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

I hope that it will be in order, Mr. Speaker, to take with the new clause Amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 41, to leave out Clause 3.

That would be quite in order.

I am obliged.

It may be helpful—I hope that it is in order—to comment on the rather formidable list of amendments in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). Despite their length and number, the House will not find that there are substantial issues of policy involved in any of them. They merely represent the fulfilment of undertakings given in Committee and certain rather technical improvements which, on advice, we indicated in Committee we thought were necessary. I should like to say how grateful I am to the officials in the Home Office and the parliamentary draftsmen who have given us invaluable assistance in this matter.

The Bill is nothing whatever to do with regulating the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee. You, Mr. Speaker, and I adorned that body for some time. It appears that since our departure it has achieved a new measure of docility.

The Bill deals with animals, mainly of an exotic nationality, specified and recognised universally as dangerous. The purpose of the Bill is that they should be kept as pets by private persons only in fairly exceptional circumstances, and then only under the strict control of a licence issued by the local authority.

The licensing machinery proposed in the Bill has been modelled on that which is found in several other pieces of legislation about animals. Those Acts are concerned, however, with the regulation of the use of premises for various kinds of business activity involved in the keeping of animals.

Would this point cover the case of the lady who was recently reported to have loved lions and to have been embraced by one? Would she now be protected?

As we proceed with the amendments, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that my Bill will cover, and adequately cover, matters in relation to public safety as well as the well-being of the lady to whom he has referred. I think that the Bill will cover every possible anxiety that he might have.

The lady was covered by a lion. I take it that she would now be covered by the Bill's provisions.

The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that if that lion were not safely and properly kept, the possessor of the lion, presumably its owner, would be liable to criminal proceedings. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that very helpful intervention.

I shall now return to the new clause. I mentioned that the licensing machinery proposed in the Bill has been modelled on that which is found in other animal legislation. Those Acts, however, cover premises for business activities and their prime objective is the welfare of the animals in question. This Bill, however, is concerned with the keeping of individual animals by private persons, and although the welfare of the animal is catered for, the Bill is primarily aimed at the protection of the public and public safety.

It has, therefore, to deal with a rather more complex set of circumstances than those which apply when a business is run in a certain place. A number of these complexities were exposed in our discussions in Committee on various amendments. We gave undertakings that we would take a closer look at some technical problems and introduce amendments on Report.

In essence, the problem concerns who should be regarded as the keeper of the animal and how adequate control should be exercised over the various places in which that animal may be kept, having regard to the fact that the places in which it is kept may fall within the area of more than one local authority. The amendments today are directed almost entirely to the resolution of these problems. Where they are not purely consequential and drafting, they are mainly technical. My hon. Friend and I, therefore, subject to any wishes which may be expressed, propose to introduce them fairly briefly, simply calling attention to the changes of substance effected by each amendment. If asked, we shall of course be glad to try to explain in more detail the meaning and implication of the amendments.

The new clause fulfils an undertaking which my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster gave in Committee in response to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer). That amendment sought to clarify the circumstances in which the seizure and disposal powers conferred by Clause 3 might be exercised and to provide that the local authority should not only be relieved of having to pay compensation for such a disposal, but should also be able to recover as a civil debt any additional expenditure in which it had been involved as a result. We accepted that the principle of these proposals was well founded and the new clause gives effect to them.

Subsection (1) makes it clear that these powers may be exercised not only when a dangerous wild animal is being kept without a licence at all but when it is being kept under the authority of a licence but the conditions of the licence are not being complied with. In the former case, the local authority is now given the new power to recover any expenditure from the person who was keeping the animal—that is, usually the possessor. In the case of a breach of a licence, the person made liable to pay this expenditure will be the licence holder.

I hope that it will be agreed that the new clause is an acceptable improvement on Clause 3. It fulfils an undertaking and I commend it to the House.

My name is on the back of the Bill, and although I was not able to be a member of the Committee, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on the admirable way in which they have brought this necessary legislation through its proceedings so far. I hope that nothing will delay its passage to the statute book.

There have been too many recent examples to show that there is a gap in the law which needs to be filled as soon as possible. I can illustrate that best by mentioning two cases which have come to light in my constituency, both of them having some bearing on the new clause. The first raises a query in my mind which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to answer. It is exactly what will be meant by "being kept".

I ask this question because of a curious episode which caused a bit of a stir in my constituency. As I understand the circumstances, some Asian constituents, who are known to me, acquired from a dealer somewhere in the Midlands a lion cub which they wished to export to Pakistan. They had it at home for the weekend and while it was there they thought that it was not looking very well. They rang the police to ask for the address of someone who could have a look at it. Some misunderstanding seems to have arisen, because an ambulance arrived. The ambulancemen were slightly put out to discover that they were called upon to deal with a sick lion cub rather than a sick human being.

That problem was eventually resolved and, so far as I know, the lion cub has recovered and gone safely to its destination, but that leaves in my mind the question whether, in those circumstances, the lion cub was "being kept". It probably was, but if so there may be a need for flexibility in the licensing procedure to cover a transitional situation of this kind. Alternatively, it may need to be made clear to people who buy dangerous wild animals for export in this situation that they cannot have them in their own custody, that the animals must remain in the custody of the licensed dealer or breeder.

My second example deals with the more notorious of the two lions with which my constituency has been bothered. This raises a question which I am glad to see the new clause resolves—namely, the extent to which councils which may incur expenditure under this legislation are to be entitled to recover it.

11.15 a.m.

This second case came to general notice. One of my constituents was walking quietly to work one morning wearing her leopard skin coat when she was surprised to find a heavy weight on each of her shoulders. At first she thought that it might be her son, who had a reputation for doing that sort of thing, but she found that the weight came from two large furry paws. She sank to the ground without screaming, which was quite the best thing she could have done in the circumstances. The owner of the lion—he was the agency responsible for this incident—quickly came and retrieved his pet, which until then had been attached by a rope to the bumper of his taxi.

Further inquiries revealed that this animal was kept by the taxi driver, who is another of my constituents, in a secondhand double decker bus on a derelict site in the town. There had been some local comment about this situation before, and not unnaturally, this incident stimulated further comment. The police have apparently been unable to find any appropriate legislation.

The borough council properly thought that it should take some action to protect the public interest, but found that all it could do was seek an injunction. The council obtained that injunction, but in the meantime the lion had disappeared and the owner, or former owner, has vouchsafed no further information about its disappearance other than that he had got rid of it. Perhaps he had returned it to the same dealer in the Midlands from whom he had acquired it.

