I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out killed or taken'.

This is the only amendment to Clause 1. It seeks to remove three superfluous words. Since there are many amendments I think that it would be inappropriate to spend a great deal of time on amendments of a technical character. The amendment is designed to effect an improvement in the language of the Bill and to remove superfluous words

I beg to move Amendment No. 2 in page 1, page 22, after 'person'. insert 'without reasonable excuse'.

This is a slightly more important amendment, since it seeks to add the words "without reasonable excuse" to Clause 2. No one wishes to drive innocent parties before the courts. Nor does one wish to see penalties imposed as a result of accidental action. However, penalties should be imposed under this clause as a result of mischievous action and although that would be possible, even without the three additional proposed words, I hope that the House will agree that this is a sensible suggestion.

An equally reasonable amendment will be proposed in respect of Clause 6 which is linked to the amendment now under consideration. I think the Bill will be better for the addition of these words

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 23, leave out 'protected wild creature' and insert:

'creature of a species specified in Schedule 1 to this Act, whether or not found living wild'.

The House will perceive the necessity for this amendment, which is designed to deal with what would otherwise be a loophole. Without the amendment any creature taken into possession could be described as no longer wild, which might provide an irresponsible person with an excuse. This is a wise tightening-up arrangement. It clarifies the position where clarity is required. It prevents a possible abuse and threat to a number of species named in the schedules and to those which may be inserted once the Bill is enacted.

Will this amendment cover breeding in captivity and the possible sale of creatures bred in captivity? What will be the position of those creatures already in captivity and which are being bred for commercial purposes?

I do not think that the amendment presents any difficulty as regards those activities. Clause 8 gives the Nature Conservancy Council considerable power to license activity of a wholesome nature. I would have thought that the power to license, which is possessed by the Nature Conservancy Council, would adequately cover that point. The difficulty is that many of the species involved are not readily reared or bred in captivity. It seems that those people who deal in these species rely heavily upon the purchase of creatures which are found in the wild. The provisions in Clause 2 are essential to prevent that threat to certain species. At the same time I think that a reasonable excuse would provide an adequate defence for responsible people engaged in wholesome activity of the kind about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.

I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 2, after 'creature' insert:

'or any other wild creature being a bat'.

In Standing Committee we spent a good deal of time considering the question of bats. Some hon. Members have received representations from people with an expert knowledge of bats who are anxious about the disturbance and damage done to all bat species by irresponsible or unskilled ringing.

The bat as a creature, by virtue of its structure and anatomy, does not lend itself to ringing. It seems to me and to others concerned about the balance of wild life that there should be some control over interference with a declining bat population. For this reason we propose that before people are able to ring bats they should be required to possess a licence given by the Nature Conservancy Council. The effect of ringing can be harmful, but the act of disturbance which accompanies ringing is often almost lethal to a number of colonies

We propose not merely to protect bats from ringing where they are already listed in Schedule I but to extend that protection to cover all species of bats so that those who wish to ring bats in the wild will have to have a licence from the council to do so.

I think that this will meet the wishes of those who served on the Standing Committee. I believe that it will also satisfy zoologists, who are becoming increasingly anxious about the ringing of bats and other wild creatures by individuals who are not necessarily competent to carry out the task

I have no objection to this amendment. It considerably extends the cover given to the greater horse-shoe bat to all bats. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) is obviously of the view that, unless one is an expert, it is difficult to identify bats. If people in an amateur way wish to ring bats they will have difficulty in identifying the greater horse-shoe bat. If a bat got into the hon. Gentleman's bedroom and he wanted to evict it, how would he go through the process of identification? He would have to use a certain amount of force if he wanted to get any sleep that night. How will he identify the intruder and what means would he use to evict it from his bedroom?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that interesting point. He should bear in mind that we propose to protect not only the greater horse-shoe bat but also the mouse-eared bat. If a bat were to get into my bedroom, I do not think I should be keen on ringing it. I might be keen on removing it, but nothing in the Bill would reduce my capacity to remove a bat—hether it be the greater horse-shoe bat or the mouse-eared bat—from the room.

Almost all bat species are declining in numbers and in recent years the decline has been marked. One reason is interference by people who, although extremely well-intentioned amateur naturalists of all kinds, may be inflicting harm on the future of bat species. It would be extremely helpful if those species were allowed to survive in the wild. If they are to do so, there must be a greater degree of security in the various roosts.

Nobody is suggesting that any action in respect of the removal of nuisance will be discouraged by the Bill, but the Bill will prevent disturbance, particularly in periods of hibernation when bats are most vulnerable. On advice from all knowledgeable quarters, I have come to the conclusion that this extension of the Bill is highly desirable. The clause, if amended in this way, will not reduce the capacity of individuals to sleep at night.

I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 27, leave out paragraph (c).

This is a consequential amendment. Hon. Members will recall that in considering Amendment No. 2 we dealt with the phrase "without reasonable excuse" in relation to Clause 2. The passing of that amendment means that paragraph (c) becomes a repetitious superfluity. I believe that the amendment also improves the language of the Bill, and I urge the House to agree to it.

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 33, leave out ' after consultation with ' and insert

With this amendment it will be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

The effect of the three amendments is to substitute "representation" for "consultation" in line 33 and to omit the two references to Section 12 in lines 39–41. The reason is that the Government consider "representation" to be more appropriate than "consultation". It should be for the Nature Conservancy Council to take the initiative and to set the order-making procedure in motion rather than the other way round. The arrangements and subsequent consultations which would take place with other persons and bodies are provided for in Clause 14. If the amendment is accepted, later references to section 12 become redundant. Indeed they could be slightly confusing because they use the term "recommends".

The two associated amendments are drafting points, They do not affect the basic framework and I wish to emphasise that the position of the Nature Conservancy Council is not changed. While the Secretary of State may, but is not obliged to, make an order on the advice of the Council, he cannot make an order otherwise than on the Council's advice. I hope the House will be satisfied on that point.

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 43, leave out from "Act" to end of Clause.

If this amendment is approved, Clause 7 will be very much smaller but will lose nothing by the omission. It will provide a clearer and more concise presentation of the procedures for consultation leading to conservation which will apply if the Bill is enacted.

It is desirable to effect this amendment since Clause 7 is the most important provision in the Bill. Since it is the heart of the Bill, unnecessary clutter and superfluous verbiage is best avoided. The procedures established in the clause will be the most appropriate to the Bill, given the nature of the complex involved. Clarity is gained by the amendment and I hope that it will be agreed to.

I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 3, line 10, leave out sub section (1) and insert—

"(1) A licence may be granted to any person by the appropriate authority stipulated in the next subsection authorising that person, notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any order made under this Act, but subject to compliance with any specified conditions—

(a) for scientific or educational purposes or for the conservation of wild creatures to kill or take within a specified area by any specified means or to offer for sale or to sell or to have in his possession, any number of specified protected wild creatures;

(b) for the purposes of any specified zoological gardens or collection to take within a specified area by any specified means, or to offer for sale or to sell or to have in his possession, any number of specified protected wild creatures;

(c)for the purpose of marking or ringing to take within a specified area by any specified means any specified protected wild creatures or any other wild creatures being bats, to mark such protected wild creatures or other wild creatures being bats, or to attach to them any specified ring, tag or other marking device;

(d) for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease to kill or take protected wild creatures within a specified area by any specified means; or

(e) for scientific or educational purposes or for the conservation of plants to pick or uproot within a specified area by any specified means any plant of a specified species

In this subsection 'specified' means specified in the licence"

This amendment appears to be substantial. In fact, it makes only a few changes to the clause as originally proposed. The clause has been considered at length and with great care by a number of individuals to whom I wish to express gratitude. I take this opportunity of thanking Mr. Winser of Sherwood's, Mr. Sands of the Council for Nature, and that experienced doyen of the English Conservancy, the Earl of Cranbrook. The efforts of those individuals, assisted by many others, have made it possible for us to bring this amendment before the House. It makes remarkably few changes, but it clarifies the situation and provides a precision which is highly desirable in this part of the Bill.

I regret that Clause 8(1), as it was originally presented, contained the word "specified" 17 times. The clause is now to be improved, but I regret that the word "specified" will now be used 19 times instead of 17 times. Although the repetition is rather tedious, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government will agree that legal clarity requires that it be included in the Bill. I apologise to the House for this necessity, but it is unavoidable.

However, there is nothing else to regret in the amendment. It is an improvement to the clause and I hope that the House will accept it

It is extremely difficult when we read the amendment to interpret it in relation to the Bill as it stands. There seems to be minor changes of words which mean much the same thing. I am certainly prepared to take the hon. Gentleman's word that the amendment improves the phraseology of the Bill, but it will need an expert on drafting to interpret what has been done in this case.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I introduced an amendment in Committee on this clause to try to establish what the main duty of the Nature Conservancy Council was. I received a letter from one of his hon. Friends giving the reasons why that amendment was not accepted. My point still stands—hat this clause is a charter for experts and that it could be at the expense of nature in its wild and natural state. I should like the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind as we pass it.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. Perhaps there could be a danger, although the composition of the Nature Conservancy Council and the approach it adopts to its task suggests that the possibility is remote.

It might be for the benefit of the House if we specified what will be the licence provisions which will be administered by the Nature Conservancy Council. They will allow the carrying out of scientific and educational research and related activities. They will allow trading between scientific and educational establishments which have creatures superfluous to their needs, and this will reduce the demand for wild creatures taken from the wild. They will allow zoological gardens or wild life parks to possess and to trade in these creatures, and they will allow marking and ringing, which can serve an extremely useful purpose but which ought to be carired out in a responsible manner. They will allow plants to be picked and to be uprooted and they will allow action to be taken to prevent the spread of disease. The provision in the clause as it is proposed to be amended, is identical to the clause which was considered in Committee

It is essential to make sure that the licence arrangements provided in this clause are absolutely clear. I am persuaded that the amendment will provide the clarity which is required

I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 15, leave out

`section I, under section 4 or under section 5 of'

This is a slight amendment. The words in the clause as it stands are quite unnecessary, hence this proposed deletion. The sections which are deleted are those which provide grounds for offences under the Bill when it becomes an Act. It suffices, therefore, to mention only the Act itself, and not to list or name the sections within it.

I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 33, after ' anything ', insert which is'

With this we are to take Amendment No. 16

These two amendments are improvements in the language of the Bill. I need not speak at great length in commendation of that aim.

I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 41, leave out 'which is' and insert 'and may be'

I recognise that the use of "may be" twice in the same sentence may not be evidence of polished prose, but we note that the requirements of law are not necessarily the requirements of elegant language

As this clause stands, there would have to be a conviction before anyone could be apprehended, accosted or approached if he were suspected of committing an offence. That would put the cart before the horse, and would not be common sense. As it stands, the clause would put the forces of law or the occupier or owner of land in a quite absurd position. I am sure that the House would not wish to do that. The phrase involves a presumption which is best left for the courts to decide. To establish a sensible arrangement it will be necessary to have "and may be" instead of "which is".

I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 13, at end insert:

'and the forfeiture of anything capable of being used for the taking or killing of protected wild creatures found in the possession of that person '.

I consider that the courts should have the capacity to order the forfeiture of the equipment which is used in committing an offence under the Bill. I am not suggesting that the courts should automatically order forfeiture, but they should certainly have the option. Some people today make quite a lot of money out of trading in threatened species and it is reasonable that the instruments of their profit, if it is a profit made by an illegal action, should certainly be considered by the courts. If it is felt that further offences would be carried out if the individual continued to possess this equipment, the courts should be able to enforce the law by ordering that forfeiture.

Hon. Members can imagine the sort of equipment which may be used. It may be that it is simple and inexpensive apparatus, but it could be that it is apparatus which is not easily obtained and which is quite expensive. Whether or not it is easily obtained or expensive, if it is equipment which is used in the furtherance of an offensive action which could be extremely irresponsible in character, the courts should be able to take steps to see that the individual does not use that equipment again.

There is a parallel here with the powers of the court under the Firearms Act and the Badgers Act. It would be logical for that kind of power to be extended to the Bill. No one suggests that the courts should act in a Draconian way, but this is a necessary power if there is to be an adequate deterrent for the hooligans and the irresponsible in our society.

I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 5, line 21, after rare', insert

'either nationally or in local specified environments'.

I am aware that the promoter does not feel that these words are necessary. It was our opinion that Clause 7, which enables the Secretary of State to make a protection order or to specify creatures or plants in the specified areas, might be inconsistent with Clause 12. In Clause 7, such an area could range from a county to a coppice. The amendment recognises that it may be appropriate to protect species for local reasons

However, if the promoter can assure me that he sees no conflict here and that local areas such as small coppices and quarter-acre plots of land are not omitted by the wording in the clause, I should be prepared to accept that assurance.

I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) just as I am grateful for his interest in the Bill. I think that it would be wise for him to withdraw, or the House not to accept, the amendment. An earlier amendment to Clause 7 may mean that the basic point here is now covered. Clause 7 now says,

"…the Secretary of State…may…add any wild creature or plant"

to Schedule I or Schedule 2

"either generally or with respect to any area specified in such order".

It seems that there will be a capacity to provide the local protection which may be highly desirable. I see nothing in the Bill as it stands, or as one hopes it will stand, to diminish the capacity to provide the local protection which may be desirable, but it would be foolish at this stage to introduce more complexity.

One hopes that the Bill's contribution to the British environment will gradually increase, but it would be unwise to start off with a whole variety of arrangements for protection. I think that they should evolve rather than be provided from the outset. So while I entirely applaud the spirit and interest shown by the amendment, I believe that it would provide complexity and duplication which should be avoided, certainly in the initial stages.

I think that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has an important point. There are certain localities which harbour the kind of creatures with which we are concerned. I have in mind a rather scruffy little marsh near where I live which has recently been discovered to be one of the few places where the Scandinavian pipit comes. This may have happened only because of a particularly mild winter but various interests are now seeking to protect this marsh. Birds are not covered by the Bill, but the point is important. I hope that the promoter will bear that in mind as the Bill goes through its following stages.

I wonder whether I might help the House and explain why I think that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) would be wise to consider withdrawing the amendment. The amendment affects the passage requiring the Nature Conservancy Council to advise whether

"…any wild creature or plant has become so rare that its status as a British wild creature or plant is being endangered".

In other words, the matter is considered nationally. This provision therefore spells out the fact that rarity is a national matter rather than a local one.

I hope that I am the hon. Member's mind correctly when I say that the aim of the amendment is to give additional protection to a species which happens to be rare in a particular locality, even if relatively common elsewhere. But that is not our understanding of the general intention of the Bill. We understand that a species would be scheduled only if it were so rare nationally that its status as a British wild creature or plant was endangered.

The hon. Member's point is valid, but it is already covered. It is a good thing that we have this facility to make area orders. It adds flexibility to the Bill, although I think that it should be used sparingly. However, it might be appropriate when a species was in danger throughout the country although fairly common in one or two places. I am thinking here of the illustration given by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) of his local marsh, which would be covered by an area order. But it would damage the whole character of the Bill if this facility could be used for purely local rarities when the species itself was fairly common throughout the country.

There is a small drafting point. I never make much of drafting points, because I have always said that, if the drafting is wrong but the idea is right, the Government should help out with the drafting. However, as drafted, the amendment would not achieve the hon. Member's intention. It would still assess the status of a species on a national basis.

I am very grateful to the Minister and to the other hon. Members who have spoken. With the assurances that I have received, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 5, line 38, leave out "administrative".

When I looked at this clause after the Committee stage I was horrified to see a mixture of singular and plural tenses in both paragraphs, but I am advised that this is how it should be. Therefore, I do not now propose to amend the clause except to delete this one word.

I am advised and convinced that the word "administrative" is best avoided here. Hon. Members who represent county constituencies, as I have the privilege to do, will be aware that parish councils play a valuable, often invaluable, role within their local communities. Many of them have a responsibility for areas or sites of national interest. An example is the scientific value of Anston Stones Wood in my constituency, which is a concern of the Anston Parish Council. Hon. Members will be able to think of large numbers of similar examples from their constituencies or their own experience.

Parish councils or, if they emerge, neighbourhood councils and many other councils should have some rights under the Bill. Many of them would welcome the power to be involved in the Bill's operation. For this reason it would be wise to delete the word "administrative". We should then be making it plain that bodies without a great deal of administrative work can be involved. They may even be more appropriate than some authorities which are far more vital to the national economy.

The word is not essential anyway, but at least the amendment will draw attention to the wide interests which can be maintained under the Bill. It has also allowed me to pay tribute to the work of parish councils in this type of area, where their contribution is often invaluable and sometimes unique.

I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

With this we are to take the following amendments:

No. 22, in page 6, line 4, after "authorities", insert "landowners and occupiers".

No. 23, in line 8, after "authorities", insert "landowners and occupiers".

This amendment, which, as you have said, Mr. Speaker, is to be considered with Amendments Nos. 22 and 23, makes for a simplification of the requirement on the part of the Secretary of State to consult local authorities and other persons, and it removes some redundancy in the clause. I hope the House will take on board the fact that the requirement to consult remains but that the amendment simplifies the matter somewhat.

As drafted, the effect of the clause would be to oblige the Secretary of State, in the case of an order covering the whole country, to consult every local authority at county, district and parish levels. The amendment, on the other hand, would allow the consultations to be arranged through the local authority associations. The wording is similar to that used in the Local Government Act 1972. I believe that the new form of words will be adequate for orders covering parts of the country as well as the whole country.

In addition, the amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult such other persons and bodies as he sees fit. It might be appropriate to consult natural history societies which have detailed knowledge of the whereabouts of rare plants and animals, or in the case of species with a limited distribution, it might be appropriate to consult the landowners concerned. Where the distribution was more widespread, it would be impracticable to consult all landowners. The word "consult" implies that the body consulted must be given a reasonable time to comment.

I hope that with that assurance the House will accept that this is a sensible amendment and agree to its insertion in the Bill.

I tabled Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 in my name because I take the view that if it is proposed to make a protected area order the owners of the land concerned or the occupiers, who might be different if it is a landlord-tenant situation, should be consulted. I am not quite convinced that what is proposed is all that is necessary. although I accept from the Minister that the phrase "such other bodies" in his amendment covers the situation. It seems to me right that even if people are opposed to an order they should be consulted before it is made.

I agree with the Minister's comments about consulting local natural history societies. I have a good one in my constituency and it has been writing to me quite frequently about the Bill. People who have special knowledge of these matters are the obvious ones to consult, but surely the owner or occupier of land also has a right to be consulted.

