of grey. That was not the way with which we dealt with the matter and it is not the way with which we propose to deal with noise.

It is true that the Wilson Committee suggested that certain standards should be established, but, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, that was more than 10 years ago. We have made a lot of progress since. There have been great technological advances and more information is available.

If we accept the proposal, there are two ways in which the Government could establish these noise levels. They might be too high or too low for various parts of the country. If the limit was to include industrial premises it would need to be very high—unacceptably high for other parts of the country which do not suffer from industrial noise nuisance. Therefore, that would be unsatisfactory. If the limit was too low it would put large numbers of industrial concerns out of action. Therefore, we are left with the conclusion that the best way to approach the matter is to ask local authorities to deal with industries in their areas on their merits and to move as fast as we know they wish to move to meet the situation. There is no practical alternative to establishing these zones than allowing local authorities to deal with every case on its merits. Therefore, I cannot advise the House to accept the clause.

In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

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

The clause is based on the speech made by Lord Molson on Report stage of the Bill in the House of Lords. It turns upon one single issue: whether a local authority should have powers, before planning permission is granted, to know the likely strength of an emission from a plant that is to be put up, or to leave the situation as it is. By that I mean that only after the plant has been built can the emission be judged by the local authority, since the Alkali Inspectorate is at present the authority which decides whether or not an emission is acceptable.

I do not propose to take up the time of the House on this matter because the noble Lord Molson put the argument extremely well. I should be grateful for the Minister's views on the subject.