The council must have incurred some expense in the seeking of legal procedures. I do not suppose that it got an injunction for nothing, although it may not have cost a lot. It would no doubt have incurred further expense if it had had to press on and I do not know that it would have had any redress to recover many of its expenses as the law stood. However, it might have been so fortunate.

The point, however, is that the new procedures, which will be much more satisfactory in such cases, include the admirable provision that the local authorities which take action in cases of this kind will be empowered to recover the expenditure, which would otherwise fall on the ratepayers generally. That seems wholly admirable.

I am slightly unhappy to see that the animals concerned may be destroyed. I can understand that that provision is necessary, but I hope that it will be the last resort rather than the first resort. It is not the fault of these unhappy animals that they behave dangerously. They behave in what is to them an entirely natural and instinctive manner—although I doubt whether lions born and bred in Birmingham have often seen leopards in the wild and thus are instinctively attracted to leopard skin coats.

However, we must not assume some wickedness on the part of the animal which causes it to be dangerous. It is unnatural behaviour by those who keep them which causes the animal to become dangerous. I therefore hope that anyone exercising powers under this legislation will appreciate that and that the general resort will be to try to convey any such animal into the safer keeping of a zoo or some well-organised and properly-equipped keeper rather than automatically to call someone in to shoot it out of hand.

I congratulate the sponsors of the Bill on bringing it to its present stage. The Government fully support the Bill.

I am glad that the sponsors have taken account of a number of drafting and other matters which were put to them by officials of my Department. The result is that the House now has the opportunity of remodelling the Bill on lines which will make it more precise and less likely to lead to difficulties of interpretation. Most of the amendments to be discussed today refine and elaborate provisions which were already in the Bill, but which needed to be brought out more clearly for the benefit of those who will be affected—those who keep or propose to keep dangerous wild animals, local authorities, the courts and the police.

The Government believe that this will be a useful measure for dealing with a small but growing practice which, if not properly regulated, could lead—and, to some extent, has already led—to alarming incidents in which members of the public are put at risk, largely because of the thoughtless or ill-considered actions of a few individuals.

With that overall view in mind, I hope that the House will give sympathetic consideration to the amendments which we are to discuss and which do not raise any serious issue of principle.

I entirely support the new clause. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) raised an important matter regarding the power to be given to local authorities to destroy animals. If a person owns a dangerous dog, an order to destroy that dog must be obtained from the magistrates' court. It seems dangerous to leave entirely within the discretion of the local authority the decision whether an animal should be destroyed.

I ask that this matter be looked at again and that in another place an amendment be tabled to deal with it.

I should like to add my congratulations to the sponsors of the Bill, to its draftsmen, and to all who have had anything to do with bringing it to this stage so successfully. I hope that it will go through its remaining stages in the spirit in which it has been started.

As one of the sponsors, although at the bottom of the list, and as one who served on the Committee, I have watched the progress of the Bill with interest. I consider it to be a conscientious attempt to improve standards of public safety. Such improvement has become necessary because of the highly successful operation of safari parks and the like, which have obtained a substantial by-product in the form of healthy animals which, in the shops, look very cuddly. The dispersal of animals has given rise to problems which, in turn, have given rise to the need for the Bill. I am delighted with its progress so far.

New Clause 1 takes up the well-founded anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer), who drew attention to the shortcoming of the initial clause which failed to allow for the recovery of costs from the person responsible for incurring those costs—the individual who kept the animal in the first place. My hon. Friend also drew attention to the time between discovery of the animal and that at which prosecution or legal action could be taken. The clause as drafted covers those points. It is essential that the Bill should not incur a burden on the rates, and the clause adequately covers that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) made an important point about the destruction of animals. That point was also taken up by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). I think that it is necessary that power be given for the destruction of animals, although I add my voice to those who advocate that that should be the last resort. However, I foresee a situation where an animal is in such a dangerous state that destruction is the only course open to an authority. It would be an intolerable burden on the authority to have to cope with an animal in such a dangerous state without being allowed to consider destruction.

If the animal is dangerous, the local authority should take proper precautions to ensure that there is no danger. But an order should be obtained from the magistrates' court for the destruction of the animal.

I suggest that a situation could occur in which an animal is in such a dangerous state at the time that it is discovered that destruction is necessary. Therefore, it would be intolerable to have to go to the magistrates' court and say "Please, may we shoot this animal?" That is why the power to destroy should be given. However, I hope that all local authorities would take the view that destruction should be the last possible course of action.

The clause covers compensation. If somebody keeps an animal which is potentially dangerous within the meaning of this legislation, he should stand the rap for the financial consequences of his action. Therefore, I agree with the absence of any compensation for an animal which has to be destroyed because of the owner's contravention of the law. I commend the clause to the House.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State and to hon. Members for the welcome given to the new clause and, through it, to the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred to an important matter which has exercised our minds greatly. I refer to the proper definition of the word "keeping" in order to cover the type of eventuality which he mentioned. I should like to leave that matter to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) who will be covering it in subsequent amendments. I think that my hon. Friend will find that the amendments which we are proposing cover the matter to which he referred.

Anxiety was expressed by hon. Members, particularly by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), about the power to destroy a dangerous wild animal. That is a general power which is given to a local authority where the condition of a licence has been contravened or not complied with or where there is no licence, to seize the animal, retain it in its possession, destroy it, or otherwise dispose of it.

I think that we can accept that a local authority is unlikely to destroy an animal if it is possible to deal with it in another way. The anxiety which has been expressed on this matter reflects the concern of many people. For that reason, I am sure that local authorities will pay attention to that anxiety. I sincerely hope that the destruction of an animal will be a last resort.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) and insert:

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'such licence' and insert 'licence under this Act'.

No. 3, in line 36, leave out 'such licence' and insert 'licence under this Act'.

No. 4, in page 3, line 1, leave out

'licensed under the provisions of'

and insert

'to whom a licence has been granted under'.

No. 5, in line 3, leave out 'issued' and insert 'granted'.

No. 6, in line 10, leave out from 'condition' to 'this' in line 11 and insert 'of a licence under'.

No. 7, in line 12, leave out from ', with' to end of line 12 and insert

then,—

(a) the person to whom the licence was granted, and

(b) any other person who is entitled to keep any animal under the authority of the licence and who was primarily responsible for the contravention or failure to comply,'.

No. 8, in line 20, leave out '(5)' and insert '(1K)'.

This amendment is more formidable in appearance than in actuality. I propose to mention the points raised in the amendment, to headline them, to take the House specifically through each subsection involved, and to concentrate on each part of the amendment.