I support Government Amendment No. 21. I do so because the conditions which apply under the clause as drafted will present the Secretary of State with an appalling task, particularly if a general order of protection is under consideration. It could be possible for the postage bill in respect of consultation of a general nature to be absolutely colossal. It could present the Department with an intolerable workload, and a lot of it might be utterly unnecessary.

11.45 a.m.

It is wise to ensure that there is an adequate degree of flexibility within the arrangements for consultation. The amendment will ensure that there is that degree of flexibility and that it will be accompanied by reasonable clarity. I am happy to endorse the Minister's comments and to commend the amendment to the House. I think that it will provide the flexibility and clarity that is required and will allow the Secretary of State to carry out such consultations as appear wise.

If one accepts that view, it will go a long way towards meeting the desire of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) who, quite properly, thinks that there should be a capacity to consult the landowner or occupier of the land in question. Nothing in the Government's amendment will prevent reasonable and responsible consultation of that kind, but it will mean that unnecessary approaches are avoided. Farmers and landowners frequently tell me that they are overburdened with paperwork. I do not know whether that comment is justified, but it is desirable to avoid unnecessary burdens. Farmers and landowners will no doubt welcome the opportunity to give their views but they will I am sure welcome the avoidance of unnecessary correspondence, and that may not be possible if the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight are accepted. I therefore support the Government amendment and hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree not to move the amendments that he has tabled.

I think that the difference between the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), on the one hand, and the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and the Government, on the other hand, lies in the wording which in the Bill as it stands says that the Secretary of State "shall consult" whereas the Government's amendment says "as he thinks fit". Perhaps the Minister will try to narrow the gap which seems to exist between those two phrases.

The right hon. Gentleman seemed to say that the amendment includes consultation with occupiers or landowners, and no doubt farmers too, if the need arose. I presume that it would be possible for the landowner or occupier to consult the Secretary of State in the first place, and that the Secretary of State would feel bound to take notice of his views. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position a little more so that we can be more satisfied about the whole matter.

The effect of the two amendments in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) would be to oblige the Secretary of State to consult landowners and occupiers before making an order and to give them an opportunity to submit objections or make representations. I presume it is intended that the consultations shall be limited to owners and occupiers on whose land the creatures or plants are to be found, otherwise the provision would be too wide. The amendments as drafted do not meet the case, but I merely inform the hon. Gentleman of that and take no great point on it.

On the substantive point, I have no doubt that it would be right to consult landowners and occupiers, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be done. A statutory requirement that the Secretary of State must consult all such persons before making an order would, however, make the working of the arrangements far too rigid. Incidentally, I am advised that the information about the whereabouts of rare animals and plants is very good indeed. I do not, however, believe that it is so perfect, particularly about the more mobile animals, that we can be sure of locating every owner who has them on his land.

It may help the hon. Gentleman if I say that the Nature Conservancy Council intends to write to landowners and occupiers who are known to have a protected species on a site of special scientific interest. The value and importance of the role they play in conserving our native flora and fauna are fully appreciated. I am sure that active co-operation will continue in the future. The basic point is that it would be far too rigid and far too impracticable to consult every landowner and every occupier.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the principle of my amendment is very much the same as his, namely, that all those who should be consulted will be consulted. I hope that he will give the Secretary of State, who clearly cares as much as does the hon. Gentleman on this point, sufficient flexibility rather than tying his hands and making the scheme unworkable.

I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 6, line 26, leave out from 'growing' to end of line 28.

The amendment is a further removal of unnecessary words. There is no point in retaining the words which it is proposed to delete because that would involve retaining a degree of complexity which is best avoided. The words appear to be not merely a definition but an addition of a condition to a definition in a way which is probably most undesirable. I am sure that where licence is given to an individual to tag, take, destroy or sell, for whatever purpose, it will be stipulated that the licence is in no way an authorisation to an individual to enter land which belongs to another person or another company. Therefore, in no way, even if the amendment is made, will there be a provision of relief from an act of trespass.

I hope the House will accept that the definition is considerably improved by the amendment and that it will in no way encourage, promote or make easier an unlawful action.

I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 6, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert:

`"local authority' means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales—

(i) a county council, the Greater London Council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or a parish or community council:

(ii) a joint planning board (within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971), a special planning board (within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972) or a National Park Committee (within the meaning of paragraph 5 of the said Schedule 17) on which any of the authorities mentioned in subparagraph (i) above is represented; or

(iii)the Council of the Isles of Scilly; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, a regional, islands or district council;

This is a purely drafting amendment. We need to tidy up the definition of "local authority". The precise definition of a joint planning board, a special planning board and a national parks committee will be achieved by reference to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Local Government Act 1972.

The term "joint board" in the original clause, I am advised, is imprecise and appears to serve no useful purpose, and should therefore be omitted.

I assume that the amendment will make quite clear that the Peak Park Board and the Lake District Board, which are separate bodies, will now be covered by this wording?

I understand so.

I am delighted to support the Government's amendment. I am extremely grateful to the Department for providing it. When we considered the matter before the Standing Committee sat, I was horrified to find that we had omitted to include a reference to the Isles of Scilly. An amendment was made to put that right, and we had the opportunity to express apologies to the Isles of Scilly for overlooking their existence.

Even with that amendment it was clear that the clause which left Standing Committee was not perfect. At that time I looked forward to the Department's providing a clear and proper definition. That is done by the amendment which my right hon. Friend has moved, and I am most grateful to him. I shall be extremely pleased if the House approves the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 7, line 4, after means ', insert:

With this we shall discuss Government Amendments Nos. 27, 30 and 31. I believe I am right in saying that there is a misprint.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The misprint to which you refer is the word "any" at the end of line 4 of page 7 of the latest print of the Bill. That word should not be there. In moving the amendment I encounter a personal problem. I am never quite certain whether the correct pronounciation is "liken" or "litchen". However, on the basis that we can each please ourselves, I shall use the less usual pronounciation but the euphonious one of "litchen".

The amendments are intended to make it clear that the definition of "plant" includes lichen but excludes fungus and alga. As it stands, the definition is ambiguous because a lichen is a composite of fungus and alga although readily distinguishable from either.

I was not present, but I gather that the discussions in Committee were somewhat clouded by this ambiguity. Since then the Nature Conservancy Council has considered the matter further and obtained fresh evidence from the British Lichen Society and elsewhere. As a result, it now recommends that lichens should be protected by the Bill. Their growth rate is slow; they cannot easily be reproduced. Some species are rare, and some are exploited for dye-making and perfumes.

I understand that it was the original intention that lichens should be included as plants.

I am glad to see this series of amendments. I asked in Committee about what I used to call "liken", but what I am prepared to call "litchen", because I wanted to clear up a rather important matter. It seemed to be true that the lichens were plants of great importance scientifically and otherwise. They may be regarded as playing an important part in the protection of our health, because they are valuable indicators or monitors of the state of the atmosphere in different areas, and they are so regarded by health inspectors and others. This is becoming a matter of increasing interest and one is concerned to ensure that there should be proper forms of protection and that the lichen should not be condemned to obscurity

12 noon.

I welcome the amendments. There are still problems. Definition is a difficult matter, because one spills into the area of algae. Some of those who have been in touch with me are concerned about whether we are right to exclude algae, as we do by this definition. I gather that the problem of definition is acute and that it is almost impossible to separate algae. That may well be true. Classification and identification are difficult.

I hope that those concerned, the Nature Conservancy Council and others, will con. tinue their studies of this area, because that may mean that eventually we shall find a more detailed and delicate classification to deal with the problems that still arise.

When I heard the Minister say that the growth rate was slow, I thought for a moment that perhaps I was in another debate and that he was talking about the present Government's industrial record. But he was talking about lichens—prefer to pronounce the word as though it were spelt "litchens"—hich are important to some parts of the United Kingdom, especially the west coast of Scotland, where they are still used commercially in small amounts for dyeing tweed, particularly crottle, which gives the brown dye. So it is worth discussing lichens. I notice that the Minister had no hesitation about the pronounciation of algae which I usually pronounce as though it were spelt "alji", which has nothing to do with Algy who met a bear—

"The bear was bulgy and the bulge was Algy".

I am sure that these amendments will improve the Bill, and I have no objection to them.

I rise to offer my thanks to my right hon. Friend and the Department. In Committee we feared that at this point we had come against an almost insuperable problem, that of definition. We seemed to need a more authoritative resolution of the problems presented by classification of these species. It is almost as difficult to decide on classification as on pronounciation. I am delighted that we have had this resolution of the problem because it may well be of increasing value as the years pass.

I am pleased that we have found a way out for lichens. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) spoke of the contribution that lichens can make as an indicator of atmospheric health. They serve the purpose for the atmosphere in some areas that the canary served for the traditional pit. This may become an increasingly useful role as the years pass.

I was not aware of the importance of lichens in dyeing. I was extremely interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), who said that certain tweeds were dyed by the use of extracts derived from lichens. That little gem of information may well he noted if anybody ever reads our debate in many years' time. I hope that those who do will see lichens, and the lichens will be revealing a healthy atmosphere and that tweeds will still be dyed by derivatives of these species.

I am delighted to see these amendments. They will improve the Bill, and I hope that the House will accept them.

I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 7, line 7, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 8.

I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 29.

These amendments will result in the definition of a protected plant being

"a plant specified in Schedule 2 to this Act"

and the definition of a protected wild creature being

"a wild creature specified in Schedule 1 to this Act found living wild, and includes the eggs, larvae or pupae of any such wild creature."

As hon. Members can see, the definitions remain very clear. The words that it is proposed to delete are quite unnecessary.

I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 7, line 30, at end insert:

'(aa) no poison or poisonous substance other than cyanide gas was used; and '.

This brings us to Clause 16, in some ways a more controversial clause than those we have discussed so far. The amendment would amend the Badgers Act and permit the killing of badgers within the restrictions laid down.

I at once declare my constituency interest. The small area specified by the Minister in Committee, between the M4 and the M5 and the rivers Severn and Little Avon, is in my constituency. Incidentally, it is also where I live. My badger constituents, if I may put it that way, and my badger neighbours will be the first to be poisoned if the clause is passed unamended. I am sure that I speak for all my human constituents when I say that we hate the necessity for the clause but clearly recognise that it is necessary.

The reason why we are first on the list is the high incidence of bovine tuberculosis, which Ministers have satisfied themselves and me is carried by the badgers. The badgers themselves suffer from it as much as cattle do.

Nevertheless, my constituents are concerned that the minimum damage should be done to badgers and other wild life as a result of actions under the clause. We should like not only the smallest number of badgers but the smallest number of other creatures to die. That aim requires two things to follow.

The first is that the clause should take effect as soon as possible and that the work should begin as soon as possible so as to minimise the area over which it is necessary, and the Bill should be amended to enable it to take effect rather more quickly than was suggested in Committee. Secondly, we want to be sure that as far as possible no other wild life suffers by reason of the type of poison used. In Committee the Minister said that cyanide gas was the best and most humane method and that it was the only method that the Ministry intended to use. We therefore suggest that the powers under the Bill should be limited to this substance and that the Ministry should be permitted to license only killing by means of cyanide gas. It is important that the clause should be as limited as possible.

I can appreciate the feelings of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) and his interest in the clause. I am pleased to note that he accepts the principle behind the clause, namely, that action should be taken. I can identify myself with his concern that any method of killing should be as humane as possible. I therefore have some sympathy with the amendment. Its purpose is to place beyond doubt the principle that unsuitable or cruel poisons could not be used against the badger even under cover of a licence issued by the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Acceptance of the amendment would not prevent my right hon. Friend from giving the authorisation he intends to give in suitable circumstances, where the destruction of badger colonies is essential to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis. Gassing with cyanide is widely held by experts to be the poison of choice. The experts also believe that force pumping into the set is generally the best method of application. There are some responsible persons who believe that other gases, for instance carbon monoxide, might be equally or more suitable.

Poisons other than cyanide may in future become available and prove to be more efficient, merciful or humane than cyanide gas or carbon monoxide. Clause 16 would allow my right hon. Friend to license the use of such substances. May I remind the House of an assurance given in Committee by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who noted that the clause had been provided so as to allow the use of poisons other than cyanide. He said:

"it would be our intention to use these powers only to permit gassing—at any rate unless and until some unquestionably even more humane and effective method of control became available."—[Official Report. Standing Committee C, 5th February 1975; c. 27.]

To rely on that assurance and allow the clause to go forward as it is would give the best of all possible worlds. Only cyanide would be used until we were sure that something more merciful and equally effective or more effective and equally merciful, was available. This would leave us free to change over quickly to the better technique without having to obtain legislative authority.

There is a technical difficulty with the amendment in that it would prevent the use of any poison other than cyanide gas. I am advised that what happens when cyanide is pumped into a set is that, by means of a current of air, a fine powder is forced through the underground chambers. This, in contact with the moisture in the air or in the soil, promptly gives rise to the cyanide gas. As drafted, the amendment might prevent this efficient and humane technique from being used because it would forbid the employment of the powder by means of which cyanide gas would be conveyed into the underground sets.

Although we sympathise with the hon. Member's intention, I urge him to agree to leave the Ministry free, with all the safeguards involved, with the licences and the assurances we have given, to use other means if such means become available in future and if they are even more humane than cyanide gas.

I endorse the comments of the Minister of State. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) and his hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) and Devizes (Mr. Morrison) for tabling this amendment. The hon. Member will be aware that we have tabled a Third Reading motion because we believe that this is one of the principal items which the House should consider in a brief debate on Third Reading.

On the narrow point, I commend what has been said by my hon. Friend. It would be highly desirable for the Ministry to have flexibility. We are aware that the use of cyanide gas will dominate the approach in the near future. However, if science produces a substance which provides effective destruction but is more humane and may be preferable to the use of cyanide—which in certain sets might not be entirely humane—the Ministry should have the ability to use that substance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will accept that point.

12.15 p.m.

This is a matter for regret although I believe that the Ministry policy is wise, despite the fact that it has come in for a good deal of criticism. I do not think that the Ministry has come in for as much criticism as I have, which is why I hope that the House will allow me to say a few words on Third Reading. I hope that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, whose constituency I visited last year, will agree that the approach of the Ministry has been responsible and that that degree of responsibility coupled with humanity should be allowed to continue in the months ahead.

In view of the assurances which have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 8, line 11, at end insert Glanville Fritillary, Melitaea Cinxia

I appreciate that it is in the interests of natural history societies and others to seek to obtain as many additions as possible to the schedule. I have resisted the temptation to put forward some additions although a number of plants and species have been recommended to me as being worthy of addition. I have cut that number down to three. This particular species, Glanville Fritillary, is unique to the Isle of Wight. I referred to it in the Second Reading debate and have been since corrected because some of the information I gave was not in order. I said that it derived from the Continent, but I am assured that this is misleading.

The species is resident on the island throughout the year and there is no evidence of its connection with its continental counterpart, which appears to be genetically distinct. This means that there are no other specimens of Glanville Fritillary, which accentuates the need for its protection. I understand that certain of these fritillary are being bred at Brockenhurst. The grubs were removed from the island for the purpose. I think that they are to be returned. At present two sites in my constituency are protected by National Trust byelaws. and I believe that a third may now be coming into protection because it has recently been acquired by one of the local authorities which, we hope, may help.

There is little bite to the protection afforded. Apart from those who collect it, the species suffers from destruction of its feed plant by coastal erosion, from which we have suffered considerably. I realise that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) does not consider that the species is at risk at the moment. However, I hope he will be able to allow this addition to the schedule.

We were all interested to hear the account by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) of the Glanville Fritillary, Militaea Cinxia. I hope that the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) now agrees with this pronunciation. He uses the new pronunciation while I use the old. I said that we were grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, and so we should be, because I understand that, in these islands at any rate, the species in question is found virtually only on the Isle of Wight. My information is that it is to be found only in the southern part of the Isle of Wight. I am told that a number of colonies are to be found on the cliff slopes and in the valleys.

The question whether we should give the species the protection envisaged by Schedule I leads to a consideration of what the species and the criteria adopted under Schedule I should be. The species listed are limited. They are intended to include those species at present needing special protection, and the protection measures in the Bill are quite inflexible: they provide either complete protection or none at all. Therefore, only those species which are truly endangered should be added to Schedule 1. I hope that that is common ground between both sides of the House.

The question is whether the Glanville Fritillary is an endangered species within the definition. I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that it is vulnerable to collection, due, I gather, to the tendency of its larvae to congregate together. However, we have gone into this matter and there seems to be practically no evidence of collection. Therefore I must, rather regretfully, part company with the hon. Gentleman in his assessment of the situation.

We have consulted the Nature Conservancy Council on the point and it believes that the species is not currently in danger. If that is so, and in view of the inflexible effect of Schedule 1, there seems to be an overwhelming case for saying that we should not add the Glanville Fritillary to the list in Schedule 1. I think that that must follow from the advice we have received. Accordingly, I advise the House, a little regretfully perhaps, to resist the amendment.

I, too, think that it would be unwise to include the Glanville Fritillary in Schedule I Only one butterfly is listed in the schedule, although hon. Members will be aware that there is a number of species of butterfly and that they are diminishing in numbers. However, it was felt necessary to include one butterfly in the schedule to emphasise the principle that rare creatures of this kind could be covered by the Bill. The point is adequately made by the inclusion of the Large Blue Butterfly in the schedule. If we were to increase the number of butterflies included in the schedule, we should be in danger of making the Bill excessively and unacceptably complex. As I said on an earlier amendment, we need to keep the Bill as simple as possible and to keep the schedule as short as is reasonable.

In Committee the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) drew attention to the Glanville Fritillary species. I am aware that it is not abundant even in the Isle of Wight, which is its only habitat in the British Isles. However, the point made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government is valid—that although the species is restricted to the island, it is not in any danger there. I accept that the gregarious habits of the Glanville Fritillary larvae mean that it is vulnerable and could be collected, but it is not collected.

If the Glanville Fritillary were included in the schedule, largely because of the interest, concern and initiative of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, this might create confusion because hon. Members would feel it necessary to press the claims of a substantial number of other butterfly species in order to have their local interests properly served. It is clear that a number of other species are in greater danger and are more vulnerable than the Glanville Fritillary, and it would perhaps be unjust to those species if we were to include the Glanville Fritillary and not them.

If there were serious threats to the Glanville Fritillary from the commercial collectors, and if it became even more scarce, the Nature Conservancy Council would, I am sure, bear in mind the hon. Member's interest and would draw the attention of the Secretary of State to its diminishing numbers and recommend its inclusion in Schedule 1. I hope that it never comes to that. I hope that the Glanville Fritillary will continue to add interest and variety to the fauna of the Isle of Wight and that there will be no need to include it in the Bill. If there is ever a need to include it, I trust that the arrangements we have approved in earlier clauses will be of substantial benefit to the Glanville Fritillary and to the island.

However, if the amendment were accepted we should be doing an injustice to other species. We should perhaps irritate naturalists in other areas and we should certainly be increasing the complexity of the Bill in a way which could be prejudicial to its acceptance and to the way in which it is understood in the country.

I appreciate what the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) has said. I realise that there must be great pressure on him, which he has resisted, to add further species to the schedule. I accept that the Glanville Fritillary is not under extreme pressure, but I must pay tribute to my local history society to whose vigilance the species owes its protection. We are not sure whether that vigilance will continue when some of the leading lights in the society pass on. I hope that it will.

I shall not press the amendment because I should not wish to offend the hon. Member for Rother Valley, who has done a marvellous job in promoting the Bill. The question of badgers will arise on Third Reading, when I am sorry to say I shall not be present. I am sad to hear that the hon. Member has been attacked by animal lovers on this subject. I shall defend him to the utmost as I, too, am a great lover of badgers.

I am a little sad about asking leave to withdraw the amendment because, for once, I seem to have got the drafting right—and I have not been criticised for my pronunciation of Melitaea Cinxia.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 8, line 11, at end insert Whales, dolphins and porpoises'.

I hope it will be agreed that the amendment deals with a matter of great importance and raises a number of issues to which consideration should be given. I realise that the amendment introduces a new dimension in more ways than one to the list of creatures included in the schedule. There could hardly be a greater difference in size between the creatures mentioned in the schedule and the whale.

I wish to, clarify the position concerning the Bill's application to our territorial waters. I hope to obtain an assurance that it is intended to include the territorial waters within the Bill and that, either today or at a later date, creatures of the kind mentioned in the amendment will be covered.

12.30 p.m.

It can be clearly established that not only are the whale, the porpoise and the dolphin under severe attack but, what is more to the purpose of the Bill, that they are under attack within our territorial waters. Perhaps the Latin name cetacea should be included in the wording of the amendment, but no doubt that can be included later if the amendment is accepted.

There is common concern about the danger to whales and allied creatures in the sea. This matter has been taken up and special international conventions have sought to protect these creatures, alas not successfully. But the record of our Government has been good. We have withdrawn our whaling throughout the world. At one time that was a considerable trade, even from Britain. There is anxiety especially about Norwegian whalers which are operating in Scottish and Shetland waters. There is evidence of whaling going on in that area and there is also evidence of landings being made, legally or illegally, in some of our seaport towns in Shetland and Scotland. Evidence is also to be found in Norwegian records of the practice of whaling in Shetland waters. That is not a matter that lies wholly outside our control, although I realise how limited is our power.

By delving into old records, one may find certain historic Acts that relate to whaling, Acts which reserve to the Sovereign the ownership of whales caught in our territorial waters. Whether that can be regarded as an adequate safeguard

for the whale is uncertain. There is some doubt about the extent of the application of the Acts, and I hope that the amendment may provide an opportunity. now or later, for an examination of the position.

The creatures that are included in the schedule are of a limited character and, except among experts and those who are extremely knowledgeable, do not exactly warm the heart. The whale, the dolphin and the porpoise, on the other hand. are creatures about which there is enormous concern and interest in this country, as has been demonstrated during the past year or two when they have been under discussion. The inclusion of my amendment would be a valuable step forward, although I recognise the limited extent to which the powers can be applied.

I introduce the amendment partly with the desire to encourage further consideration of this matter either now or later or even after the Bill has been passed. I invite comments from my right hon. Friend and from others on the possibility of taking a modest step towards the more effective protection of these creatures.

I commend the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) on introducing the amendment and raising a subject which needs to be discussed in the House. I recently put down three or four Parliamentary Questions on the protection of whales and I am interested in the amendment.

If it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, I can draw a precedent for his attempt to extend the Bill to include territorial waters. The Sex Discrimination Bill also extends to territorial waters, not in connection with frogmen or frog women but concerning activities on oil rigs. There is a precedent there if the hon. Gentleman likes to take it.

A year or two back I was concerned with the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill—now enacted—which specifically dealt with whales. I do not know whether the author of that Bill would he keen to have yet another amendment added to the Long Title, in addition to an amendment to the Badgers Act.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter and I hope that the Minister of State will note what he said. There is a convention on whales in session at present to which the Minister has sent a representative. One hopes that the spokesman for the Department will stress that the protection of whales needs to be extended beyond the normal conventions of whaling countries and put under the control of the United Nations.

I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) in support of the amendment, but I feel that he may consider his amendment unnecessary in the light of the facts.

The Nature Conservancy Council has advised us that there is no evidence to indicate that where these creatures are normally found in British waters they are endangered. The safeguards which my hon. Friend seeks are already embodied in legislation and in the procedures. The general feeling is that no action is necessary in connection with the British fishing limits and that all endangered species, including cetacea, are protected by regulations of the International Whaling Commission. The fishing limits also include the territorial waters in the areas that are already covered. My hon. Friend has mentioned, for example, Scotland and the Shetlands.

The fact is that the United Kingdom is an active member of the International Whaling Commission although we ceased whaling in 1963. The adoption of a 10-year moratorium was fully considered by the commission in two successive years but was rejected on the consensus of scientific advice. That matter was not voted on when the commission met in 1974 as an amendment proposal was accepted which will mean automatic total protection for any whale stock which, according to scientific advice, falls below a healthy level.

I think I can give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks, but I must point out that what he is seeking to do is already covered and that his amendment may be considered unnecessary.

My hon. Friend questioned the legality of the Norwegians and other countries fishing in certain areas. That is a matter which can be stopped only by inspection. Such inspection is normal in our fishing grounds. The fact is that what my hon. Friend seeks to do is already covered.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that further examinations would be carried out by suitable scientific bodies if evidence were to be presented of Norwegian whaling in Shetland waters and if it were felt that there was a danger of the further development of such whaling?

I think that the answer would be a clear "Yes". All these matters are the concern of the fishing authorities and the fishing inspectors can exercise their authority. The point I was making was that such activity is illegal anyway and that new protection, such as my hon. Friend has in mind. is unnecessary. However, I can give him the assurance he seeks.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to report any progress that has been made at the current international conference on whaling?

Without notice I am unable to give any assurance. I will look into that matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Little research has been done internationally on the smaller cetaceans such as dolphins and porpoises. However, a report of the conference on smaller cetaceans held in Montreal in April 1974 is to be published this summer by the Fisheries Research Board for Canada. The only cause for concern appears to be the by-catch of dolphins in the tropical Pacific tuna fishery. Steps are being taken to develop a net which will allow dolphins to escape if they are accidentally taken. I emphasise the point that dolphins and porpoises are covered by the regulations of the International Whaling Commission.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) for tabling the amendment. I join my hon. Friend the Minister in asking my hon. Friend not to press the amendment but I believe that he has done the House a Service in bringing the matter to the attention of the Government, and possibly to the attention of the public.

It is now clear that marine creatures which are threatened can be protected by their insertion in Schedule 1. Having that situation made clear has been very valuable and useful. None the less, I have some anxieties. My hon. Friend has spoken of international agreements, but one of the difficulties about whaling is that a number of countries are not parties to the agreements. One or two of the nations which are involved in whaling activities seem to a number of people, and certainly to myself, to behave in a way which is not entirely in the interests of conservation and in a way which does not merit the approval of other nations which are parties to the agreement.

12.45 p.m.

I have been fascinated by information given to me on this matter. It appears that the Statute De Prerogativa Regis, which I believe was enacted in the seventeenth year of the reign of Edward II, means that all whale-like creatures are the property of the Sovereign. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) has drawn our attention to debates which were held about three years ago when we tried to sort out some of the ancient forest laws. I do not think that consolidation in any way removes the right of the Sovereign to whales or wallenas, as they were called in earlier days. It may be that that statute is still active.

There has been a great deal of discussion and concern in Parliament—and there may be more in the country in the forthcoming weeks, about the issue of sovereignty. Therefore, it might be a little relevant if we were to assert that the prerogativa regis served a useful purpose and should be activated. If we were to say that all cetacea caught in territorial waters—and certainly the territorial waters of England and Wales—were the property of the Sovereign, the Norwegians and others would not be particularly keen to take them as there would be profit for the Sovereign or for the State and none for overseas whalers.

In those circumstances it may well be that whales have dual protection. There may well be a capacity for whales, porpoises and cetaceans of all kinds to be included in Schedule I if they happen to be under severe threat. Of course, it is to be honed that that situation will never arise. We could demand that the statement of prerogativa regis of the fourteenth century should now apply, thus reducing the capacity of the individuals involved in the trade to make any profit.

Having at least one assurance and one rather romantic possibility, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields will accept my thanks for having raised the matter. I hope he will agree that the Minister's assurances are valid and that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has said but I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied. We must all be very concerned about this situation. As I understand it, the International Whaling Convention regulations do not extend to dolphins and they do not regulate whaling operations in many parts of the world, including the Arctic. I am not sure whether they are fully operative in Shetland waters. I still urge my hon. Friend to ask for further thought to be given to this situation. It is a matter of deep and continuing concern.

We are all aware, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) has said, that the most important countries of all in terms of whaling are not parties to the convention. Of course, the old Act to which he has rightly referred does not apply to Scotland. Scotland was a separate kingdom at the time that that legislation was passed. Here we have an area of considerable public concern. That concern might encourage not the whales to swallow up all the other creatures that we are seeking to protect in the schedule but rather the bringing about of a new level of interest in an area that we are all most anxious should be publicly supported throughout the country.

In view of the modest assurance which we have had from my hon. Friend, for which I thank him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 8, line 28, at end insert:

' Field Cow Wheat, Melampyrum Arvense'

I hope that my pronunciation is correct. I understand that it is also known in some circles as Purple Cow Wheat. As I have taken some advice from the promoter of the Bill, I hope in this instance that my amendment may prove acceptable.

This plant is under attack. I gather that there is only one site in my constituency and one other elsewhere in the United Kingdom where it is to be found.

I shall not take up the time of the House any further. I move this amendment and hope that it will be accepted.

The on. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has his drafting right and his pronunciation right. What is more, I have never had much of a quarrel with him about his amendments. However, there is a difficulty in this case which I shall explain in a moment. There always seems to be a difficulty.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the effect of the amendment would be to add field cow wheat to the list of protected plants in Schedule 2. It is certainly a rare plant. It is a species which occurs in such places as cornfield surrounds. It may be of interest to the House to know that it is thought to exist in only 10 places in the country—in Wiltshire, Isle of Wight, Essex and Bedfordshire. It is a very restricted plant.

There is evidence that it is declining both in numbers and in distribution. Here we come to the difficulty. The Nature Conservancy Council's advice is that the cause of the decline is almost certainly modern agricultural practice—ploughing close to hedges, the use of chemicals, and grain with fewer weed seeds. The Bill is not designed to provide protection against practices of that kind.

Clause 5 reads,

"If, save as may be permitted by or under this Act, any person without reasonable excuse picks, uproots or destroys any protected plant, he shall be guilty of an offence unless the picking, uprooting or destruction occurs as an incidental result, which could not reasonably have been avoided, of any operation which was carried out in accordance with good agricultural or forestry practice."

That is the dilemma. Although we would like to arrest the decline, the advice given to us by the Nature Conservancy Council is that the decline is due to modern agricultural practice. We would be in some difficulty, therefore, if we added it to the list in Schedule 2, which would then be in conflict with Clause 5.

This is rather more than a mere drafting consideration. It is a consideration

which perhaps goes to the root of the exceptions to the protection given by this Bill. Regretfully, therefore, I must advise the House to resist the amendment.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible to reconsider what he has just said.

My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) have presented the situation clearly. This plant is found in 10 places in Wiltshire. Isle of Wight, Essex and Bedfordshire, and it is declining very rapidly. There is no doubt that the overwhelming cause of the decline is changes in agricultural practice. However, I am told that at one station, whereas there were 250 plants in the 1950s, at the last count only a single plant remained.

This is the difficulty. We recognise that the Bill in no way reduces our capacity to produce food. It does not prevent good agricultural and forestry practice. But, as soon as we move from hundreds to a single plant, that plant becomes vulnerable, not to agriculture, with which we are not interfering, but to irresponsible collectors who will recognise that because it is very rare it has also become quite valuable. It is because I wish to see protection provided against other causes of decline than agriculture that I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.

When the hon. Gentleman first tabled his amendment, I had a word with my advisers, and I understand that no great exception would be taken to the inclusion of this species in the list in Schedule 2. I urge my right hon. Friend to take that point on board.

If my right hon. Friend still insists that he must resist the addition of Melampyrum Arvense to Schedule 2, then in the interests of the survival of the Bill as a whole I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will agree to withdraw his amendment. If that proves to be the position, I shall understand the hon. Gentleman's disappointment. I share it. We shall lose very little by the inclusion of this plant. I re-emphasise that if we add it to Schedule 2 we shall in no way be interfering with good agricultural and forestry practice. That will continue in the future as it has in the past. Even though it may represent a threat to the continued survival of the species, that has to be faced. Food has to be grown.

However, there may be other threats which have little to do with agriculture and forestry and which may be more akin to the irresponsible or crooked activities of individuals. If agricultural activities continue to exercise a savage threat to the future of the plant, it is the activities of those individuals which will have to be restrained to ensure that the species does not disappear entirely.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter.

:I have considerable sympathy with this amendment. It does not cover the Isle of Wight specifically. It covers other parts of the country where the plant grows. I have before me a picture of it which appears in Keble-Martin's "Concise British Flora".

The difficulty is that the plant happens to grow in cornfields. As the Minister said, there is a clause devoted to the continuance of good agricultural practice. However, this amendment would give some protection to the species if it happened to be growing outside the cornfields in non-arable areas. For that reason, what the Minister said may not be entirely true, because in such a case the amendment will not conflict with that clause. That is triggered off, in any case, when farming is carried out. This provision would afford some protection outside those areas.

I am not technically qualified to know whether this is an endangered species. We must go to the experts to discover that. However, perhaps the Minister will look at the amendment a little more sympathetically than he has done so far.

I hope that the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) will acquit me of not looking at the amendment sympathetically. On the contrary, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I fully understand it.

Field cow wheat is a declining species. In normal circumstances we would say that it was a candidate for protection, and I should like to help as much as I can. However there is one difficulty, about which I have already informed the House.

The problem might be met if I were to give an undertaking that if the hon. Gentleman withdrew the amendment at this stage we should look at the matter as sympathetically as we could, in the hope—I can go no further than that because I must look into the technical situation—that the amendment might be introduced in another place. I wonder whether that might meet the hon. Gentleman's point? I realise his disappointment. On any other terms I should have to resist the amendment. However, I should like to go some way along the road with the hon. Gentleman on this point.

Since I know little about the matter, I hesitate to intervene. However, I cannot accept the Minister's answer that there would be a conflict between Schedule 2 and Clause 5 if the amendment were accepted. It may be advisable for the mover of the amendment to accept the undertaking given by the Minister. I should not stop him from doing that.

It seems to me that if the plant is in danger of being eliminated as a result of ploughing closer to the hedges. the Bill will not prevent that, since Clause 5 specifies "good agricultural practice". Therefore, the Bill will not prevent the elimination of that plant. On the other hand, the elimination of the plant would be prevented as a result of the reason given by the promoter of the Bill. For instance, if a collector saw that good agricultural practice threatened a species, he could eliminate the species, and I should not think that the agricultural interests would be concerned about it.

I am grateful for the support given to the amendment, much of which was more learned than the reasons that I was able to produce when moving the amendment.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire. South (Mr. Cope). It seems to me that Clause 5 does not conflict with what we seek to do. However, since I have the backing of the promoter of the Bill, I accept the Minister's generous suggestion to look again at the matter. I hope that it will be possible to introduce an amendment in another place.

I hope to realise an ambition of putting legislation on to the statute book, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) for his support.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The next amendment will be No. 36, in page 8. line 35, at end add ' Wood Calamint, Calamintha Sylvatica'

I am tempted not to move this amendment. I have discussed the matter with the promoter of the Bill. Wood calamint grows only in my constituency. However, I do not think there is general approval that that species should be added to the schedule, since it is not considered to be under any threat. Although I have been asked to add wood calamint to the list, I am in agreement with its omission. Therefore I shall not move this amendment.

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

I am grateful for the co-operation of hon. Members in dealing with the Report stage of the Bill so thoroughly and so concisely. I regret to detain the House with further consideration of the Bill. However, there are good reasons why a little more time should be spent on it so that various positions can be clarified.

I apologise on behalf of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who is unable to be present. Yesterday evening he drew my attention to certain anxieties which the Scottish Law Society had expressed about the Bill. We received those views only yesterday. I have looked again at the Bill in the light of those points. However, as I am not a lawyer, I am not qualified to comment accurately on their anxieties. The decissions made by the House on Report may be helpful and welcome to the Scottish Law Society. I know that it was anxious about Clauses 4 and 5. However, I feel that there are adequate safeguards to resolve those anxieties. The society wished to see the deletion of Clause 6(c). We have done that this morning. I hope that the comments and decisions made and actions taken on Report will reassure the society that here Parliament is not presenting lawyers with heavy burdens.

I wish to speak on Third Reading because in recent months I have been bombarded with letters from people who are anxious about Clause 16 and about the Minister's policy of destroying badgers. I have received letters from people who are fond of and concerned about badgers. However, some of those people have written to me in terms which suggest that they were not in control of their emotions. Some of the writers were hysterical and angry, while the majority of them were not well informed. Indeed, judging by some of their remarks it appears that I devoted years of public life purely to securing the complete extinction of the badger from the British scene. One lady wrote to me a letter which suggested that I was disgusting and should be brought to public notice. I am happy to draw the attention of the House and the notice of the public to the fact that a lady from Ipswich wrote to me, regarding the Bill, in the following terms:

"I have never known anything so hypocritical in my life."

In her view, I am about to urge the Ministry of Agriculture to destroy every badger and presumably every other creature or wild species in this country. A campaign has been whipped up by a few individuals, some of them not unaccustomed to the media, including a noble Lord of the other place, who made some strong but inaccurate comments about the Bill. However he did not draw the attention of the public to the fact that not long ago in the other place he suggested that not only badgers but bats should be gassed. It hardly seems appropriate for that noble Lord to be criticising the small-scale destruction of badgers as provided by Clause 16.