I was pleased to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said about various problems which we have shared. In the course of dealing with these amendments I shall deal specifically with "keeping". That will be one of the headlines with which I shall deal. I assure my hon. Friend that the amendments, which not only equate "keeping" with possession but make the strictest conditions mandatory regarding the moving of any licensed animal from the place where it is normally kept, were tabled, at least in part, so that hopefully never again would he be troubled by a mistakenly amorous lion in his constituency. With that assurance I now propose to cover the details of the matter.

11.30 a.m. In the amendments every effort has been made by those responsible for the Bill to satisfy representations which have been made at all levels. The matters with which I am about to deal were raised in Committee and in my opinion they improve the Bill. I also assure the House that there are no great changes of policy involved. The changes involve improvements in drafting and introduce certain new matters, and I am particularly indebted to the Under-Secretary and her Department for their assistance.

The main alterations which arise are as follows. First, the licensing authority will be that for the area in which the animal is normally kept. The Bill at present is vague on that point, and is much improved by the amendments. At present the licensing authority attaches to the applicant himself rather than to the area. Often there will be difficulties about where the animal is kept. There was insufficient provision for the possibility that the animal might be moved, for what local authorities should be responsible, and whether those local authorities should consult with each other. None of that was in the Bill. Each of these matters is covered, as a result of representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) in Committee.

Secondly—and I suggest that this is a great improvement and simplification—people under 18 years of age are disqualified from holding a licence. Amendment No. 1 simplifies and eliminates the almost contortionate situation in Clause 6(1) where technically a minor could become a licensee but yet the head of the household would be responsible for any animal which the minor might own. This simple disqualification of minors not only virtually eliminates Clause 6(1) but is also an overall improvement to the Bill.

My third point relates to the matter of possession. The amendment concentrates, so far as keeping is concerned, on the element of possession. This is a simplification in legal construction and will be of help in the sort of situation which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking raised. The amendment seeks to make it quite clear that it would normally be the owner and possessor who would be licensed.

At the same time, the amendment provides certain flexibility. To give one example, an owner may not always be in the country or at the place where the animal was kept, and somebody else may be looking after the animal. That other person may be licensed under the provisions if necessary, and as a result of other related amendments could be made responsible. Indeed, he could also commit an offence.

Fourthly, arising from points made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), speaking as a council member of the British Veterinary Association and in the light of representations which we have received, there is now a stipulation that a licence shall not be granted without veterinary inspection. It is a fact—indeed, this has been corroborated—that where there are provisions in various Acts of Parliament that there may be veterinary inspection, that is often not taken up by local authorities and no vet is brought into the picture, when he should be. The essential words here are that the licence "shall not be granted".

We were most anxious to avoid imposing unnecessary cost on either the applicant or the taxpayer for a veterinary inspector when for some such simple reason, such as the unsuitability of premises, a licence would be refused anyway. Therefore, we provide that there shall be a veterinary inspection before the licence is granted.

Fifthly, there is greater guidance to local authorities about conditions which they impose in the granting of a licence. Shortly before the Committee stage, when the Bill was finally drafted, the provisions relating to this point were no more than recommendations to the local authorities about the sort of conditions which they should impose. In our view, this was unsatisfactory because a local authority did not know where it stood. The new conditions are mandatory and local authorities now know exactly where they stand. At the same time, there are powers to vary and revoke the various conditions of a licence, so that everything is now clear to the administering authorities.

May I therefore now take the House through the amendments specifically so that Members may concentrate on what I have been talking about in headline terms.

Amendment No. 1 is new and I put it to the House as an improvement in that it specifies the content of a licensing application. At least the applicant knows where he is, and the authority, when it receives the application, will doubtless find its task improved. Subsection (1B) is a redraft of the existing Clause 1(3). Subsection (1B)(a) is the present Clause 1(2). Subsection (1B)(b) is the present Clause 1(3)(e), and so on. If the House wishes, I can go through each individual example. This amendment is a redraft, a reorganisation and improvement of what already exists.

Subsection (1C) is important and I shall refer to it as we go through various other amendments. This is a specific implementation of the concept of ownership and possession which I have already explained to the House. It is clear that normally the application would be by someone who owns and possesses, but there is an exception for circumstances which are, in the local authority's opinion, exceptional. Various related amendments are improvements of the situation by making the possessor, who might not be the owner, responsible for the offence. and making the owner responsible for making available the conditions of the licence so that the possessor is aware of them. Indeed, the conditions should be displayed where the animal is kept.

Subsection (1D) is new. It results from the undertaking concerning veterinary inspection which I have already explained. It is clear that the important words are:

"A local authority shall not grant a licence …".

Subsection (1E) deals with the conditions which I have already mentioned, and much of it is new. It is an improvement on the existing Clause 1(5). The main alteration is that the conditions become mandatory instead of being in the form of vague recommendations to some unfortunate authority about what it might or might not do.

Subsection (1E)(a)(i) is new and is an implementation of the principle of ownership and possession in subsection (1)(c).

Subsection (1E)(a)(ii), which states:

"the animal shall normally be held at such premises as are specified in the licence"

is also new.

Next, paragraph (a)(iii) of the new subsection (1E) is a rewording of subsection (5)(a).

Sub-paragraph (iii)—

"any injury to any person which might be caused by the animal shall be covered by insurance and… the terms of the insurance shall be satisfactory…"—

is the result of our consideration of these matters in Committee and represents an effort to implement what the Committee agreed was desirable.

Paragraph (b) of new subsection (1E) is a redrafting of the existing subsection (5)(a). I think that I have already explained enough regarding the conditions.

The new subsection (1F) deals with the general power of an authority, once having dealt with the mandatory conditions, to do what it wants by way of specifying such conditions in a licence as it thinks fit. There are, of course, rights of appeal to a court over this matter anyway.

Subsection (1G) is new, recognising that there may be more than one local authority involved. It makes more understandable what is to happen when an animal is to be away for a short time. For example, one can think of chimpanzees going away to do a television advertisement or some such. The period here is any continuous period exceeding 72 hours, and the purpose is that the receiving authority should know what is within its boundaries. There is an obligation on the licensing authority to consult so that it may inform the receiving authority of what is to arrive and stay longer than 72 hours.

I come next to the new subsection (1K), dealing with variation and revocation. The House will note that any condition of a licence specified by virtue of subsection (1E) may not be revoked—in other words, such a condition may only be varied—and any condition specified under paragraph (a)(ii) may not even be varied. The reference to paragraph (a)(ii) is the important one, referring to where the animal shall be kept—in other words, the premises.

The new subsection (1J) is further implementation of the same matter. The new subsection (1K) is a redrafting of what is already in the Bill as regards rights of appeal.

I come now to the other amendments which we are discussing. Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are drafting. Amendment No. 7 deals with the keeper or person in possession—this relates back to new subsection (1C) in Amendment No. 1—and provides that anyone who is a keeper may be found guilty of an offence under the Bill. This applies responsibility to somebody who may be in a "Woking" situation, if I may so call it.

I commend all these proposals to the House.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) has with meticulous care spelled out the effect of the amendments, and I congratulate both the promoter of the Bill and the hon. Gentleman on the comprehensive way in which they have drawn Amendment No. 1. I looked through it carefully to see whether I could find any flaw, but I could not. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), with his great legal ability and experience, has covered every possible contingency. I congratulate him upon what he has done, and I am sure that it will be effective.

I wonder whether I may have had slightly better luck than did the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), because I have found two matters on which I want reassurance.

The first relates to cases which may arise in the future. As I understand it, most people who already have dangerous wild animals in their possession will have nothing to do save apply for a licence and go through the procedures set out. Also, as I understand Clause 1 as redrafted, anyone who proposes to own a dangerous animal will have to do the same. However, I am not wholly clear whether it will be an offence for the owner of a dangerous wild animal to transfer ownership to somebody who does not at present possess such an animal. For example, a man who has a lion cub and is keeping it may decide that it is all getting rather difficult and he had better get rid of it, or a pet shop owner in the normal course of trade may wish to sell a lion cub across the counter, so to speak.

11.45 a.m.

I have in mind here the parallel situation in the licensing and control of shotguns and rifles. It is a condition of a legal sale that the requisite licence shall be produced by the purchaser. Will a similar requirement apply under the Bill? I am sure that the pet trade ought to understand precisely what the position is. For my part, I should like to see it made a stipulation that a would-be owner of a dangerous wild animal has to produce his licence at the time of sale.

The second matter is slightly more complicated. Under the new subsection (1B)(a)(i) it is properly stipulated that the animal should be held in conditions which secure that it will not escape. However, there is no limit to human ingenuity, and I was astonished the other day to see in a notable satirical publication a story which I think I must accept as true since I have never known that publication to tell anything but the truth about animals. It told the story of what happened when two council workmen were delivering plastic dustbin sacks to houses, pushing them through the letter-box. One of them, having pushed the sack through the letter-box, felt the sack seized in what he described as an unusual way as it went through. For reasons which are not wholly clear, he attempted to retrieve the sack but was unable to pull it back through the letter-box. So he called his mate, and the two of them together seized hold of their end of the plastic sack, put their legs against the door of the house and pulled—pulling to such effect that they pulled down the door.

When they got to their feet again and looked inside where the door had been, they found that the other end of the plastic sack was securely held in the teeth of a crocodile. Subsequent inquiries revealed that this crocodile, which was not particularly dangerous, had been trained by its owner to collect the newspapers and carry them upstairs.

I imagine that it might be possible to satisfy a local authority that one could keep a crocodile in one's own home in safety, if that happened to be what one wanted to do, and show that one could and would meet all the stipulations in this admirable amendment. However, I should like to think that anyone who wanted to do that—and who am I to seek to impinge upon his rights?—was protected against unforeseeable behaviour of that kind. In other words, would there be some defence in common law against unpredictable and extraordinary behaviour of such people as those council workmen delivering plastic dustbin sacks?

As is said in another context—"Follow that one". I shall do my best. First, I offer my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on the great work they have done in preparing the Bill. As I was a member of the Standing Committee, however, I crave the indulgence of the House for a few minutes to add one or two comments, though I hasten to assure hon. Members that my comments will be short since the next Bill happens to be mine.

I declare an interest here in that I am National President of the Captive Animals Protection Society. Naturally, the Bill is of great interest to my society. We are very pleased to have the Home Office Minister with us, and I express to her and to the House the hope that the Bill will enable the Home Office to ensure that the law is stringently and rigidly enforced. There is a widespread feeling, still growing apace, not only in this country but throughout the world, that for too long we have been abusing wild animals, and that it is morally wrong to keep wild animals in conditions which are totally unnatural and incompatible with what should be their proper environment, conditions which inevitably lead to considerable suffering for those animals.

I hope that as the years go by the Bill will lead to a steady reduction and perhaps ultimately the elimination of all dangerous wild animals being kept in artificial, domestic captivity. I find it repugnant that any wild animal should be kept in captivity in restricted conditions and in an unsatisfactory environment.

There are potential dangers in the keeping of wild animals. I do not know whether a constituent who discussed the matter with me recently was having me on, but he seemed serious about the story that he told me. He claimed that he knew of some people who had kept a pet crocodile in a large fish tank. When it became too big for the fish tank they put it in the bath. When it grew too big for the bath they did not know what to do with it, so one night they tied up its mouth, wrapped it in wet sacks, crept out of the house and put the crocodile in the boot of the car. They drove to that well-known Sussex river, the Ouse, and slipped the crocodile into the water.

I was sceptical about that story but it is fair to assume that that poor crocodile would have died within a matter of hours of its being put into the River Ouse. But it is possible to envisage a situation where more than one of this type of creature was put into the Ouse. One can imagine the problems that would arise if those creatures managed to adapt and survive. The River Ouse is popular. It is used for boating and swimming and I fish in the river whenever I get the opportunity. I dread to think what might happen to someone quietly fishing who catches a small pike and then finds that the fish on his line is being snapped up by a crocodile.

Is this the same crocodile, or perhaps a relative, of the one described by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)? It certainly looks like it.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have a reputation for a dry sense of humour and we are glad that you have responded to the debate. I shall have to make further inquiries before I can give you an answer.

I shall certainly not fish in the River Ouse.

Clearly, there is an amusing side to this issue but there is also a serious undertone to it. There are potential dangers here, no matter how far fetched they may seem. The Bill will play a major part in preventing dangerous possibilities. If it were ever believed that there might be creatures of this sort growing and thriving in a river, it could have a grave effect on the use of facilities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the Bill. The sooner it is passed the better.

This amendment replaces those provisions of the Bill which deal with the powers of local authorities to grant licences and with the conditions they may attach to them. I should make clear that the local authority associations are not opposed to the Bill in principle, although they are quite rightly concerned that it should not involve additional expenditure or otherwise constitute a burden on their already over-taxed resources.