The initiative which caused me so much work, and which stimulated a large number of people to write to me, came from an article published in the Daily Mail on 10th February. I see many inaccuracies in the national Press from time to time. However, I have never seen any article in a newspaper which contained so many inaccuracies in such a short space.

First, it was said in the article that we were going to drive the badger into extinction. Secondly, it was alleged that

the Minister was to gas badgers, with the implication that this would happen all over the country. Third, it was said that there was no evidence, or only extremely circumstantial evidence, that badgers carried disease. Fourthly, it was alleged that a small commercial lobby would like an open season declared on this shy woodland creature. The article said that badgers were used to make fur coats, clothes brushes and sporrans for the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. A few years ago there was a campaign whether the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders should continue to exist. I have no great anxiety either way, but I believe that that regiment should seek to use a plastic substitute. It is disgraceful that those of us who helped to secure the passage of the Badgers Act 1973 should now be accused of being tools for the commercial fur lobby.

An attack was then made on the Ministry of Agriculture. We all know that it is a tradition that civil servants cannot defend themselves, so that it is fair to say that the Ministry officials to whom I have spoken on this topic have not become evil sadists, as some people appear to believe.

We are told further in that article that badgers are very clean animals, and that when they cross areas where there are infected cattle germs get on to their feet—the implication being that this animal is so clean that germs could not get anywhere else but on their feet.

Mr. Willoughby, the writer of the article, goes on to say that the arrangement has been carefully calculated to destroy badgers in the current breeding season. In that article published on 11th February, he said that it was then the middle of the breeding season when females were busy with their litters and at their most defensive. It is now 18th April and I hope the Bill will be enacted, but obviously it will not receive Royal Assent for a number of weeks or even months. Therefore, it will he well beyond the breeding season before the destruction can take place.

Once again we have examples of sweeping inaccuracies in that newspaper article. The article concludes with these words:

"If the new law—ironically entitled the Wild Createures and Wild Plants Protection Bill—reaches the statute book it may write the tragic final chapter in the cruel persecution of the badger."

I took great exception to the article and telephoned the editor. He agreed to accept a letter which I sent him correcting the serious misconceptions promoted by that article. Unfortunately, the letter was never published. I believe that a letter from somebody connected with World Wildlife was published which corrected some of the inaccuracies. The gentleman in question did not consult me, and I do not regard that letter as an adequate substitute for a complete correction of the mischievious and inaccurate article—an article which has caused me a great deal of work. One lacks the resources to deal with heavy bombardments in correspondence, particularly when letters come from people who are not within one's constituency. If the Boyle Committee suggests improvement of the resources of hon. Members, I hope that the Daily Mail, having caused one hon. Member a tremendous amount of work, will not suggest that assistance to hon. Members is not necessary.

I have written to a number of journals and newspapers in response to mischievous and hysterical letters to give the basic facts. In certain parts of the country—areas within the South-West—ardgers have contracted bovine TB. It is in those areas that the problem is found, and nowhere else. The difficulty is that hysterical and inaccurate reports may well have caused people to destroy animals in other parts of the country where there is no problem. I should not be surprised to discover that, following the sensationalised treatment of this matter, farmers 100 or even 200 miles away from affected areas have destroyed badgers because of their quite unnecessary fears.

Bovine TB is a serious problem. To some extent it can be controlled in cattle because diseased cattle can be slaughtered. If we are to control the disease, serious reservoirs of infection in wild life may need to be dealt with and destroyed.

I understand that badgers in the South-West have been killed to stop the spread of the disease. That is a fact, and it was the situation before my Bill went into Committee. I attended a demonstration in Gloucestershire last year when the Ministry was destroying badgers by means which were legal. I had no criticism to offer of the Ministry at the time and I gave evidence in court when the court was considering a case in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and his officials were prosecuted. I offered no criticism at that time because officers of the Ministry were acting in the only legal ways available to them, but I suggested that I would be willing to help secure changes in the law which would allow Ministry officials to gas badgers by ways which are more humane than those which at present are legally available to them. Hence, when I presented this Bill the Ministry saw it as an opportunity to act in the earliest possible way to provide their officials with the capacity to behave rather more humanely than the law currently allows.

It is the destruction of badgers which is involved, and the badger is an attractive creature. I have for many years derived a great deal of pleasure from badgers, as my recently published book demonstrates. I hope that those who have written abusive letters on the subject at least will be prepared to purchase my book.

Hear, hear.

I would not mind if my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) purchased it, too. However, I am not indulging in a commercial break.

The fact remains that the badger is an attractive, fascinating creature and provides many naturalists, amateur and professional, with a great deal of pleasure. All those people are extremely regretful that this destruction has to take place. The pity is that some have refused to face facts.

One gentleman, for example, expressed the anxiety that Ministry officials might spoon-feed gas rather than use power-pumping methods. But that gentleman has now changed his view and suggests that homoeopathic medicine should be practised. I am not an expert in medical matters, but the principle of homoeopathic medicine comprises the administration of minute doses of that which in a normal person may reveal symptoms of the disease. If that is the case, I wonder how it can be regarded as practicable for Ministry officials to become practitioners in the art of veterinary homoeopathic medicine in administering minute doses of drugs to wild animals. I have often fed badgers with bread and honey and chocolate drops, but I have never indulged in administering or attempting to administer to them drugs used by a practitioner of veterinary homoeopathic medicine. Suggestions of that kind are very damaging indeed, because they lead the farmer, the realist and the sensible person to believe that one has to be a crank to be interested in the environment and wild life. Unfortunately, there are a lot of cranks in this field.

When I first entered the House in 1970 one of my hon. Friends said to me "You want to stay clear of all animal welfare, and all natural history activities, because if you enter that field your life will be made intolerable by bombardments from cranks". It is a fact that one does get bombarded by cranks. It is often a regrettable bombardment, because hon. Members who seek to ensure that there is protection for the environment and that there is an advance in our arrangements for animal and wild life are up against the fact that hundreds of people will write to them as soon as an initiative is taken to complain that they are miserable, wretched, had and evil as they do not go far enough.

Hon. Members have to be realistic. It is a pity that there is not a greater degree of realism outside this House among the individuals who are interested in this matter. I am sorry to go on about this, but in recent months, my mail bag has been so heavy that I have become exceptionally sensitive and rather sore about the attitudes displayed by individual correspondents.

The fact remains that interest and initiative in this House is as marked as, and perhaps more marked than, it is outside in this area. The individuals who are prepared to be extremist, and who are prepared to make way-out demands—some times of the most unreasonable kind—ought to realise that this House cannot act beyond the bounds of realism.

We have acted realistically as far as this Bill is concerned. It is an extremely useful measure, and although those who object to the gassing of badgers in the few areas of the South-West which are involved may remain dissatisfied and upset, I hope that they will recognise that the Bill fills an important and quite wide gap in our conservation law. That being so, I hope, despite their own disappointment and distress, that they will feel that the Bill is an important step forward and one against which they ought not to continue to campaign.

Someone once told me that a politician was a man who spent his life trying to make sure that he had a big funeral and that one judged another politician by the length of the obituary notice that he received. There may be an element of truth in that, in so far as many politicians are concerned who wish to ensure that at least a reference is made in the history books of future centuries to their lives or their activities. However, the best memorial may not lie in references in history books but in the realities which will apply in the future.

Hon. Members—not large in number, perhaps—who have put a little effort into this Bill may well feel that if a dormouse sleeps in a wintry wood in Bedfordshire, if a Lady's Slipper is to be found in more than single numbers in Yorkshire or if a Natterjack Toad croaks in the evening in East Anglia in a century's time, that will be an appropriate memorial to a little of our time and a little of our effort in 1975.

I commend the Bill to the House. I should like to thank hon. Members for their support and thank the advisers who have given me so much assistance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) mentioned public criteria or the assessment of the value of a politician. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that, whatever he thinks about the work we do in politics and in public life, it is a sobering thought that when so many of us pass away the first question people ask is "What was his majority?" That should help us to a realistic assessment of where we all stand.

However, I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly on Third Reading of the Bill because I wish to emphasise one or two of the points made by my hon. Friend. I speak on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in saying how much we value the considerable co-operation which my hon. Friend has shown during the passage of the Bill. I recognise the enormous amount of work which has been entailed on his part and, of course, the manner in which he has been able to co-operate with the Ministry in getting the safeguards which are now in the Bill.

The Ministry has been concerned—I stress this—for a considerable time about outbreaks of tuberculosis in cattle. We know that all outbreaks are investigated by the Ministry's veterinary officers. There is no doubt that there have been real signs of the danger of the spread of the disease by the badger. This disease has affected cattle in various parts of the country. I recognise the point made by the non. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), because his area is one of those affected.

In 1974 the compensation paid by the Ministry for TB reactors and dangerous contacts in the South-West Region of England alone was over £200,000, and for the remainder of Britain it was £90,000. We are talking in terms of cash, and this is important. What is even more important is the fact that as food is such a major consideration, we should take all the steps we can to protect the life of our cattle and the prospects of our farmers, but we should also protect badgers. However, there is clear evidence in the behavioural patterns of badgers which leads us to believe that they have been responsible for the carrying of TB. Post mortem examinations at the Ministry's laboratories of nearly 1,000 badgers from problem areas have shown approximately 18 per cent. to be affected by TB. This is an important factor. The fact that we now have some safeguards in this measure is due mainly to my hon. Friend, for his sponsorship of the Bill, and to the co-operation of a great many other people.

I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend has been attacked in the way he claims by a number of people up and down the country about his lack of concern for badgers. His excellent book called "A Lifetime of Badgers" has just been published and I certainly commend it to all concerned, critics and others. He begins his preface by saying:

"Perhaps it might be considered odd that a politician should have the sort of interest which demands periods of personal silence and a degree of isolation".

The book clearly shows that his period of silence in the woods and his isolation there have been very beneficial, not only for him and the population generally but also for the badger population.

I was wondering why my hon. Friend was so keen on badgers and whether they had any particular political leanings in his direction. On page 106 of his hook he says:

"For a long time it was thought that the badger's legs were shorter on one side than the other. Nicholas Cox, in his day presumably regarded as knowledgeable about these matters, wrote of the badger in 1677: ' He hath very sharp teeth … his back is broad and his legs are longer on the right side rather than on the left '."

Quite clearly the badger has leanings to the left. I do not suggest that that was the only aspect of badgers which made my hon. Friend so keen to do something about their well-being.

Those of us who have brought in Private Members' Bills recognise that our lives afterwards are never the same. I had the honour a few years ago to bring in a Bill dealing with equal rights, which has brought me into that lobby over the years. One sees the benefit of one's work after some years.

I am sure we are grateful for my hon. Friend's efforts to ensure the equal rights of the badger population and for the other aspects of the Bill on which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government many want to comment presently. I should like to say how much we in the Ministry and all those concerned, particularly the farming community, appreciate the safeguards in the Bill. My hon. Friend played a valuable part in the passage of the Badgers Act in 1973.

We are pleased that the Bill has made such progress so far and we look for ward to its coming into force shortly. One thinks inevitably of the teddy bears' picnic. As for getting a surprise on going down to the woods. I am sure that when my hon. Friend goes down to the woods in Yorkshire and elsewhere he will be received at a badgers' picnic in a friendly way, not only by the badger community—perhaps I should say the badger set—but by all those who value conservation as well as agriculture.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) on his luck in coming so high in the Ballot, on his taste and judgment in introducing the Bill and on the skill with which he piloted it through.

I want to say a word only about Clause 16, dealing with badgers. As I said when I moved an amendment earlier today, my constituency contains an area—about one-fifth of my constituency—where the problem is serious. In case anyone should still think, either here or in another place, that this provision is not necessary, I must point out that 29 herds in that area have had TB reactors in the last three years. That is part of the reason why the Ministry's grants in that part of the South-West have been so high. The Minister of State said that 18 per cent. of badgers taken in an area including my constituency have been shown to have had TB. I have no doubt about the need for this action.

However, when the matter was first raised with me I could not see the legal necessity for the clause. Section 9(1)(d) of the Badgers Act 1973 specifically provides as one of the exceptions that the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland may give a licence for the killing of badgers

"for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease …within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified."

After reading that, I though that Clause 16 of the Bill would be unnecessary legally, but lawyers tell me that the 1973 provision has not proved sufficient to permit the most humane methods to he used.

I do not know the intention of Parliament when that provision was inserted—I was not a Member at the time—but it is logical to suppose that Parliament intended the killing to be done by the most humane method. As that intention does not seem to have succeeded, Clause 16 is legally necessary, although it has proved controversial. It is necessary for the farming community and for the badgers themselves. If TB is not eliminated among badgers, it will spread to other badgers, let alone cattle and human beings. That is the reason for the clause. It is one that I thoroughly support, as indeed I support the whole Bill.

There are two reasons why I should ask the indulgence of the House for intervening. First, as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for Planning and Local Government, who is to speak later, I suppose that I need to ask the indulgence of the House as well as his before I speak. My right hon. Friend has already given me a dispensation to say a few words. I am not speaking as a dissenting PPS. Indeed, I think that my right hon. Friend and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) are broadly in agreement about the Bill.

The second reason why I should say a word of apology, as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) has done, is that I have not been involved in the passage of the Bill until now. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will pardon me for entering the debate at this stage.

I do so partly to congratulate my hon. Friend on his good luck—that is a less valuable thing, I always think, on which to congratulate someone—but also on his skill and the enormous amount of hard work which he has put into this legislation. I think that the whole House will want to congratulate my hon. Friend on the form of the Bill.

I should like to underline two points. It has been said that perhaps the most important aspect of the Bill is its educative effect. One of the troubles with legislation of this kind is the difficulty of enforcement, because inevitably the sort of things with which the Bill is designed to deal happen in places that are difficult to supervise and where it is difficult to apprehend offenders.

However, I am in no doubt that legislation can and often does have an important educative effect. A prime example is the Race Relations Act. One might almost say that there is bound to be an area of legislation in social matters and in matters such as this where the educative effect can be vital. Clause 13(1) of the Bill says:

"A local authority shall take such steps as they consider expedient for bringing the effect of this Act to the attention of the public and in particular schoolchildren."

If the Bill becomes law, I hope that local authorities and local education authorities will be encouraged as much as possible by the Government to do something along these lines.

I am sure that the fact that by law certain plants are protected will have an impact on schoolchildren, and if teachers are aware of the provisions of the measure they can play a part in seeing that certain plants—some of them, as we have heard today, highly localised—are protected. That is perhaps one of the most important consequences that can come out of the educative effect of the Bill.

I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I recall a story that I heard many years ago of a district forestry officer who was keen to see that certain woodlands close to a town in the West Riding were looked after and that trees were not damaged. The solution that he finally hit on was to get the schools and even individual children to adopt certain trees. As a consequence, the whole situation altered because the children felt a sense of pride in their responsibility for the trees which it was their job to protect.

That has direct relevance to the Bill, and particularly to Clause 13. If children recognise and understand that in the area in which they live and go to school there are rare plants for which they as children and later as fully-grown citizens have a responsibility to see that they are looked after and saved from the depredations of tourists or others who do not understand the value of these things, we can hope that there will be a greater public awareness of the importance of protecting rare species, both animal and plant, which are endangered and may disappear.

I hope we shall recognise that in passing this piece of legislation, and, indeed, in passing a good deal of legislation through this House, one of the things that we are doing as a consequence is educating people. The purpose of legislation is not entirely to punish those who offend but to obtain in the community at large a wider recognition of things that need to be done.

I think that the House was a little taken aback by the quality of some of the correspondence which my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has been receiving, but I think everyone knows that in the whole area of animal welfare and so on there is an enormous amount of sentimentalism. I am a member of the all-party group for animal welfare. In general terms I support a lot of the contentions that are made on the subject by organisations concerned that animals should be treated kindly and that their welfare should be protected. Nevertheless. I think we are all aware of this danger of sentimentalism, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that the Bill seems to be a balanced piece of work, not least because it recognises the demands of agriculture and spells them out.

I use the word "balanced" advisedly. If we are talking about the use of land we must think in a mature way about how we can balance the conflicting demands, and one demand is for the protection of valuable species, both plant and animal. I recall reading many years ago—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bother Valley will not mind my introducing this, because it seems relevant to the Bill the words of Albert Schweitzer, who said that however we behave towards animal and plant life, the principle behind our behaviour must be a reverence for life. He said that we may stand on them as a farmer does when cutting corn but that if on our way home we strike down carelessly one plant we are guilty of an irreverence towards life. That principle is enshrined in the Bill.

We have to support good agricultural practice, but we must not wantonly destroy animal and plant life. We must pay particular attention to the species which are now endangered because of the effects of agriculture and the greater use of land by people.

I was interested in the brief debate on field cow wheat, because here we see this very issue arise. A plant is in positive danger because of the practice of agriculture. It cannot come within the provisions of the Bill because it appears to be a plant which grows in cornfields and near them. Perhaps that is contradictory, but there are obviously places where this plant grows where good agricultural practice need not necessarily interfere with its continued existence. The principle remains that we must find a balance in our appreciation of these problems, and I think that in a real sense the Bill attempts to do that.

I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend on the tremendous amount of work he has done and the tremendous interest he has shown in this whole subject. To have played a major part in getting through the House a measure dealing with badgers and to have written a book about them must be unprecedented, and I therefore express my complete support for the Bill.

The Third Reading debate has so far been mainly about badgers. It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) has had added to his Bill, which seeks to protect wild plants and creatures, this element of destruction, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) said, it is important that tuberculosis is eradicated from badgers because it can endanger the whole species if it is allowed to spread. For this reason I think everyone accepts that this destruction has to take place on a small scale.

I do not know whether it is the late sittings which the hon. Member for Rother Valley has to attend in this House, and a particularly late sitting which we attended on the Housing Finance Bill, which makes it easier for him to stay up all night and watch badgers or whether his nocturnal habits are the other way round and it is continually watching badgers late at night which enables him to stay up with such ease during all-night sittings.

I had better get this on record before my constituents think I do nothing but watch badgers whenever I am in my constituency. Despite the fact that I am in London for most of the time I have occasionally watched them, but I have never indulged in sitting up all night. I do not think my wife would like me to sit up in a local wood all night, and I have never found it necessary to do so. Yorkshire badgers are most accommodating and generally appear within 15 minutes of my arrival by their set.

Finally, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the Bill, which he has introduced and steered successfully through all its stages in this House. I wish him well in the future. I wish that some of the Government's other legislation could be as non-controversial and as constructive as the Bill. I see that the Minister is consulting his hon. Friend. He might wish to consult him again outside the Chamber to see whether we might have more of this type of legislation and a little less of the legislation to which we have now become only too well accustomed.

The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) is expecting too much. We are elected for our political convictions as well as for our nonpolitical convictions. I cannot promise him that the rest of this Session will not be as exciting as the previous parts of the Session have been.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is pleasant to be able to speak on the Third Reading of a Bill of this type. I am the fourth Minister to speak on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), whose patience in the watching of badgers we know about, has even greater patience when it comes to wearing out Ministers. Not only has my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food been present today to deal with those matters that concern agriculture but my hon. Friends the Minister of State, Department of the Environment and the Under-Secretary were both concerned at various stages of the Bill.

It is pleasant to be able to add another environmental tribute, if I may put it that way, to my hon. Friend. We have had some discussions about Latin pronunciation. If we go back to Roman history, there can be little dispute that all Roman generals thought it better to be lucky than to be skilful. My hon. Friend came first in the Ballot; that was lucky. It was only then that his skill was needed. He was both lucky and skilful.

My hon. Friend was justified in drawing attention to a totally wrong-headed campaign against him on the question of badgers. It must have been extremely hurtful to him. I deplore this, as other right hon. and hon. Members have done. For a man whose chosen Bill was designed to protect the environment, a man who had so close an association with the Badgers Act 1973 and who has written a book, "A Lifetime of Badgers", which contains so much love of badgers, it must

have been extremely hurtful. How pleasant it is now that he has succeeded so well in getting the Bill through the House, quietly working hard behind the scenes. The Bill has been improved enormously in Committee and on Report. So much of this has been due to the calm and easy way in which my hon. Friend has moved as the Bill has gone through its various stages.

It is interesting for us to see how the Bill has developed closer relations, contact and co-operation between the various Government Departments and the Nature Conservancy Council. We have had to work together on various aspects of it, and this has helped considerably. The Government have learned more and more of the objectives behind the Bill, and I hope that we have played some little part in getting it into such good shape.

It was a difficult Bill to sponsor because its origin was two separate Bills. Part of it concerned animals and part of it concerned plants. They started as separate Bills last November in another place. To have married them so well and so successfully is a tremendous act of piloting on the part of my hon. Friend. Having said that, I think he would probably wish me to pay a great tribute, on his behalf as well as on behalf of the Government, to the hon. Members from all parties who worked together to make the Bill a success, who supported it and who have done everything they can to assist it. I understood that that was what the hon. Member for Esher was saying in his usually uncontroversial way a moment ago.

I turn to the Bill itself and its effects. My hon. Friend passed me a note a short while ago, saying that at the annual conference of the Mammal Society in Sussex last weekend it was reported that the late cold spell had probably had a fairly disastrous effect on the bat population, particularly the greater horse-shoe. If that is so, it demonstrates how timely and apt it is for the Bill to come through at this time.

The Government's attitude was clearly demonstrated on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The Bill will have every support in another place. It has also been strongly supported by the Nature Conservancy Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley in his book "A Lifetime of Badgers" said that there could be no taking of nature for granted. That is true. That is why we need a Bill of this type and why we have been glad to give it all the help we can.

The Bill is an important step forward, perhaps a greater one than any of us realise. We are protecting, as trustees, the environment in which we live, not just for ourselves, not just for the species concerned—although that is important—but for the enjoyment, love and care of future generations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), reiterating something that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said on Second Reading, said that there would probably be few prosecutions under the Bill. I certainly hope that is so, although perhaps for another reason.

I entirely agree with both my hon. Friends that the Bill is educative. Its whole basis must be to make people aware of the need to conserve, preserve and encourage the natural things in our society. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich made a good and strong point when he talked about Schweitzer's reverence towards life. We in this House have taken some steps towards that admirable goal. As a result of the Bill we shall have protected species of animal and of plant that would otherwise have disappeared. Who knows? A time may come when man, having learned to protect other species, will also learn to do something about protecting his own.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'For the purposes of this Act'.

This is a purely drafting amendment. The words are superfluous.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'the removal of'.

Once again, this is a drafting amendment and is for greater clarity.

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 5, line 28, after Part I 'insert or Part II'.

I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 4.

This is a slight amendment in substance and its result will be to give persons registered in the second part of the register a certificate of registration, which they may use for whatever purpose they think fit.

I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 33, leave out from 'of' to end of line 34 and insert:

'certificates and acknowledgments issued under subsection (1) of this section'.

This is consequential on the last two amendments.

I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 40, leave out ' if he is resident'.

I am advised that these words appear to be unnecessary, and I am referred to Section 9 of the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968, with which the Bill seems to have a remarkable affinity—It was quoted at least half-a-dozen times in Committee. It is desirable to leave questions of jurisdiction to the courts and not to deal with them in the Bill.

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 8, line 9, leave out ' determined or discontinued' and insert:

' disposed of or withdrawn or fails for want of prosecution '.

This is a drafting amendment and is meant for greater clarity.

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 12, line 25, at end insert ' or a veterinary practitioner) '.

This is a matter of detail. There are still some people who are registered veterinary practitioners as a consequence of the Veterinary Practitioners Act and they should be included in this provision.

I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 17, line 52, at end add:

'7. In the application of this Part of this Schedule to Scotland, for the references to the Lord Chancellor there shall be substituted references to the Lord Advocate'.

This amendment gives the Lord Advocate powers to regulate the conduct of proceedings by the Disciplinary Committee in Scotland that are the same as those as the Lord Chancellor has in England and Wales.

Those hon. Members who have been following the progress of the Bill with any measure of interest will no doubt be aware that when it was first considered on the Floor of the House on 24th January, the Second Reading Debate concluded in a state of what I think I might fairly call some animation. Despite that, we had a most amicable and useful Committee stage, during which it proved possible not only to make some substantial improvements to the Bill but for me to set the record straight on the Government's attitude to the Bill. I am aware, however, that the Official Reports of Standing Committee C are not always so avidly or so widely read as are the reports of debates on the Floor of the House, and I therefore welcome the opportunity of Third Reading to clarify and set on record the Government's attitude to the Bill.

I have been able to work most effectively with the sponsor, the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), and I am confident that his efforts and those of the Committee, with whatever assistance I have been able to give, have been such as to make the Bill a more workable and, therefore, a more valuable measure than it was when it was first before us.

On Second Reading the Government thought it right to draw to the attention of the House, and of the sponsors in particular, such doubts over matters of principle as they had about the Bill. Some of the difficulties could be removed by amendment, and I am pleased to say that that has now been done. Others of rather less weight, however, remain and I am sure that the hon. Member for Petersfield in deciding to proceed has given due thought to them. That is a matter for him, since it is upon those in whose interests he has introduced the Bill that the burden of operating this legislation and its restrictive effects will fall in practice.

In brief, on Second Reading I made three points. Each related to the question whether it was necessary or desirable to impose statutory restrictions, enforceable by penal sanctions, upon the conduct of the trade of farriery which would be given effect by means of a substantial machinery of supervision over the trade.

On the issue of necessity, I queried whether, in view of the existing law relating to the protection of animals, the Protection of Animals Act 1911, and the particular nature of the trade of farriery, which tends to ensure that the incompetent man goes out of business, the additional protection afforded by the Bill—and there undoubtedly will be a measure of additional protection—was warranted Secondly, I drew attention to the effect in recent years on the number of apprentice farriers under training of the substantial financial contribution made by the Horserace Betting Levy Board working in close conjunction with the Worshipful Company of Farriers. In 1967 there were 16 apprentices under training. This year there are 129. In that period the grant has increased from £2,000 a year to £15,000. In consequence I asked whether the Bill was essential, as the sponsors alleged, to ensure recruitment of farriers. Both of these questions were worthy of consideration on Second Reading, and I am sure that the sponsors have given due consideration to them.

My third doubt was about the effect of the Bill once it became an offence to shoe a horse without being registered as a farrier. The difficulty I foresaw here was that no one seemed to know for certain either how many horses there were to be shod or how many farriers there were, or how many people at present were shoeing their own horses. One of the difficulties that I suggested might occur was that once the Bill was brought into force, there would not be enough farriers to shoe the horses and the result would be that horses would have to go unshod, and, despite what some hon. Members have said about this in the past, I believe that this could cause not only inconvenience to owners but suffering to the horses themselves, a most undesirable consequence.

I am glad to say that the sponsor has found solutions to these two problems that were acceptable to the Committee. By adding a new list to the register of farriers, it will be possible to allow those who have been shoeing their own horses with competence in the past, but not for gain, to continue to do so in the future. Secondly, the commencement provision of the Bill has been altered to allow the provisions relating to the council, to registration and to training to be brought into force generally and at an early stage, but to enable the penal sanctions in the Bill to be applied to various parts of the country gradually and only when it is quite certain that in each area of the country there are sufficient farriers to shoe the horses there.

As I said, I felt it right to clarify the Government's attitude to the Bill. What I said on Second Reading was very much on the lines of what Lord Wells-Pestell had said last summer when an earlier version of the Bill was before another place. The Bill that returns to that place is in an amended, and, I believe, an improved form. The sponsors are certain that if it is passed, it will have a desirable effect upon the supply of farriers and the quality of their work. I am sure that all hon. Members would support these objectives. I hope that they will be fulfilled in practice.

I end by taking this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Petersfield on steering the Bill, which is, I believe, his first experience of handling a Private Member's Bill, through the House with such success.

The Minister referred to the somewhat stormy passage the Bill received during its Second Reading. I am glad that since then we seem to have reached some kind of agreement about the necessity for the Bill, although the Minister said just now that she had some lingering doubts. She qualified this by saying that she was quite satisfied that most of the doubts were removed by various amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) has introduced.

My information about the Bill has been gained from a working farrier. I was convinced by him that this was a necessary Bill for the health, well-being and continuance of the profession. He was in no doubt about this at all.

I take this opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend on introducing what is a quite complicated Bill, on steering it

through the House with considerable skill, weathering the storms and overcoming the difficulties. He is to be commended for his handling of what is his first Private Member's Bill. I wish the Bill well in another place.

We have come a long way since 24th January, when a very confused and new Member of the House was left wondering what had hit him on what he thought would be a harmless Friday afternoon. May I extend my personal thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for her tremendous co-operation in amending this Bill, which is better as a result of her efforts. I would also like to take this opportunity of asking the hon. Lady to pass on my thanks to her officials who worked very hard on the Bill. It is significant that, despite the controversy at the beginning, every amendment except two has been tabled by me on behalf of the Government. Co-operation has been absolute and I am grateful for that.

The scope of the registration has been widened to try to overcome any fears that we might be adding to an existing shortage of farriers. The hon. Lady has mentioned the apprentice schemes. It is most encouraging that the number of apprentices now at work is significantly greater than it was three or four years ago.

The Bill does not just attempt to provide a greater number of farriers. Linked closely to that is the attempt to give them a guarantee of a worthwhile career which will not be interfered with by untrained and unskilled people entering their area of operation. This was very much in the minds of the sponsors in drawing up the Bill.

The Minister rightly said that if the Bill should reach the statute book and is not unduly delayed in another place it will be up to the sponsors to make sure that it works. I fully agree with her and I can tell her that the Worshipful Company of Farriers is extremely conscious that it has the responsibility of seeing that the scheme operates efficiently and that this growth in and encouragement of the farriers' trade over the past five or six years continues to flourish.

I should like to take this opportunity of intervening briefly to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) that the West Sussex farriers have been following the Bill with the closest interest. Those of us who have not had the opportunity to take part in the Committee proceedings or elsewhere would not like this occasion to go by without saying how much we appreciate what is contained in the Bill. The West Sussex farriers regard the compromise that has been struck as entirely reasonable. The wider registration seems to strike a workable balance. I should like my hon. Friend to know this, because the farriers of West Sussex represent a significant section of the farrier community.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know from the correspondence I have had since I took the Bill under my wing that there has been no opposition from any branch of the farriers' trade. All farriers are unanimous in considering this to be a sensible measure. I commend the Bill to the House.

(Norfolk, South): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to present this important Bill. What I seek to do today is first to explain the reasons for and the background to the Bill, secondly to explain the provisions in the Bill, and thirdly to deal with possible objections.

I am using this opportunity of a place in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills not only to draw to the attention of the House a desperately serious problem affecting thousands of people but also—this is much more important—to put forward a constructive solution to that problem. I tell the Minister that I recognise, especially in view of the implications for public expenditure in the Bill to which I shall return later, that the Bill will need Government support if it is to have any chance of obtaining a Third Reading in this House and in another place. I shall therefore listen with interest to what the Minister has to say if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I very much hope that he will not dash the hopes of thousands by making an unfavourable response.

I turn first to the reasons for the Bill and the problem it seeks to meet. No one in this House can be unaware of the general rates problem. We held many debates on the subject last Session and at some point, as a result of pressures, the Government came forward with proposals to ease the lot of the domestic ratepayer. In nearly all those debates the focus was on the domestic ratepayer. quite rightly, because it was the domestic ratepayer who was suffering most.

I gradually realised, as I looked into the problem more closely, that there was another group equally deserving of our sympathy whose voice was not being adequately heard. It is that group that I seek to help in this Bill. It is particularly the small businesses—I shall come later to my definition of "small businesses"—which get no relief from any Government measures and no specific relief from the total impact of the rise in rates generally. For that reason I decided that this group not only deserved but needed help if it was to continue to serve the community well. It was for that reason that I framed the Bill.

It is clear from the pleas for help and the messages of support which I have received that this problem runs deep throughout the country. I have had pleas for help and messages of support not only from shopkeepers and small business men but from many chambers of trade. It will be a great disappointment to them if the Government do not give a favourable response to the Bill.

I wish to focus on the problem which those people have faced in the past 18 months to two years. Let me deal first with the general overall rate increase for the business community. The Rating and Valuation Association has calculated that the average rise for non-domestic rate- payers last year was 55 per cent. compared with 35 per cent. for householders—and many householders have benefited from the measures introduced last July by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from rate rebates. This 55 per cent. increase, fundamentally for businesses, compares with the previous annual average over many years of about 8 per cent. Therefore, in the past year businesses suddenly faced a truly catastrophic rise.

The National Chamber of Trade carried out a rating survey in 1974. It considered various local authority rating areas and compared the rates paid last year with those paid in 1972–73. I have taken what are admittedly some of the worst examples, but in the survey there are very few examples in which businesses faced a rates increase of less than 70 per cent.

In the North-West, businesses, including small businesses, faced increases in Wilmslow of 190 per cent. over two years and in Fleetwood of 157 per cent. In the North-East, in Hartlepools the increase was 182 per cent. and in Wakefield 159 per cent. In Wales, there was an increase of 182 per cent. in Conway. In the West Midlands, the increase in Red-ditch was 174 per cent. In the Eastern Counties, the increase in Halstead was 243 per cent. and in Sudbury 198 per cent.

My hon. Friend has given an increase of 55 per cent. for businesses overall. Was that a national average figure for one year or for two years? The large figures which he has just been quoting must be a shock to the whole House.

The 55 per cent. increase was a national average figure for one year, for last year, and the figures I have latterly been quoting are over the years from 1972–73 to 1974–75.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in South Norfolk the increase in 1975–76 over the previous year in non-domestic hereditaments was only 16 per cent.?

In 1975–76?

In the last year over the previous year.

The increase in the last year over the previous year was certainly not 16 per cent. It might be 16 per cent. in the current year compared with last year.

Yes.

I am talking about the increase up to last year, 1974–75. I shall have something to say in a moment about the current year.

I wish to cite a few specific increases in the period between 1972–73 and 1974–75. I propose to quote not percentage increases but simple increases in the rates paid for small businesses. There was an increase for one shop in Sudbury from £157 to £866. In another there was a rise from £455 to £2,415.

In Cheshire, there was an increase in rates for a very small florist's shop with a total floor space of 17 ft. by 14 ft. from £352 in 1972–73 to £1,114 in 1974–7. For a village post office in the same county the rates for the comparable period have risen from £153 to £513. Coming close to home, my own home, in Norfolk, the rates for a small grocer's shop have risen from £65 to £229 between 1972–73 and 1974–75. For a small agricultural engineering workshop the rates have risen from £395 to £1,350. The rates of a small garage serving a rural community have risen from £330 to £858. For another garage they have risen from £118—this time in 1970—to £408 and the net income of the owner has fallen from £1,400 in 1970 to £1,000 now.

Perhaps the problem is best illustrated if I read two extracts from the many letters I have received. The first is from a shopkeeper in my constituency. It is the only shop in the village serving a rural community and the rates have risen from £49 to £116. The net income of the owner is now £570. She writes:

"These figures include my Post Office salary"—

the shop is also a sub-post office:—

"and the value of goods taken from the shop for personal use. …You will appreciate the fact that my overhead expenses are heavy and have to be subsidised to quite an extent from my husband's income. The additional burden of increased rates and the proposed extortionate national insurance contribution will create a financial situation which cannot possibly be met and the business will have to be closed. This will be very much to my regret and no doubt will cause con- siderable difficulties to local pensioners who have come to rely on having a local Post Office and shop. These are the people whose Interests the present Government is supposed to have so much at heart".

Another person, not in my constituency, wrote to me as a result of the publicity given to my Bill, saying:

"Although nearing the age of 57, my life has been divided in originally working for a national financial firm; then for several years in a department of the Civil Service and currently self-employed as a bakery agent for a home bakery. Of all these occupations the last few years have been the hardest and longest hours I have every worked, with inadequate reward relative to the hours worked. As a result. I am beginning to realise that having to cope with the impositions of central and local government it may well be that life is at an end"

I am aware that businesses are able to offset rates against tax. That is a distinction between the business ratepayer and the domestic householder. It is important to understand, however, that there is a distinction between large and medium businesses and the very small businesses, such as those to which I have referred, in the effect of the impact of rates upon them. Many small businesses are finding that the fact that they can offset rates against tax is a very marginal benefit in view of the substantial increases in rates.

Many of the figures I have quoted are, in absolute terms, quite small, but in terms of their impact on the livelihoods of the people involved they are very great. They are in addition to the increase in national insurance contribution for people whose incomes are more than £1,600. They are in addition to the massive rise in costs and other expenses at a time when the increase in turnover of these people is not in line with their income and when frequently there is a squeeze on their margins. They are in addition to other administrative burdens which for a number of shops have been greatly added to by the Government's decision to introduce in the Budget a multi-rate value added tax.

These increases also come on top of a declining income—and I have been through the books of many of these people. What particularly grieves them is that they face this declining income as a result of rising costs, and especially the rate burden, at a time when they see so many other members of the community achieving substantial increases in their net take-home pay—their real income—as a result of what has happened during the past year. They feel particularly bitter because they are no part of the social contract and they will be paying the penalty for the excesses of others purportedly within the social contract who have been moving outside it, as a result of the Budget which the Chancellor introduced earlier this week not only in terms of the problems of the multi-rate VAT which the Chancellor felt it necessary to impose but also in terms of the increased taxation on their own spending.