Subsection (1A) proposed in the amendment ensures that an application for a licence shall he accompanied by such fee as the authority may stipulate. No upper or lower limits are mentioned in the amendment. This is in accordance with the present practice of allowing local authorities to determine the level of the fee, taking into account their administrative and other costs in carrying out their licensing functions. The House will note that the fee has to accompany the licence application and not that the fee is payable when the licence is granted. At first sight it may seem unjust that an applicant should be required to pay for something he may never receive, but it should be borne in mind that a local authority may be involved in as much expenditure in turning down a licence application as it may be in granting a licence. Indeed, the costs may be higher. It is therefore equitable that authorities should, in all circumstances, be able to recover their expenses under the Bill.

The amendment makes it clear that an application must fulfil certain criteria, namely, those specified in subsection (1A). Most of these criteria are matters of common sense since they concern the species of animal, the number of animals, the premises and the like. The amendment makes it clear that an application cannot be entertained from a person who has previously been disqualified under the Act from keeping any dangerous wild animal or from anyone who is under 18. It may be that there are young people under 18 who are perfectly capable of keeping certain kinds of dangerous wild animal and, even now, conscientiously look after them and ensure that there is no danger to the public. Nevertheless, I think that the House will agree that there are, or there could be, a number of irresponsible youngsters who ought not to hold licences.

Under the Bill as drafted provision is made for the head of a household of which such a youngster is a member to be deemed the licence holder, but that is unsatisfactory. There could be dispute as to who precisely was head of the household. In these circumstances the sponsors have agreed that the simpler solution would be to ban the under 18s completely. That is not to say that a child under 18 could not have a dangerous wild animal. He could do this by persuading a parent or other relative or friend over 18 to apply for a licence which named him as the keeper. That could be done and in many cases a parent whose child had been keeping, say, poisonous snakes without harmful effects to anyone for a number of years could apply for a licence and name his child as the keeper. It would then be for the local authority to decide whether in the particular circumstances of that case a licence could properly be granted. One advantage of the amendment is that it would not be possible for a person under 18 to keep a dangerous wild animal without at least one responsible adult, usually a parent, knowing about it.

The amendment, in subsection (1E), sets out mandatory conditions to be attached to a licence by the issuing authority. The sponsors have already drawn attention to the additional requirement of insurance and making available a copy of the licence to anyone keeping the animal on behalf of the licence holder. I do not think the House will quarrel with either of those provisions. The amendment also caters for the fact that some animals may need to be taken from place to place for various reasons and that in the case of many such animals there is not likely to be cause for public alarm. I would imagine—though this would be entirely a matter for the licensing authority—that some animals will never be moved from the place where they are normally kept. I cannot, for instance, think of many circumstances in which a man may wish to take his emu with him on holiday. On the other hand he may wish to take a tank of small snakes with him to ensure their proper welfare rather than ask the local authority to permit as a condition of his licence that they be left from time to time in the charge of a named neighbour.

12 noon.

Some animals, such as chimpanzees, may occasionally be taken to television or film studios for short periods. The amendment would permit this, subject as in all cases to the satisfaction of the licensing authority. It seems right, too, that longer absences from the usual premises should be subject in the first instance to the agreement of the local authority to whose area they are proposed to be moved.

Under subsection (1d) veterinary inspection would be mandatory in cases where, after being satisfied on all other counts, a local authority was minded to grant a licence. I believe that it would be wrong for veterinary inspection to be mandatory in all circumstances, since a local authority may wish to refuse a licence on grounds which are in no way connected with the premises, suitability to hold the species in question. The authority will doubtless have in mind matters of local amenity, planning and the feeling of those who live in the area where the animal is proposed to be kept. In such circumstances it would seem unnecessary for the applicant to be required to foot the bill for a veterinary inspection when whether or not he gets a licence does not hinge on that inspection. On the other hand, where a local authority is satisfied about everything which would normally fall within its competence but needs expert guidance on very specialised matters—such as the precise arrangements for ensuring the regular feeding of a pair of lion cubs—it is right that it should be obliged to seek the guidance of those best able to give advice.

The amendment does not specify that the veterinarian authorised to inspect premises should have knowledge which is appropriate to the creature involved, and it would therefore in theory be possible for a local authority to arrange for the inspection of a cassowary's cage by a man whose whole professional life had been devoted to the veterinary care of cats, dogs and guinea pigs. But I think we can take it as read that a local authority would not do anything so absurd. In most cases local authorities would seek the advice of a veterinarian on the staff of a zoo, and I think that they can be relied upon to match the expertise necessary to the animal involved.

I am much obliged to the Minister for that contribution. I know how carefully she has studied and followed all these matters.

I shall try briefly to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). The first concerned the transfer of ownership. My hon. Friend touched on a matter about which many members of the public will be concerned. They would have to dive into the depths of a somewhat complicated section and subsection to find the answer. But the fact is that where there is any transfer of ownership or possession, a new application would have to be made, because there would be a new licensee.

Anybody who keeps any animal the subject matter of the Bill without a licence is committing an offence from the moment he takes possession. That is the practical effect of the Bill. The matter is fully covered and can be spelt out at any time if there should be any query upon it. It must be made clear to all those dealing in animals that not to have a licence before taking possession on purchase is to commit an offence.

I am grateful for those assurances. Will my hon. Friend go one stage further and cover the position of a vendor—say, a pet shop owner? Is he committing an offence if he sells a dangerous wild animal to someone who does not have a licence?

He could be. Pet shops are exempted, but if he did so knowingly he would be aiding and abetting the offence of another person and could be charged accordingly.

My hon. Friend's second point concerned the first crocodile to enter into the debate. I also saw the remarkable tale unfolded in the magazine mentioned. All I can say is that it would be rather unusual for a crocodile to be kept in the normal domestic premises. In addition to the licensee being a suitable person, the premises would have to be suitable. In this instance, a door was damaged. If the people trying to put whatever it was through the letterbox were damaged as well, the insurance provisions in the amendment would help. We could even oblige my hon. Friend by making it a condition of the licence that no crocodile shall collect the post or go downstairs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) rightly raised the position of animals in captivity. I take this opportunity of thanking my hon. Friend very much for his help. As National President of the Captive Animals Protection Society, he has been interested and has encouraged his society to be interested in the Bill from the beginning. He and his members have attended meetings as well as being present for the passage of the Bill. I pay tribute to him for all the work he does on this matter in the country and his work in connection with amendments.

I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 22 leave out 'A local authority' and insert

'Subject to subsection (1A) of this section, a local authority to which an application has been made for a licence under this Act, or which has granted such a licence,'.

With this amendment we are to discuss Amendments Nos. 10 to 14.