It is well to remind ourselves that a large number of the people about whom I am talking—certainly those of whom I have given examples—work very long hours, well beyond any that employees are called upon to work. They frequently work 60, 70 or 80 hours a week and they are beginning to wonder whether it is all worth while. It would be particularly sad if they had to give up their shops or occupations—I have been talking about shops but what I say applies equally to self-employed builders, plumbers and others with small business premises—and especially in relation to their importance to the community in rural areas.

I do not claim that the Bill would solve the problem—it certainly will not. For many people the increases in rates have been the straw to break their backs. The Bill would give relief to one part of their difficulties.

I come now to the point raised by the Minister in his question to me. So far, the figures I have quoted relate to last year. We do not know in many cases what will be the rate burden in the coming year. Incidentally, the increases are a combination of the massive increase in the rate poundage coupled sometimes with revaluation.

I have quoted only last year's figures, and throughout the country there will be many instances of equally large rises for the small business ratepayer, an even heavier burden, in the coming year.

I cannot verify the 16 per cent. for South Norfolk mentioned by the Minister. It surprises me because the increase for the average domestic ratepayer will he much more than that. I know that Norfolk County Council has gone to tremendous lengths this year to contain its expendi- ture. If the rise is anything like 16 per cent., it is a great tribute to that Conservative Council that it has been able to hold down the increase, but that will not be the case in other parts of the country. That is basically the reason for the Bill.

I come now to what the Bill seeks to do. I hope the Minister will agree that what I have striven to achieve is a neat and simple solution to the problem. Defying logic, perhaps I may take the second of the two proposals first because it is the simpler.

The effect of the second proposal, which is contained in Clause 2, is to make it mandatory on local authorities to grant to the small businesses defined in Clause 1 the right to pay their rates by instalments, in the same way as domestic householders make payment. That does not, of course, reduce the rate burden but it could have a substantial effect on the cash flow of a large number of small businesses. I hope that the Government will feel able to support this proposal. because the previous Labour Government, on 29th April 1974, sent to all local authorities a circular on the payment of rates by instalments.

That circular stressed the importance that the Government attached to domestic ratepayers being told of their statutory right to instalment facilities and also pointed out that rating authorities may at their discretion allow other classes of ratepayers to pay by instalments. The circular went on to say in relation to non-domestic ratepayers, "particularly those in business in a modest way":

"They hope rating authorities will be willing to consider these and any similar cases sympathetically, and allow reasonable facilities to pay by instalments; the most convenient course might be to align the facilities given with those for domestic ratepayers. This is a matter of special importance in areas where rates have increased more than the average and where as a result hardship may occur to certain non domestic occupiers."

I concur with that, and I seek in the Bill to take that a little further and give all small businesses the opportunity to use this facility.

Prior to finally framing the Bill I asked a Question of the Department to find out how many authorities were not complying with that circular. I was told that the information was not available. So it is difficult for anyone to assess exactly what will be the impact of Clause 2, but it seems to me to be right compulsorily to extend this facility. That, briefly, is what Clause 2 sets out to do.

By far the most important part of the Bill is Clause 1, which contains the main proposal. I considered various alternative ways of giving relief to the small business and the small shopkeeper. I came down to three, and I shall deal briefly with the first two to show why I finally settled for the one in the Bill.

I sought first to try 10 confine the relief to those small business men, shopkeepers, traders and so on—the self-employed—who are in income difficulties at present because of increasing costs, including rates. I sought a way in which to confine the relief to the net income of the individual concerned. The advantage of that method is that it would have dealt with the main problem—the problem of low returns to the individual concerned—and it would not have spread indiscriminate relief but would have allowed local authorities to apply discretion in giving the relief to those who were suffering most.

The disadvantages were that for the small business man, the self-employed and so on, income figures are always a year out of date. Secondly, it would have been administratively complex to operate. I quickly learnt that local authorities dislike having to make discretionary decisions of the sort they would have to make if I dealt with the problem in that way. It would also have been difficult to calculate the cost, although I recognise that this is a problem we already face on the domestic side in relation to the cost of rent rebates. I came to the conclusion that that solution was not practical.

My second solution was to look at the General Rate Act 1967 to see whether anything could be done under Section 40 which applies to charities and enables local authorities to give relief up to 50 per cent. to charities. The advantages were that it would mean a bigger relief and would introduce an element of discretion. The disadvantages were that many local authorities dislike Section 40, particularly the discretionary element that is left to them and the way it has to be administered. It would have led to constant argument and the possibility that it would not have been operated effectively. It could possibly have been expensive.

I finally settled for the solution put forward in the Bill, which I think has enormous advantages. It is administratively simple and can be easily grafted on to the existing rating system. Although originally I wanted discretion, the advantages of a clear system overrode that. The solution deals with the problem of mixed hereditaments, which I was anxious to do, and it allows flexibility on costs. Its only disadvantage is that it may not give as much help as I should like, but in present circumstances that is perhaps inevitable.

Clause 1(4) introduces a new definition into the General Rating Act 1967;

"After subsection (6) of the said section there shall be added the following subsection—

' (7) In this section "small business hereditament" means a hereditament (including a mixed hereditament)—

(a) which is occupied wholly or partly for the purposes of a business and

(b) has a rateable value not exceeding such a value as may be prescribed for the year in question ' ".

Under Section 113 of the General Rate Act 1967 the Secretary of State has the power each year to prescribe certain orders. What I have in mind is that the Secretary of State should have the discretion and the power each year to prescribe the maximum rateable values to apply to the small business hereditament. That has several advantages. It has the advantage of flexibility not only from year to year but also between greater metropolitan areas and outlying areas. It also leaves it open to the Secretary of State to use rateable values to ensure that relief is given to those who really need it and that it is compatible with costs borne by public expenditure. This arrangement also deals happily with the mixed hereditament problem. That is a problem which frequently comes to the attention of hon. Members when in the mixture between the domestic and the business elements the domestic part is only just under 50 per cent. of the total so that no mixed hereditament relief is available. Yet it is here in many cases that relief is most required for the village shops. I believe that this definition neatly deals with the mixed hereditament problem.

The purpise of the Bill is to enable the small business hereditament to get exactly the same rate relief as that which the domestic ratepayer now receives. This means that in the year from which the Bill would operate, if it became an Act, the small business hereditament would receive a relief of 18.5p in the pound, given that the domestic relief element were the same as it is at present.

The method that I have put forward could mean that there would be an additional impost on the rate support grant. Earlier this week I made a speech in which I urged on the Government the need to restrain public expenditure even more than they have done in the present Budget. It would be hypocritical of me to ask the Government to extend public expenditure through the Bill, but because of the system I have outlined I submit that it would not be necessary to do so.

We would be adding a small new class of ratepayers to the domestic relief element. As the Secretary of State will have a long time between now and the drawing up of the next rate support grant formula he would have ample time to consult local authorities and to establish exactly how many new ratepayers would be involved under the Bill. Of course, it is open to him not to increase the amount to be allocated to the rate support grant formula next year but simply to say that a new small group will come in and that the load will be redistributed.

For example, let us consider a small village with 500 houses and two shops. In such a village the loss to the domestic ratepayer would be very small I am sure that he would be prepared to pay the price so as to give relief to the village shops and to ensure that they stayed in existence.

It is not intended that the Bill should be introduced until next year. I should like to have done something earlier to give relief this year, but as the rate support grant formula has already been fixed that is not possible. I believe that it is right, nevertheless, to specify 1st April 1976. That gives both the Government and local authorities plenty of time to work out the administrative arrangements.

Do I understand that the effect of Clause 1 is to give the Secretary of State complete discretion as to the rateable value up to which the concession will apply? Would it put into the hands of the Secretary of State complete power to say whether it should cost something or nothing? In those circum stances would it not be difficult for the Minister to oppose the Bill today?

I think that my hon. Friend is entirely right. It is for that reason that I hope that the clause as drafted will give the Secretary of State discretion. For those who feel that it might give the Secretary of State too much power, I was going to come on to the point that there will be various matters, if the Bill should go beyond Second Reading, to be discussed in Committee. It may well be that one of those matters would be whether some sort of guidance should be given as regards limits for maximum rateable values. I think that it is better to introduce the new system and to leave the limits to the Secretary of State's decision. That is one among many matters which could be considered in Committee. I have no doubt that there will be those who say—the Minister may be one of them—that it would be better to wait for the Layfield Committee's report. My response is that we know very well that the committee will not be reporting until later this year at the earliest. It will be three or four years before any of the committee's recommendations become operative. I do not believe that the people of whom I have been talking and who would benefit from the Bill can wait that long.

This is a simple change to the rating system which could be implemented without waitng for the Layfield Committee's report. It could be of great advantage to many small businesses. I hope that we shall not have the argument that L ayfield is the real stumbling block.

I have been talking today of very valuable groups within the community who not only feel friendless in terms of the present Government but who feel that the Government are positively hostile to them. Whether they are right or wrong, they feel that the Government are interested only in larger, organised groups. They feel that they are responsive only to militants. However, the groups to whom I have been referring are among the most deserving in the community. They value their independence and they are prepared to work long and arduous hours to earn their living. Further, they do not go running to others to help them out and they do not go on strike. They do not engage in restrictive practices. They are the backbone not only of the free enterprise system but of much of our community life. They are of real value to local communities.

I am bound to say that sometimes I wonder whether the Government want that sort of person, including the self employed, to be battered out of existence. That is exactly what has been happening to many of them over the past 12 months. By accepting the Bill the Minister could show those people that there is someone in the Government who understands their predicament. In doing so he would also earn the gratitude of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) on his Bill, of which I am a sponsor. I have pursued the question of rates fairly relentlessly since entering the House. I made my maiden speech on rates and I seem to be stuck with the subject for ever and a day. However, it is a vital topic.

This particular section of the community—I refer especially to corner shop keepers—is of particular interest to me. I feel strongly and passionately about their position in society. We should consider the importance to society of the small shopkeeper. Although country areas feel that small shopkeepers are particularly important to them, they also play an important part in urban areas. My constituency is an urban area but it is wide and scattered in the sense that there are small districts within communities. Each district has its small shopping precinct and the precincts are important to the community. No one wants to have to take a bus to go into town to buy a newspaper, to get his shoes mended or to buy some sweets or tobacco. Of prime concern is the local shop. It is the local shop about which I am most anxious.

In the past two or three years the shopkeeper has had to contend with a number of penalising factors. The Bill before us deals principally with rates, but I shall introduce one or two other matters that emphasise the problem that the small shopkeeper is up against. For instance, there is the stamp for the self-employed. an issue on which we have fought hard. That involves a rate of 8 per cent. appreciate that it is not a stamp but it is spoken of in that sense. That is a wicked thing to have to face and it is yet another nail in the coffin of the local shopkeeper.

Next, there has been the imposition of VAT on sweets. That was introduced by this Government. At one time children could buy a 1p or 2p sweet but such sweets are rapidly disappearing because the administration involved in offering that type of sweet on the counter is practically impossible. That has been another blow for the small local shop. The imposition of VAT on sweets was a mistake and it has had a serious effect on local shops. Further, we have had the introduction of varied rates of VAT. I admit that that does not concern many of the smaller shops but it concerns the chap who runs a small radio shop. for example. He will be affected by this new imposition. Then these shopkeepers have to contend with the increasing costs of electricity and gas. Both these are essential parts of a business, and they have gone up fantastically in price. That is another problem that they have to face.

As a society, we have not sufficiently recognised the position of the small shopkeeper when planning. Planning committees tend to give a prime position in a new arcade to a supermarket, putting it right at the front of the arcade. If more careful thought had been given to these matters and if the supermarket had been put at the end so that potential customers passed the small shop on the way in, this would have helped. However, there is always the tendency to give the big boys the best positions. The little man has to squeeze in and battle against those odds.

I have spoken to a number of shopkeepers in my constituency. I know of a constituent who used to run a little shop providing a useful service to the community in one part of my constituency. When he sat down and worked out how much money he ended up with, he found it would pay him more to drive a Reading bus. That is what he is doing now, and his shop is closed. He drives a bus because he takes home more money. He regrets this because he enjoyed working in his little business.

May I also urge that better instruction be given about the existing system of mixed hereditaments? There is a great deal of confusion about it. I received a letter only today from a shopkeeper who is completely confused about whether he can get the rate that he wants. More instruction should be going out from the Department. I have received a letter from the Under-Secretary about this very subject saying that there is a misunderstanding about the amount which can be claimed. I hope that note will be taken of this aspect of the matter and that people will be given the opportunity to be informed clearly about what they can claim. Indeed, I hope that we shall go even further as a result of this valuable little Bill.

I believe that the local shopkeeper provides a vital service. We have also to remember that often it is an activity engaged in by people who have retired from other walks of life and who some time ago decided to run little corner shops. Their businesses may represent supplements to their pensions which are very important to their incomes, in return for which they provide an extremely valuable service.

I make a plea on behalf of the local shop, and I support the Bill. It is an easy solution, and it can be introduced in advance of the Layfield Report. We need not wait for that report. Here is a simple remedy which will help. The National Chamber of Trade has been pushing this matter for some time, without much success.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this Bill so that at least we can debate this subject, and it may be that we shall even get it through all its stages.

I make no apology for intervening in a debate on an English Bill. I am a Member of the United Kingdom House of Commons and frequently what is the law of England today. if it is good law, with any luck becomes the law of Scotland tomorrow—that is, when time can be found to debate it in this House, which is not always the case.

I am not altogether certain whether, as a matter of constitutional law, Clause 4(4) should not include a reference to Scotland after "Northern Ireland". However, my constitutional law may be a little rusty. Clearly, the Bill is designed to alter an English Act, and I join its sponsors in supporting it because it may be that it is a very important precedent for Scotland where there are twice as many self-employed people, possibly because it is more sparsely populated.

I add my voice in support of all these small businesses. They are vital to rural communities. In a very small community, if there is no shop, very soon people do not wish to live there. Then there is no school, there are no children, and there is no community. This has been the experience in my constituency and in many parts of England. It is very sad to see communities dying.

Small shopkeepers are one of the pillars of society which should be kept serviced. They have had a number of fiscal irritants. They have been made to turn themselves into self-employed tax collectors for the Government, often doing complex accounting which they did not have to do before the introduction of VAT. Already they have to employ staff to do the work of the Government in collecting PAYE. But in many businesses the introduction of VAT was resented bitterly because their owners had to become bookkeepers for the Government with no additional revenue available to them.

The multi-rate VAT is a matter of burning moment to small shopkeepers to whom I have spoken all over the United Kingdom. It is no accident that today all over Britain associations of self-employed people are coming into existence quite spontaneously. They are a group of people who have never been militant. They have been patient. They have served the community by working long hours and getting whatever incomes they could. Now they are getting together. I have been informing a number of such groups in my constituency, and I have been approached by an organisation in England asking for whatever information I could supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) has helped in the formation of such groups in Argyll. It has happened quite spontaneously, and there must be a reason. If people who have never felt the need to behave in this way start forming themselves into groups to

protect their interests, there must be something wrong in the way they have been treated.

The multi-rate VAT is a serious addition to an already serious financial imposition. It is obvious that if a small business of this kind has employees, wages have risen, as have costs. We know already about the long hours involved.

In the interests of preventing depopulation, we should consider these matters very seriously. It is said to cost about £10,000 to create a male job and that, the more artificial it is and the more rural the area, the more expensive it becomes. It is obvious that it would be cheaper to start where a community already exists by alleviating the position of those prepared to work there than to allow that community to decline and then ask ourselves what we should do to put jobs where all the jobs have gone.

If this Bill is passed into law, I hope that the Minister will use his discretion in the interests of small business men. I support the Bill and add that I hope that even slightly larger businesses will be considered in further legislation.

The problems of rate payers are very considerable at present. We know that the Government are waiting for the Layfield Report before they take any action to help. The difficulty is that many people are suffering considerable hardship. They cannot wait for the Layfield report. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give us a firm indication when the Lay field Report is likely to be forthcoming. Even so, the report will be too late for many small businesses. Refence has already been made to the Reading shopkeeper who became a bus driver. Hundreds of small shopkeepers are now giving up their businesses. If the remainder have to wait much longer, it will be too late for them, too.

The pressure of rising rate demands has led to the introduction of domestic rating relief. That is proper. It is accepted on both sides of the House. However, we must consider the phenomenal rise in business hereditament rating. The average increase in the past has been about 8 per cent. per annum. However, during the past year the rise averaged 55 per cent. That is an astonishing change in the situation. It represents a phenomenal increase in cost which the business community must bear.

Perhaps there is some correlation between the ending of the business vote and rate increases. The business community is called upon to pay, but it has no vote with which to restrain those who are spending its money. The matter should be reconsidered.

I am proud to be one of the sponsors of this Bill. I should like to consider the position of small businesses rather than that of the business community. I am delighted to see that the Minister is present. He recently visited Basingstoke, which is in my constituency. The council was pleased to see him on that occasion. I hope that he took away with him a good impression of what was happening in Basingstoke.

The Minister listened attentively to the speeches of my hon. Friends. However, I am disappointed that none of his colleagues thought that the problems of small business rating were worthy of their consideration.

I am here.

Since we are dealing mainly with shopkeepers, we must assess the contribution they make as well as the problems with which they are confronted. Their contribution is twofold. The small corner shop provides a convenient way of shopping. On large housing estates many people miss the small corner shop. People living in London are used to the small corner shop where they can buy cigarettes, sweets, newspapers and matches. If people have forgotten such items they do not have far to go to obtain them. The position of those living on housing estates is different, since they must go perhaps a quarter of a mile to the nearest shop. Small shops are of enormous convenience to the community. We should ensure that small shops continue. Small shopkeepers work long hours, which is again of convenience to the public. Small shops provide a service to the community, but they also make a contribution to the environment. They bring variety to a locality.

In the town centres we find the giant shops such as Fine Fare, Tesco and Sainsbury. That may be the limit of choice. There may be no friendly shopkeeper, especially those with a specialised range of goods such as ironmongery. Unless there is a variety of shops, the environment will be dull. People will find it depressing.

All the time small shops and small businesses are closing. There is a tendency to concentrate on larger businesses. The Minister is in a position to reverse that process. It is highly desirable that this group of people should continue in business, but they are faced with an horrendous rise in the level of rates. It is the last straw that breaks the camel's back.