The amendments radically change subsections (1) and (2). They are technical or consequential and drafting amendments. The changes which are not purely consequential or drafting are, with one exception, needed to reflect the refinements made to the licensing system by the amendments to Clause 1. The exception involves a small correction to the original provision which could have exposed the wrong person to having to pay the bill for an inspection.

I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 26, leave out from 'to' to second 'to' in line 32 and insert:

'subsection (3) of this section, for the purposes of this Act a person is a keeper of an animal if he has it in his possession; and if at any time an animal ceases'.

With this amendment it will be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 17, 19 and 20.

This group of amendments relates to certain matters which have already been considered on Clause 1.

Amendment No. 16 removes the concept of a head of a household under the age of 18 and will simplify the provisions. The Minister gave an example of difficulty in the case of legal dispute concerning a person who was the head of a household and the question of who owned the wild animal in question. Amendment No. 16 alters Clause 6 in order to be consistent with the principle that no minor will be able to apply for a licence under this Act.

Amendment No. 17 is consequential since Clause 6(2), as it stands, becomes irrelevant in this respect once the principle is accepted because it envisages the concept of the head of a household—a concept which, as I have said, will now be excluded from the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are drafting, and are matters of construction.

I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 6, leave out 'its owner' and insert 'another person'.

This amendment concerns exemptions in regard to the possession of animals dealt with in subsection (3). There are various exemptions to the Bill to provide for the situation involving the, as it were, innocent possession of a wild animal, so that such a person should not suddenly find himself being charged with a criminal offence. The subsection relates to the duty on any person to prevent an animal causing damage, restoring the animal to its owner, or dealing with possible veterinary treatment. Paragraph (d) of subsection (3) deals with the transportation of such an animal on behalf of its owner.

Amendment No. 18 substitutes the phrase "another person" for the phrase "its owner". The object is not to prejudice an innocent person who may be asked to transport a wild animal and who may lay himself open to a criminal offence. For example, one thinks of a captain of a ship bringing an animal to this country on behalf of an owner, or a lorry driver who is asked to transport a crocodile from point A to point B. It may be that that person, in all innocence, accepts such an animal from a person who is not its owner. If that were the case, the person who accepts the animal technically could be open to a charge under the legislation and could be subjected to all the interrogative procedures even if there were no charge. Therefore, we propose that such persons should be exempted from the criminal provisions in the Bill.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. I imagine that "transport" in this sense would include transportation through the post.

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not been reading yet another edition of the magazine he mentioned earlier.

Not on this occasion. I was thinking of transportation by post or rail.

There is a celebrated anecdote which must be familiar to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, involving the incident at a railway ticket office in the days before British Rail was so called. After a certain amount of confusion at the ticket office when presented with a transportation problem, the final pronouncement by the ticket office keeper was "Cats is dogs and rabbits is dogs, but this 'ere tortoise is an insect and there ain't no charge for that."

We do not know whether British Rail will accept for handling purposes a Mexican beaded lizard. That may happen provided that the box is appropriately labelled. On the other hand, there is the possibility that British Rail may not wish to carry such a passenger since they do not now appear to want to handle carrier pigeons and other livestock. However, if inadvertently British Rail officials find themselves faced with the carrying of a dangerous wild animal —and postal officials may face a similar problem—I imagine that this contingency would be covered by the words "being transported".

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that helpful and colourful point. I assure him that the Bill, as drafted, would cover post and rail transport. However, I would imagine that if somebody in a British Rail ticket office were presented with one of the dangerous wild animals set out in the schedule to the Bill, he would rapidly vacate his ticket office before any ticket was issued.

I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 5, leave out line 17 and insert

'for the time being specified in the first column of the Schedule to this Act;'.

These amendments have been tabled in response to requests made in Committee that an indication should be given of the popular or common names of animals falling within the ambit of the Bill. These are the changes that we have made to the schedule. There is one change of substance in that the common red fox has been exempted. We did that in response to a poignant plea which was made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball). I think that the

With this amendment, we shall also take the following amendments:

Certainly not in a council house.

Not in the back yard of a council house, or in the front room.

The same applies to the American bison. We did not think that it need be included. There is little evidence that American bison are kept domestically as pets.

Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State the power to add to or exclude from the schedule. Given that that power rests with the Secretary of State by resolution of the House, we thought that we should keep the schedule as short as possible, and that is what we have tried to do. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

I appreciate that responsibility for the inclusion of or exclusion from the schedule of any animal originally rests with the sponsors. I am sure that they have taken expert advice in devising their list. Inevitably there will be some who wish to add to it, and there are doubtless those who will wish to subtract from it. The latter category will probably be in the minority.

I am not sure of the criteria by which the sponsors have determined which animals should be included, but they seem to have settled the matter in a sensible way, having asked themselves in the first place which species of exotic animal tend to be kept by private owners in their own homes. Thus it comes about that the Schedule covers the obvious species such as lions, tigers and some monkeys.

Obviously there are many dangerous animals that are not in the list. That is largely because there is little or no tendency for them to be kept as pets. However, if there were to be a sudden upsurge in the number of individuals keeping a rhinoceros or an elephant, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would lend a sympathetic ear to a request for their inclusion in the schedule in the exercise of his powers to amend it.

The sponsors have emphasised that the common names have been included merely to guide those concerned. The proposed amendment to Clause 6 would ensure that in cases of dispute the scientific classification would prevail. It may be that some of the common names are duplicated. For instance, I believe that the bobcat is the same as the lynx. But that is not a matter of great importance, because whether a creature is a bobcat or a lynx, it still belongs to the family Felidae. Hence it is a creature needing a licence under the Bill.

It seems that my hon. Friends have chosen the animals to which the Bill should apply with considerable wisdom. I note that in Plymouth this morning an irate penguin hit a policeman. Perhaps the policeman had asked the penguin to take part in an identity parade. However, I do not think that most people would regard a penguin as a dangerous animal. I see no reason for our seeking at this late stage to add penguins to the schedule.

I believe that there is one gap in the schedule. I note that there are no restrictions on keeping pythons, boa constrictors or anacondas. At this stage I must declare a family interest. My mother happens to have a horror of snakes in general and of large snakes in particular. Some five years ago a boa constrictor escaped from a garage within a few miles of her home. A few weeks later it was recaptured in a nearby barn, where it had spent the intervening period happily asleep or munching rats.

My mother was not in any physical danger from the boa constrictor. I do not believe that there has been any case in this century when a large constricting snake has caused any injury to an inhabitant of this country. But my mother was considerably upset by the thought of a large snake roaming through the neighbourhood. I do not believe that she was in any way alone in feeling distressed by the incident. Further, I do not believe that my mother's phobia is in any way uncommon. I am sure that there are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who have an aggravated fear of snakes in general and of large snakes in particular who would be exceedingly distressed to think that there was a python or a boa constrictor slithering up and down the stairs of the house next door.