On top of everything else, small businesses have had to face taxation increases and the complexity of complying with all the regulations which tie them down and control them. Then there is price control with which they have to cope—and that is far more effective in terms of the shopkeeper than the social contract has been in the case of the ordinary industrial worker. Furthermore, inflation has had a savage effect on small shopkeepers. If the shopkeeper this year has £5,000 worth of stock on his shelves, in a year's time as a result of inflation of 20 per cent., he will need to have £6,000-worth of stock on his shelves. Therefore, with the small amount of money at his disposal he will need to plough more money back into the business to keep the same variety and a similar number of lines on the shelves.

The shopkeeper finds the Government taking more from him in tax and increased rates. The whole burden is becoming too great. He must face increased costs for his stock as well as increases in the charges for water, gas and electricity. He will also have to bear the new rate of vehicle excise duty. All this is in addition to the savage attack mounted on the self-employed by the Secretary of State for Social Services by the disproportionate increase in the national insurance contribution which the self-employed person must now pay. It is a grossly unfair situation and the self-employed obviously have been picked out for special treatment.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government, who is to reply to the debate, is in a happy position today. If he accepts the Bill, he will go away from the House in the knowledge that he has done something to offset the damage inflicted on the smaller business community by his governmental colleagues.

I turn to deal with the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 is permissive. It extends domestic rate relief to enable the Minister to fix limits on rateable value. If he decides to fix the limit at, say, a nominal £1, he will have it within his power to prevent a burden being imposed. The Minister can decide the cost and how great the benefit will be as a result of Clause 1 Therefore I hope that he will not ask the House to reject the Bill.

Clause 2 is a most important provision relating to the right to pay rates by instalment. Traders find themselves desperately short of working capital. If they have to pay the whole rates in a single payment, it will be a considerable restraining influence on their ability to pay for the stock which they need for next month's supplies.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the considerable hardship felt by people who have to pay rates even though their shops are being closed. There is a certain overlap when people cannot afford to keep their shops in operation.

In urging the House to support the Bill, I emphasise that the Minister now has an opportunity to distinguish himself among his colleagues as one of the only two Ministers who have any understanding or appreciation of the difficulties facing small businesses and shopkeepers. I hope that he will not lose that opportunity.

I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute briefly to this important debate.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government, who is to reply to the debate, is an old friend and I wish to emphasise to him that I am desperately worried about the situation which faces a number of people running small businesses and shops. It is easily said that the nation is on its way to Communism. It is also easily said that we shall come to Communism, despite all the things which my Conservative colleagues have been saying. Of course, it may be said that Britain is on the last lap—that as Cambodia falls without a protest from the West, that as Vietnam is likely to fall almost without a protest from the West, so Britain will take into its heart the things of the Left and of Communism.

I have known the Minister for Planning and Local Government for a number of years. I have never been able to believe that he is this terrible man who is willing to put the British nation at risk. I have never been able to believe that he is the "right bastard"—if I may use those words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your kind permission—who would destroy the British nation. [Interruption.]I am in no way joking.

The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) was kind enough to pray that certain things should be dune to help the small shopkeeper. I thought she did this with kindness and without any calculation for herself. She did this because she was trying to help the shopkeeper.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), who introduced the Bill, has tried to show the British people that he wants to help them. Nothing in what he said shows that he is out to destroy the basis of the things that the right hon. Gentleman desires. Nothing my hon. Friend said has suggested that he is a narrow-minded, poor, pathetic little man; he simply wants to help the people whom the Bill seeks to help and these people are not "anti" the State which we try to uphold.

Whatever may be the past affiliations which the right hon. Gentleman has espoused, and however much to the Left people may assume him to be, it is impossible for me to believe that he is "anti" the people of Britain. Yet that would be the case if he were to bring about a vote against the Bill. He would be proving to the British people that there is no future for the little man. How dare we ascribe such bad intentions to my friend of yore as to assume that he will not destroy the little business man?

No one will believe that I have any humility, because I speak as though I have none, but I would ask hon. Members to believe for a moment that I am a humble man, that I love people and that I have some faith in the future of Britain. Would the Minister please think about the future of these poor people? They are not different from his friends. Who says to me that my fondest and greatest supporters are basically different from mine own enemies in the political world? Will he not consider these people who are so grossly hard done by under Socialism and think again about the little man who provides so much?

I will wait until the Minister has finished his conversation. If the Under-Secretary of State for Trade wishes to interrupt me, I shall be delighted to listen to any question. Otherwise, I would ask him to shut up and to allow the Minister to make up his own mind without any suggestions. If he wishes to sit at the end of the Treasury Bench I will say not a word against him. I hold nothing against the Under-Secretary for putting in his oar. Perhaps he did not know that the hon Member for Yarmouth existed, since he has been so quiet for perhaps too many months in order to consider carefully the time when he might say something. I used to represent about 55,000 people. Now, as the Minister, for whom I have the fondest regard, knows, I represent more than 70,000.

I do not expect an answer today. To expect that would be madness.

:Why not?

Because, Ma'am—

Order. She is the hon. Lady.

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of the point. The hon. Lady will know that I have been here for a year or two. I was greatly enamoured of her contribution to today's debate, but I am even more enamoured of my friendship for the right hon. Gentleman who is to answer today's debate.

I conclude by inviting the right hon. Gentleman to take account of the poor way in which I have tried to put the point of view of people who have no way of answering—except for the poor way in which I have attempted to support the Bill.

I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk South (Mr. MacGregor) has introduced this measure at a crucial time in the economic life of the people whom he is seeking to protect—small shopkeepers and small business men.

I have a vivid experience of the difficulties which these people are suffering. I gained this from a recent visit to one of the small towns in my constituency, East Molesley, where no fewer than 13 shops have had to close during the past year owing to the mounting difficulties that have been encountered by them. I have no reason to believe that the experience in East Molesley is any different from that in other towns and villages in my constituency or in the rest of the country, and we heard from the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) about the situation in Scotland.

I believe that the Minister has a real problem on his shoulders. After talking to shopkeepers I was left in no doubt about the difficulties which they are facing. Many of them are having to sell branded goods on which recommended prices can be raised only by permission of the Price Commission. Even if there is an increase, it is seldom enough to enable them to cope with the margins which they need in order to deal with all the other increases in costs which they have to meet, such as heating, lighting, insurance and so on.

In addition, they are faced with the increasing restrictions on credit and a tightening of trading terms by suppliers. There is also the fact that suppliers may go bankrupt, and this may put the retailer in an extremely difficult situation. Added to all that is the reduction of expenditure by customers and the fact that people are not buying goods to anything like the extent they were doing before. The small shopkeeper is caught between the nether and upper millstones of turnover falling and costs ever rising. I have been left in no doubt in my constituency of this growing problem, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise it.

Unkind people are saying—this was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell)—that the Government have no interest in small independent people, but they are the backbone of our country and of the retail distribution system. I do not believe that it is possible that the Government can be

envisaging the economic elimination of this group of people.

I beg the Minister to make it absolutely clear that he intends to look after this important section of the community, which, unlike the trade unions, has no strong voice to speak for it, and that he will demonstrate that intention by deeds as well as words.

I try as hard as I can on every occasion to avoid striking a sour note, and certainly to avoid striking a personal note. It is therefore with some regret that I must point out that when the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell)—I am sorry he is not present—drew attention to the fact that not many of my hon. Friends were present, that is something that occurs in any Private Members' debate. It is bound to happen.

I hope that the House will not feel I am being a little too sour if I read out the names of some of the sponsors of the Bill—the hon. Members for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brit-tan), Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), Mid Oxon (Mr. Hurd), Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), Melton (Mr. Latham), Braintree (Mr. Newton) and Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley).

If the right hon. Gentleman is pointing out the difficulties that many hon. Members have in being here on a Friday, I entirely agree with him. All my hon. Friends to whom he has referred have explained to me why they could not be here. They all had long-standing engagements.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Basingstoke back again. No doubt he had the same dilemma as I had, of not being able to finish his lunch. This gives me no pleasure. I was pointing out that in a Private Members' debate it is not a good thing to draw attention to absences here and there. We all know that there are good and reasonable explanations.

Having got that out of the way, I congratulate the hon. Member for Norfolk. South (Mr. MacGregor) on a moderate and reasoned introduction of the Bill which was interesting to listen to and contained a great deal of matter that needed consideration and some answering. Hon. Members who have served on Committees with me or have heard me speak in the House know that I have never made a point about drafting irregularities in a Bill. Those are procedural matters that can all be tightened up. But I wonder why the hon. Gentleman, who spoke so eloquently to the Bill decided that it should not extend to Scotland, particularly in view of the interesting speech by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Ewing). There must have been a reason, but I tried to find it and did not understand.

I am a Scot and am very sensitive to the interference of others in Scottish affairs. I believe that it would be right for hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies to deal with the matter, because the General Rate Act 1967 applies to England and Wales. I very much hope that if the Minister accepts the Bill it will be extended as a precedent to Scotland, as the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has said.

I am grateful for that intervention. It is all the pleasanter to know that I can hear the hon. Lady twice on the same subject in due course.

There is a point here. There are people who are being hit by rising rates. Over the past three or four years, as inflation has hit this country, a number of people, not just those in charge of small businesses but domestic ratepayers and those with large businesses, have faced considerable rate increases. I would be quite wrong to say that such and such a section of our fellow citizens did not deserve to be considered.

The hon. Member describes his Bill as empowering local rating authorities to give special relief to certain small businesses. The people he has in mind are very much in our minds, as is everybody else faced with the rating problem.

For example, Clause 2 deals with payment by instalments. I came to my present ministerial appointment in March of last year. One of the first things I did—did it entirely off my own bat and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this from me—was to ask whether we were encouraging local authorities to allow rates to be paid by instalments. As a result, on 29th April, only a matter of four or five weeks after first occupying this position, I issued a circular asking local authorities to be as sympathetic as they could about allowing business men, particularly small business men obviously, to pay their rates by instalments.

That does not echo what the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) said. He thought that my old hon. Friend and opponent the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) shared his view that I was standing coldly aloof from small business men. I do not think that the hon. Member for Yarmouth felt that. Certainly I do not.

That circular was a concrete example of exactly what should be done. If I am accused of neglecting small business men when I ordered that circular to be sent out and when I asked local authorities to help as much as they could, let me ask the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) whether he can cite a single occasion when the Government of which he was a member sent a circular to local authorities asking them to allow business rates to be paid by instalments. I have checked and I have found that there was not one occasion.

It comes as a curious argument that a Government who, within five weeks of taking office, on inheriting the appalling situation in rating that was left by the Conservatives and being determined to do something about it, sent out a circular to local authorities asking them to do all they could to help should be attacked for lack of care by those who, when in office only a few months ago, did absolutely nothing about it. It is an extraordinary sort of behaviour.

I repeat that I strongly believe that as much opportunity as possible should be given to small business men to pay their rates by instalments. It was my own Government who in 1966—I speak from memory—introduced payment by instalments following the Allen Report of the previous year.

In April 1974 we issued a circular. I believe what I have said—I leave it to Conservative Members to decide whether they believe on every occasion exactly what they say—namely, that local authorities must, within obvious national constraints, be free, independent and able to make up their own minds. Often they will make mistakes and we have to watch as a Government or as ratepayers and voters while they make mistakes. There is a great deal in this business of allowing freedom and independence to local authorities.

At the same time we must guide. That is what the circular was about. When this circular on the payment of rates by instalments was issued, I did not want to force local authorities into compelling the non-domestic ratepayer to do something. The reason is obvious. Local authorities require a fairly predictable inflow of rates. If we delay that inflow in any way it has an effect upon them. We can see this in many local authorities at the moment. Complaints are being made because people are allowed to withhold their rates because they are challenging a valuation assessment. Many people think that this is wrong. There is a danger for local authorities and hence for all ratepayers when there is a lack of predictability of inflow. If there is such a dearth of cash, all ratepayers are bound to suffer.

Would the right hon. Gentleman concede that in the situation he has described, when there is a desire for a predictable flow of cash, monthly instalments are more likely to be paid on time, thus producing that regular flow, whereas a six-monthly demand might well be delayed for as long as possible if a person does not have the money to meet it?

I can understand that if every ratepayer paid by instalments, if we made it a sort of PAYE, there would be greater predictability. This is not what the Bill asks for. It is merely suggested that it is something for which small business men may ask. It is not meant to be universal.

I was impressed by the expanded town represented by the hon. Member for Basingstoke. I was treated very well during my visit there. I was sorry that I did not see the hon. Member. I know the reasons. I missed him, if I may say so. Had we met and discussed the situation then, and had the question of the payment of rates by instalments arisen, I would have said then, as I say now. "That is all very well, but the difficulty is that the interest paid by the local authority becomes very much greater if rates are paid monthly." This is not something which costs nothing. It costs a great deal for ratepayers in a particular area and for the Government generally.

It is the fact that within a short time of becoming a Minister I had made certain that every local authority was aware that it should, where it could, give such concessions to the small business man. The previous Government, during an inflationary period of three years, did not do what I did within a few days of coming into office. I make the point to show that I care and that I did my best at that time.

The present Government, and perhaps the previous administration, have done what they could to help small business men. There has been a great leap forward under the present Government. but I am not making a tremendous party point about that. Since April last year it has been possible, for the first time. to obtain a rate rebate on the domestic part of a mixed hereditament. Part of this was planned under the Tory administration. It was certainly improved under the present administration. In addition the rate rebate provision was extended to apply to about 4 million out of 16 million ratepayers—a quarter of them. That is an enormous amount of assistance, and for the first time it applied to the shopkeeper. In addition, if more than 50 per cent. of a building represents domestic accommodation, it counts for the domestic element in the rate support grant. That is another respect in which the Government have done their best to help.

The ability to treat payment of rates as an expense against tax is a very important consideration and we must not underestimate it. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South, who made a good, moderate speech, might well be able to point to many instances of people who pay no or very little tax. But such instances must relate to very small shops, which I should like to see preserved. However, if they are not entitled to a rate rebate and if they are not earning enough profit to pay tax, one wonders whether the world has pushed them aside.

I live in a village and I know of small shops and shopkeepers. I realise what a great advantage they are and how nice it is to have them. I am merely putting a question to the hon. Gentleman. It seems strange that none of these people should be paying tax and, therefore, are not able to benefit.

However, I suppose that the main attack on the Bill, apart from one other matter to which I shall return, should be made on Clause 3, dealing with the financial provisions. The hon. Gentleman, because he wants his own way—and who is to blame him for that; we all want our own way was remarkably astute in dealing with this question. He knows perfectly well the difficulties of putting it across. He is a Scot and, therefore, hereditarily is very skilled in skating on extremely thin ice. He did it brilliantly today.

There are two difficulties in considering the matter from the hon. Gentleman's point of view. First, how can one defeat the public expenditure question? Hon. Members opposite rightly say that there should be a cut in public expenditure. That is part of their philosophy, and they believe that there should be such a cut particularly at this time. How can one say that there must be a cut in public expenditure and at the same time say "Let it go up to meet the problems of the small business men"? Across the ice goes the hon. Gentleman, who says "All you have to do is bring about a little redistribution in the general rate support grant."

Where do we redistribute from? Do we redistribute from the needs element, from the resources element, from the domestic element or perhaps from a mixture of all three? By doing that we would deprive other ratepayers, and in the next Session the hon. Gentleman would be back again with another Bill to try to help some other more deserving category.

Not unless he is lucky.

The hon. Gentleman has shown that he is both skilful and lucky.

If there were to be a redistribution of the sort that the hon. Gentleman wants as the only alternative to increasing public expenditure—and I think I carry him with me on that—does it not occur to him that a mountain of consultations with the local authority associations would have to take place? He is being a little sharp if he thinks that such agree- ment would be reached at those consultations that we should be able to legislate by 1st April 1976.

I should like the hon. Gentleman to be extremely realistic about this. He is entitled to his propaganda exercise, and I hear him no ill will for that, but let him not pretend that legislative time can come at the snap of a finger. The Government's policy is to have the maximum amount of consultation with local authority associations, but if we were to suggest a proposal which impinged on all three elements that go into the rate support grant we should need to consult the local authorities.

Still skating dextrously over thin ice—if that is possible, perhaps on his hands—the hon. Gentleman asked me not to mention Layfield. But I have to mention Layfield. Layfield will be reporting, we hope, at the end of this year in advance of the commencing date of the Bill, which, as I tried to show the hon. Gentleman, cannot possibly be met.

If the hon. Gentleman is keen on helping the small business man, and this is not just a propaganda exercise, let him do what he can, as I have done, to persuade local authorities to allow payment by instalments where they can. Let him join me in that. Let him go back to the correspondents he mentioned and draw their attention to the generous rate rebate schemes, because I have the feeling that a large number of them do not know about the rate rebate schemes—and I have good evidence for saying that. Finally. let him work with us after Layfield has reported to see whether a whole new vista of local revenue can be opened up which we can consider together as a united House and a united country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) on introducing the Bill. I am co-sponsor of the Bill and am delighted in my official capacity as Opposition spokesman on local government to give it my support.

The Minister cannot have it both ways. He is arguing that the measures in the Bill that allow the rates to be paid by instalments would be unworkable, yet, 011 the other hand, in his circular he is urging local authorities to allow just that.

The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and I are old friends and would never want to misunderstand each other. I said that compulsion would destroy it. The great thing at the moment is that attention should be drawn to the facilities so that they may be used.

That is even more unworkable than compulsion.

I accept that consultations with local authorities are important, and certainly the Opposition do not wish to see a net increase in public expenditure, but this is a matter of robbing Peter of a minuscule amount to pay Paul something that will literally keep him alive.

It seems that the right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the seriousness of the crisis that many small shopkeepers face. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South and others of my hon. Friends have given the figures. It is no answer to say that Layfield will report. The right hon. Gentleman cannot commit his Government in advance to accept any recommendations from Layfield any more than I can commit my party. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it will take time to introduce legislation after Layfield has reported. There will have to be consultations with a wide range of people.

The fact is that small businesses are faced with extra burdens such as social security demands and multi-rate VAT. Their life was made more difficult when VAT was reduced from 10 per cent. to 8 per cent. They will now have to bear the increased cost of the vehicle excise licence. For many small shopkeepers, and especially those who run shops in rural areas, the increased cost of the vehicle excise licence together with the increased price of petrol will have alarming consequences on cash flow and profits.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentle. man does not seem to realise the critical nature of the situation. I live next door to a small shop. It serves the small community in which I live. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that small shopkeepers are working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week. They are often working those hours for fairly negligible returns. Their income is often being subsidised by police or fire service pensions. Such people are looking to the Bill to give them a small measure of help.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South will agree that this is an interim measure. If Layfield, or whatever follows from the Layfield Report, can solve the problem I shall be the first to cheer. In such circumstances I would offer my full co-operation. As my hon. Friend has said, the Bill has ample time to go through both Houses before 1st April 1976.

From my travels round the country and my talks with councillors of all political persuasions it is clear to me that councils now realise the critical nature of the situation. It is not merely the shopkeepers who put forward that view.

If the situation is as critical as the hon. Gentleman suggests, he should realise that the Bill does not include Scotland and that it would not begin to bite until April next year.

That is exactly the point I am making. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Layfield Committee's report will not have any of its recommendations implemented before 1978, 1979 or 1980. By that time the problem will have become self-solving because I believe that many small shopkeepers and factory owners will say "Enough is enough". I implore the Minister to realise that this is not a propaganda exercise. This is a real and genuine attempt to assist the small shopkeeper.

I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend and we have tried to find a solution that is workable. My hon. Friend has outlined all sorts of different ways in which the same result could be achieved. I think that in the Bill he has hit upon a procedure that could be implemented by local authorities. I do not know of any local authority association that would say that the Bill was totally impossible in terms of implementation and that it was necessary to wait another four or five years for the Layfield Committee's recommendations to be implemented.

It is extremely unhelpful of the right hon. Gentleman to give such a thin reply. It is only two days since he and I had an exchange in the House. Of course, we are old friends. I remind him of what he said on that occasion. He said that he was sympathetic as regards the introduction of legislation to enable local authorities to act as estate agents, to undertake the legal side of house purchase and to provide a wide range of community services such as funeral arrangements and taxi services. The right hon. Gentleman said that he sympathised with those general objectives. He said that on Wednesday, and yet he is denying small business men in particular the help that in many cases would keep them going. Against that he has said that it might be a good idea in future for local authorities to run many additional services themselves. That might well involve running them at a considerable loss.

The Minister's reply was very disappointing. I can assure him that he has not heard the last of this matter.

I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene for a few moments. I was here for the earlier part of the debate, and I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) said in moving the Second Reading. I made a special point of coming back to hear the Minister's reply, and I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) that it was most disappointing. After all, the Minister of State told the House that everyone must share the burden. We understand that. The question is whether the burden is fair. Manifestly, it is not.

The National Chamber of Trade, which has done a first-class job in working out the differences in rate increases, has pointed to the vast anomalies which exist between one part of the country and another. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South highlighted in a nonpartisan way how these affect many constituencies, including those of many Government supporters.

I find it totally indefensible for the Minister to get up in his bland style and to skirt round the subject. If he had recognised the existence of the problem, he could have achieved some kind of rapport with the Opposition. He must understand that, in the light of the Budget, people like my boatbuilders in Littlehampton are facing a 25 per cent. increase in VAT which represents yet another body blow and that they cannot reconcile all these body blows coming so thick and fast with a Government who are clearly unwilling to recognise the problems which exist.

It is in that sense that I hope that in the closing minutes of this debate some all-party support will emerge for the idea that action must be taken at least to recognise the existence of the problem and to get down to tackling it. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South has tried. I hope that we shall continue to do so.

I think that there should be one voice from the Government benches which recognises the existence of the problem. Like many other hon. Members, I have had representations from businesses of all kinds, both small and large, and not only the corner shops but many others too. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) spoke of boatbuilders. I have a number in my constituency, and they have raised their problems with me. Then there are those concerned with repair work. I have in mind, for example, small repair shops dealing with electrical goods. There are very many businesses of this type on which we all rely. They will be hit severely by the 25 per cent. rate of VAT.

These are matters which we shall be raising in the process of the forthcoming Finance Bill. We seem to have continuous Finance Bills nowadays. But it would be wrong for us to let slip through, even on Second Reading, a Bill which brings up a host of quite important matters, to some of which my right hon. Friend very properly referred. There is both the question of definition and the question of the task that a measure of this kind would impose upon local authorities to pick and choose the businesses which should get the type of relief suggested in the Bill. I suggest that such a task would be quite intolerable, if not impossible.

Apart from that, there is the major question of the Layfield inquiry. A great many representations have been made to it from all parts of this House, by our political parties and by a wide range of bodies all over the country, notably the local authorities themselves. It is ridiculous to suggest that we should pass a measure of this kind even on Second Reading. I do not mean by that that it would prejudice the workings of the Layfield Committee, but it would interrupt them and suggest that we had no confidence in the proposals that it was about to make.

In any event, the Layfield Committee has not been denied the opportunity to examine the position of small businesses. It is quite entitled to do that, and we assume that it will make some recommendations on the subject.

Therefore, I think that it would be unreal if we took the action proposed by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South, and—

Object.

I think that I heard the word "Object". This means that the Government are continuing to condemn 20,000 schoolchildren to unnecessary hospitalisation. Is it proper that this should be done?

That is not a matter for the Chair.

A most serious allegation has been made about the Government's attitude, in my view quite improperly. This Bill was due for consideration. If it had come before the House, I would have explained that the Bill was not necessary since the powers required are available under the Medicines Act. There has already been extensive consultation on this matter, and—

Order. This is a matter within the discretion of the Chair. Neither point is a point of order. I heard the word "Object". Objection taken.

Object.

What day? No day named.

Object.

Object.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe I heard the Whip say "Object". Clearly that is an error, because this measure should have received all-party support.

That is not a matter for the Chair.

rose—

Order. It must be understood that the points raised on these matters are not points of order. If the hon. Member has a valid point of order, I shall hear it. However, I cannot hear points which are simply ingenious ways of objecting to objections.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister attempted to explain the Government position. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if—

That is not a point of order.

Object.

Object.

Object.

I am glad of this opportunity to raise a matter which although basically a constituency problem has wider implications.

This is the background to the matter. As a result of the opening of the fine new Queen Mary's Hospital in Sidcup last year, an ancillary hospital in Cray Valley, which is in my constituency, was no longer required and was closed.

For some time plans have been under discussion for other uses for the building, such as possibly an alcoholic unit or a geriatric home. On the other hand, plans have been proceeding for some years to build the River Thames barrage involving the demolition of the Long Reach Isolation Hospital at Dartford and its eventual rebuilding. Meanwhile the regional health authority has been seeking temporary accommodation and last autumn decided that the Cray Valley Hospital was suitable for this purpose. Since mid-February the hospital has been designated as a smallpox isolation unit and stands ready for a use to which we must all fervently hope it will never be put.

I wish in the short time available to me to examine, first, whether the placement for Long Reach is necessary at all; secondly, whether Cray Valley is a suitable replacement, and, thirdly, how the matter has been handled.

The closure of Long Reach Hospital deprives the National Health Service of 40 smallpox beds. There still remain 232 beds in England, of which 24 are at Ipswich and 45 at Solihull. How badly are these beds needed and to what extent have they been used? In the three-year period 1972–74 there were five cases throughout England, all in 1973. I argue that there is ample provision in respect of smallpox within England. especially as the World Health Organisation expects within a few months to achieve complete control of smallpox in the few areas where it still exists and hopes to declare its complete elimination within two to three years.

Some experts believe that there is no need for scattered isolation units but put the case for larger, well-equipped smallpox units. Objections have been raised about the difficulty of transporting smallpox patients over considerable distances. I should like to quote the Minister's letter in which he said:

"Public safety requires total isolation of the ambulance and its crew;this would be difficult to ensure since there is no ambulance in the country either fitted with toilet facilites or capable of covering the maximum distances which might be involved without refuelling."

I do not dispute that that may be so. but I understand that there are suitable vehicles available abroad and the £20,000 which is to be spent on alterations at Cray Valley would go a long way towards the purchase or adaptation of suitable vehicles.

If some sort of replacement is to be found in the area, for Long Reach, were all the other possibilities vigorously pursued? Did the regional health authority

consider erecting a simple, temporary building near Long Reach? How carefully did the authority consider the fact that at Denton, near Gravesend, there is a 15-bed ex-Port of London Authority isolation hospital, purpose-built, and now lying unused? The Minister says that he has looked at this matter carefully, but we have had no explanation why it cannot be used.

There are a number of objections to using Cray Valley Hospital as a smallpox isolation unit, thus depriving the locality of a building which could be used for other purposes. A total of £20,000 is being spent on adaptations, yet either the building will lie completely idle for two years or more or if, alas, it is used. at the end of the period it may have to be completely demolished, as the Long Reach building is to be. Either way it seems to be a dreadful manner in which to treat a valuable local asset.

Incidentally, one is bound to feel that plans to rebuild Long Reach within two years are optimistic even at the best of times, especially in the light of restrictions on public expenditure foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier this week.

There are practical objections to the use of Cray Valley. It is true that there is an open space immediately adjacent but close to a densely-populated residential area consisting of 10,000 people. The Minister in his decision letter said that the nearest dwelling was more than a quarter of a mile away. I assure him that that is not the case and that there are several homes within a quarter of a mile radius of the hospital. If he wishes me to do so, I can show him the situation on the map.

To the natural concern of local residents about the danger of infection from the hospital is added the problem that this particular area is frequented by gipsies, who tend, alas, to be no respecters of either fences or notices. Whatever vaccination control plans are initiated, it will be very difficult to maintain them with a constantly changing gipsy population.

The final aspect to which I seek to draw attention is the whole manner in which this matter has been handled. The regional health authority knew two years ago that Long Reach Hospital would have to be closed. But the letter to the area authority announcing the proposal to use Cray Valley as a smallpox unit with effect from 1st January of this year was dated 30th October 1974—two months before the proposal was due to come into effect.

On the following day, the area health authority wrote to interested parties requesting views to be submitted by 2nd December, giving just one month. One of the interested parties was the local community health council, which accordingly called a public meeting, which was held on 26th November. Unfortunately, in the absence of the local newspapers due to strike, the publicity for the meeting was limited. Nevertheless, over 100 people were present to hear the regional authority's case. At the end of the meeting, 70 people voted against the proposal, and only five voted in favour.

Certainly my postbag reflects the similar and strong views of local residents. They were particularly incensed to learn that adaptation work at the hospital to the value of about £15,000 or £20,000 was already in hand while the consultation was taking place. It is not surprising that they felt that the authority was simply paying lip-service to the idea of consultation and that they were faced with afail accompli.

On 5th December the community health council sent the area health authority a well-argued letter detailing its objections to the proposal. Later that month the area health authority held a meeting to consider the proposal. Only 10 of the 15 members were present, of whom five voted in favour and four against, with one member, whose property is within the quarter-mile radius to which I have referred, very properly abstaining. The proposal was then sent by the regional authority to the Minister for his final decision.

Also in December, and before a decision was announced, the regional authority issued notices to the effect that Long Reach would no longer be available for smallpox cases after 15th January, that from the middle of January until 18th February any cases were to be sent to Ipswich, and that from 18th February cases were to be sent to Cray Valley.

On 30th January the Minister of State gional health authority knew two years

members of the community health council, and me, to meet him. He gave us a courteous and attentive hearing, for which I am most grateful. However, in the light of what had already happened, the House will not be surprised to learn that on 11th February, in a letter, the Minister announced his approval of the proposal.

In her document "Democracy in the National Health Service" the Secretary of State wrote,

"It is particularly important that Community Health Councils should be consulted about developments in the services in their district at a formative stage when their views can influence decisions."

My community health council feels that it was given grossly inadequate time for consultation and regrets that its views did not, apparently, influence the Minister's decision. My constituents feel that this was a decision taken without adequate consideration of the practicalities involved, and that such consultation as took place was simply window dressing.

I hope that the Minister will reconsider his decision. If he will not, I hope that he will be able to give me, and my constituents, some fuller explanation of how and why he took this decision.

The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for having raised this issue on behalf of his constituents. It also gives me the opportunity of dealing with the whole issue of smallpox which is of concern to his constituents and also to the whole country.

This year, the World Health Organisation expects that smallpox will disappear from the earth as the WHO completes operations in the co-ordinated international eradication programme begun in 1967. We must all hope that that hope is fulfilled. In 1967, the disease ravaged 30 nations of the world and was imported by travellers into many other countries, but by the end of 1974 it was confined to three countries—Bangladesh, India and Ethiopia. The surveillance teams continue to search for any hidden outbreaks and will be on the alert during the following two years after eradica- tion. Surveillance is the key and teams must remain on guard long after what may seem to be the last confirmed case. However, as humans are the only hosts of the disease its interruption will be final when eradication is eventually confirmed.

The smallpox situation in Bangladesh is at present giving cause for concern. Floods and famine have meant that, contrary to the trend in the other two countries, the disease there has been increasing during the annual smallpox "high season" at this time of the year. Efforts have been redoubled by the WHO teams to combat the increase in Bangladesh, and to try to reduce the danger of importation of the disease into adjacent districts of the neighbouring countries. The World Health Organisation is confident that, with strict surveillance and extra contributions to the eradication campaign from member States—the United Kingdom has given an additional £225,000 during the past five months—the situation in Bangladesh can be controlled, and eradication achieved on target. This is obviously important to the smallpox provision that we make in this country.

We can, therefore, be hopeful that, in the future, smallpox will disappear. But in the meantime my responsibilities to the House and the country lead me to warn that we cannot afford to relax our vigilance—not least because of the air traffic for business and pleasure purposes which can quickly bring persons to the United Kingdom from any area of actual or potential infection. As part of this vigilance, we must maintain facilities for the isolation and treatment of suspected or confirmed cases until smallpox has been firmly eradicated.

Until recently the first line facilities for isolating and treating smallpox cases which presented in Greater London and the South-East generally were provided by Long Reach Isolation Hospital, Dartford, but that unit had to be closed to enable works in connection with the River Thames Barrage to proceed. Isolation facilities will continue to be needed to cover all parts of the country, for the reasons I have just mentioned, but the large numbers of people who arrive by air in the London area make an isolation facility in the South-East of particular importance.

A new permanent unit to replace Long Reach Hospital is being planned by the South-East Thames Regional Health Authority in the grounds of Joyce Green Hospital, Dartford. This permanent unit will provide isolation facilities not only for smallpox but later for other communicable diseases which may present, requiring the strictest isolation, such as lassa fever, but I confirm that lassa fever cases will not be housed in the hon. Member's constituency, as was at one time suggested. This accords with my Department's policy that smallpox hospitals should be used only for smallpox.

For the reasons which I have given, I have had to reject a suggestion that no replacement unit should be built and that reliance should be placed on the first-line smallpox hospital at Solihull, which serves the Midlands. I have taken expert medical advice, especially in view of the representations made to me personally by the Bromley Community Health Council about the use of Cray Valley, and I have been strongly advised by my Chief Medical Officer that dependence on Solihull or any other relatively distant unit to cover London and the South-East for anything but a brief emergency period would be unsuitable. In the light of that advice, it is not open to any Minister to question it. This is a serious potential disease and the risks are considerable.

I therefore accept that advice, which stems from the public safety requirement of total isolation of the ambulance and its crew and the practical difficulties of ensuring such isolation in conveying patients routinely over long distances, and many other related problems, of which ambulance design is only one aspect.

Other premises in the South-East were considered for temporary use but were found unsuitable. An important factor affecting the selection of premises, other considerations aside, was the availability of an experienced medical and nursing team near at hand.

I should now like to deal with the way in which this issue has been handled. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have sympathy with the plea made by the community health council. I have considerable sympathy, too, with the feeling that this was a fait accompli. It was because of these feelings, the fact that it was not a fait accompli, and because of the well-informed and detailed criticisms of the community health council that I decided to see the members personally and to consider the whole question. This was in no way a window-dressing operation. This was a difficult decision involving a number of complex issues, and I acknowledge that as a result of that meeting we had to look at a number of other factors before I finally made up my mind.

The community health council in its representations to Ministers reflected the philosophy underlying the Government's paper "Democracy in the National Health Service" where we say that if these councils make detailed objections to a major policy change, even if it has been accepted by the regional health authority, the case will go to Ministers, and that if they put up alternative suggestions Ministers will take them seriously. I think the fact that I saw them is part of the new machinery for reflecting local feeling. I understand their disappointment at my decision, but I ask them to put themselves in my position given the facts of the situation.

I believe that consultation is very important for the health service of the future, particularly at a time of limited resources. We shall not carry local opinion with us on any decision, let alone such difficult decisions as introducing a smallpox isolation hospital to an area, unless we are prepared at all levels in the health service—Ministers, regional health authorities and area health authorities to involve local communities at an early stage. I believe that this issue would have been far easier to handle if they had been involved at an earlier stage and had not seen the necessary work being carried out when no final decision had been taken. Many people feel that this is a fait accompli, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to believe that it was not.

The apprehensions of local residents are very understandable, but I should like to take this opportunity of repeating the assurance which I gave to the community health council that every precaution will be taken to safeguard the health of the community during any period when Cray Valley Hospital has to be used.

The hon. Gentleman expressed the views of those who have raised problems, in particular about gipsies. This is a factor that will have to be taken into account in dealing with security precautions for the hospital, and I have asked specifically for that to be looked into.

Concern has also been expressed locally about the risks which might arise from an outbreak of fire in the hospital. The problems for the fire brigade are no different in principle from those attending fires at a laboratory or other place where there may be infection hazards. The health of the firemen who might have to attend such an outbreak would be safeguarded by prior vaccination and any patients would be transfered to another first line smallpox isolation hospital. This has been a complicated and difficult issue, and I look forward to the time when we have permanent facilities available in the London area, with the skilled staff on the spot, at a hospital which is purpose-designed for this purpose.

I should like to pay tribute to the thorough and responsible way in which local opinion has been represented by the community health council and by many others. I hope they will accept that I have demonstrated the Government's concern and importance that we attach to their role, and I very much hope they will think that the contribution they have made has not been diminished by the fact that, in the light of the expert medical advice available to me and for considerations of national public safety, I have had to take a decision which does not accord with the views that they expressed to me.

No local community would take a decision such as this without reasonably asking many serious questions about the issues involved, but I am satisfied that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have nothing to fear from this hospital for a temporary period.

It may well be the case, and I hope that it will be the case, that there are no smallpox admissions to that hospital during a two-year period. If the eradication programme is anywhere near as successful as most of us hope, such admissions may never occur. If we never have any more smallpox, and therefore have no smallpox facilities, in this country, we shall all be able to pay tribute to the work that the WHO has been doing over the years, based on a total eradication programme. It is too early to give firm and definite assurances, but I am hopeful that smallpox will be a thing of the past in the world, and certainly in this country. in future years.