It could be argued that my amendment will add to the costs incurred by those who want to keep pythons and boa constrictors as pets—and there are some such people—or to study them. I am told that my nephew attends a school that has two boa constrictors on the premises. That does not worry me at all because I want to make it more difficult to keep such snakes as pets. Apart from the physical danger which dangerous wild animals pose, it is right that we should also pay attention to the psychological worry and distress that can be provoked by the presence of these large snakes.

The question of identity parades is a pressing problem today. I have no doubt that local authorities will be able to organise their affairs in such a way as to deal with that. I have one doubt about this schedule and Amendment No. 23. Everyone is supposed to know the law. It is all very well for Members of Parliament to put in words such as Canidae, Crocodylia and Felidae and things like that. No doubt they understand them, but what about the ordinary man in the street? Will he understand what these words mean? Does he know the law with regard to them? In my early days in the House if one said that there was a prima facie case or used some Latin phrase there were likely to be sardonic cheers or even raised eyebrows. I know that things have changed now and that the composition of the House is different.

I draw the attention of the sponsors to Amendment No. 23 which says:

"The second column of the Schedule to this Act is included by way of explanation only in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the first column is to be taken into account."

Is there any legal precedent for the insertion of such an explanatory amendment? What does it mean? It is of no consequence if a dispute arises. I notice that in the schedule dealing with these various scientific names there occurs the phrase "This kind includes". It is not even comprehensive. I am all in favour of a Bill which puts in simple English the effect of the law and explains where an offence lies.

I appreciate the difficulties. Would it not have been possible to set out in the schedule, in good simple English which the layman could understand, what constitutes an offence? Let us get back to good simple English and away from "restaurant French".

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Amendment No. 24 and tell us what he would suggest instead of the common name or names for the Old World Monkey. There are many which are not instantly recognisable and I doubt whether there is any recognisable English alternative. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point but I do not see how we could have applied what he is suggesting.

I said that I recognised the difficulties. In so far as it was possible to use plain English in the schedule it ought to have been done. I tremble to think of what will happen to the poor old layman who keeps some animal which is included in the schedule but who does not know its name. I agree that Amendment No. 23 gives some sort of guidance in suggesting that the second column of the schedule is included by way of explanation. That is not entirely comprehensive however because of the phrase "This kind includes". I wish that this could have been dealt with in a more simple fashion.

I agree very much with what the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) has said. I, too, wish that the matter could have been dealt with in a more simple fashion. I was surprised to find, when we tried to respond to the wishes of the Committee that there should be an English translation, that this was extremely difficult to produce. We were told that the scientific terms shown on the left in the schedule many different species and that there is argument about those scientific terms. It was, therefore, almost impossible to give the sort of translation that was required. It was quite impossible to use good, simple English.

For that reason we were forced to do things by way of Amendment No. 23 and to state firmly that the second column is by way of explanation only. That second column gives sufficient explanation for those who are likely to be keeping dangerous wild animals. I do not know of any animal which is kept and which is outside that explanatory description. If there were an argument n court, expert evidence would be needed and the only column which would prevail would be the first one.

From a legal point of view, if the sponsors had merely inserted the words "Common names or names" and the details given there, omitting Amendment No. 23, that would have served the purpose. Clearly in court one depends on the evidence given. It does not seem that Amendment No. 23 is necessary.

The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that the Minister said that the lynx and bobcat were identical. That is an indication of the difficulty. In court we could engage in an interesting argument, which may not be to any great advantage, on which names are the English names. Those are the scientific names in the column on the left in the schedule. It would always be possible to get expert evidence about whether a particular animal fell within a certain group. If we were to put down only the English names and to rely on them for bringing a criminal case, my advice is that we could be in difficulties. That is why we felt that this should be done by way of explanation. This is not a precedent. The Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plant Act 1975 does precisely the same thing.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) for having given me and my hon. Friends about two days' notice of his amendment. At first sight it appeared that there was an omission from the Bill. For that reason we got in touch with the Zoological Society and the Herpetological Society to find out whether this was a proper matter to be added to the schedule. The general view is that the kind of animals included in the term "Boae"—boa constrictors and pythons —frightening though they might be to those who are not aware of their particular nature, are in face creatures which cannot be described as dangerous to human beings. Therefore, these creatures which could cause injury only by constriction, are not suitable for inclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is right to say that there is no evidence of any person being injured by boa constrictors or pythons in this country. On the whole they are docile creatures.

These snakes are kept in schools. 1 believe that in the school my hon. Friend mentioned they have both a python and a boa constrictor, and it is one of the entrancing sights on parents' day to see a proud young boy outside the natural history classroom with a boa constrictor around his neck, while another boy with a python wound round his arm stands next to him trying to outdo him.

Unless these animals are very big they cannot do any real injury to a human being, and they are not likely to. The Bill is concerned with public safety and its basic philosophy is that an animal must be so obviously dangerous that one must do something to prevent its being kept by a private individual, except in exceptional circumstances. On the advice given to me on those who understand these things, one cannot put into that class a boa constrictor or a python or any of the animals mentioned in the amendment.

I felt very concerned when my hon. Friend told me of the traumatic situation in which his mother found herself, and I understand that people who do not know these animals may be frightened by them. There is a psychological danger here. But there are some people who do not like all sorts of animals and are frightened of their particular propensities. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to make further inquiries, and perhaps we could look into the matter before the Bill goes to another place. Perhaps we could then see whether it was appropriate to put these animals in the schedule.

I think that most people would imagine that a python is rather more dangerous than an emu or an ostrich. But in view of my right hon. and learned Friend's entreaties, I do not intend to move the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 5, line 22 at end insert—'"premises"includes any place;'.

This amendment makes clear the interpretation that should be placed on the word "premises". It is intended to include any place in which an animal could be kept. Although there may be a legal

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

The object of this clause is to bring ships into the Bill's provisions in certain conditions. I do not believe that any hon. Member would think that just because a food business happens to be afloat, it should be exempted from the terms and conditions of the Bill.

I apologise to the House for not bringing this proposition forward in Committee, but, unfortunately, it was a rather complicated clause to prepare and, despite the tremendous assistance I had in its preparation, it was not possible to have it ready in time for the Committee stage.

For the purposes of the Bill a ship means a home-going ship, which is, as I understand it, a ship proceeding towards our coast rather than moving away from it. The term "ship" also includes any boat or craft which is moored in any place and on or from which is carried on any catering business or retail food business. The clause also includes the specific term "coastal excursions", and will apply to a ship on such an excursion even when it is moving away from our coast. However, it must be on a voyage, the total duration of which does not exceed 24 hours.

In many parts of the country there are various types of craft which are moored in various areas of water, including rivers, lakes, streams, and so on, from which some form of food business is run. This clause will ensure that they are included in the terms and conditions of the Bill.

I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. Presumably he is referring to ships which ply for hire and reward such as cross-Channel, or those which go from my constituency to Yarmouth on the Isle of Wight. It would be very helpful if he would make it clear that the new clause does not apply to naval vessels. As I understood it, none of the powers which the Bill will give to environmental health officers is applicable to Crown catering establishments, so presumably a ship does not include a vessel of the Royal Navy.

Would my hon. Friend consider, in view of the late hour at which this clause appears, ensuring that in another place words are inserted to make it clear beyond peradventure that the clause is aimed only at ships providing commercial catering facilities?

The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) reminded us that sometimes we did things here which had to be cleared up in the courts. I should not like to think that one of my constituents who has a boat which he uses regularly and for which he hires a crew—perhaps for only a nominal sum—would find that in so doing he was making his boat open to visits by environmental health officers to inspect the catering facilities. This is a small point, but I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could say more about it.

Perhaps I can deal with that point. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) asked about boats plying for hire and reward and he mentioned commercial catering. It is clear from regulations already made, which carry the definition of "ships" which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kempton (Mr. Bowden) read out—Statutory Instrument 1172 of 1970—that a "ship" has to have on it a catering business or other retail food business. The word "business" imports a commercial undertaking. For that reason also the provision would not apply to naval vessels since they would not be engaged in the provision of a business as such.

I commend the clause to the House as useful. I share the apologies of the hon. Member for Kemptown for the fact that it has been introduced at a relatively late stage. One of the reasons for not introducing it in Committee was that we were trying as far as possible to follow the provisions of local Acts, and there is no reference to ships in local Acts. But as we are now having a measure for the country as a whole, we thought it appropriate to include this provision to bring the Bill, which is welcomed on both sides of the House, into line with the existing regulations which cover ships.

Since I represent a constituency with a port and harbour, and as the purpose of the Bill is to be as comprehensive as possible in terms of the number of food premises it covers, it seems to me that the new clause makes eminent sense, subject to the reassurance of the Under-Secretary of State about the criteria and the fact that it covers ships carrying on a business as such. I warmly support the new clause.

I confirm and support what the Under-Secretary of State has said. Perhaps I did not make as clear as I should have done the fact that, under the terms of the new clause, it will be up to the Secretary of State to make the appropriate regulations. I felt that it would be better done in that way so that the Secretary of State can decide how and when he will apply regulations to deal with the situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) naturally has a great interest in ships and harbours and their problems. I do not think that he owns a large vessel, but if he did and was out cruising with friends, and with perhaps his poor, hardworking wife in the galley, it is certain that her standards of hygiene would not reach down to the sort of level to which this measure applies, but they could in theory. But even if they did, the new clause would not in any way affect his craft or its operation. It is strictly limited to those ships, boats or craft on or from which a food business is carried on.

Earlier my hon. Friend used the term "home-going ship". I can understand the point if the ship is going from Newhaven to Dieppe, for example, but what happens if it is going from Lymington to Yarmouth? Both places are in the United Kingdom and are therefore within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

In that case, the ship would be going from one part of home to another—perhaps rather like moving from the lounge to the dining room. If it is moving around our coasts it is covered.

In the 1970 regulations, the definition of "coastal excursion" covers the point raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley). A coastal excursion means a trip of not more than one day which starts and ends in Great Britain.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 24, after 'practicable', insert:

'and in not more than fourteen days'.

With this we shall take Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 24, after 'practicable', insert:

'and in not more than fourteen days'.

I must first declare an interest in the hotel and catering industry as European marketing director of Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada and as a member—unpaid—of the National Council of the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association.

We discussed this matter in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said that he would look at the point before Report. As his own amendment, No. 4, is identical in wording to my amendment, I am having the temerity to assume that he has done just that, albeit that his amendment relates to another part of the Bill.

The point is simple. In the event of an environmental health officer having inspected premises, we want to ensure that the work he may order to be done is done at the earliest opportunity so that the owner can reopen as soon as possible. My hon. Friend said that the intention, aim and objective of the environmental health officers and the local authorities would be to have the work done as quickly as possible, and I think that the amendment would ensure that it was.

The difficulty about an amendment of this kind, which in my view is quite unnecessary, is that if one tells a local authority to do something in not more than 14 days, such a time limit is apt to become the normal time for the procedure. The result of the amendment would be to limit local authorities in the sense of allowing them to take 14 days, whereas, by simply leaving in the words "as soon as practicable" it might be done in a much shorter time. I think that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that it will not be insisted upon.

We discussed this matter in Committee. I take the point that for 99 per cent. of the cases the stipulation in the amendment would be unnecessary, but I want to ensure against the possibility of an environmental health officer or a local authority perhaps conducting a vendetta. That rarely happens, but it can happen.

The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that when there is a maximum fine the tendency in the courts is to go towards that rather than impose a lower amount. The danger in stipulating a 14-day period in this provision is that the local authority might not bother to get on with the process when in fact it might otherwise do it in one, two, or three days.

I understand the point. It is a matter of judgment as to whether it is worth having the amendment. I make no apology for it. I think that it would be a safety valve.

I take the point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). We debated this matter in Committee when the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) moved a similar amendment, which would have deleted the words "as soon as practicable" and substituted "within 14 days". But the effect of that amendment would have been to produce the effect which my hon. and learned Friend fears.

It was pointed out in that debate that, far from strengthening the Bill, it would weaken it, because it would allow a local authority an unnecessarily long period for service. If that amendment had been adopted, my hon. and learned Friend's argument would have been stronger, but this amendment has the benefit of providing the local authority with a maximum period within which notice must be served.

1.0 p.m.

We are confident in the Department that the notice will have been served well within the 14 days, but the words "as soon as practicable" carry a certain import to environmental health officers and local authorities. I do not think the amendment will make a great deal of difference, but I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington that we need a long-stop. For that reason, if no other, it is worth approving the amendment.

I fully appreciate the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). His case would have been overwhelming if it had been applied to the amendment we considered in Committee. However, the amendment has now been reworded and I believe it will give us the best of both worlds.

I hope that it will be taken to heart by environmental health officers that they must not look at this problem in the context of having 14 days to act, but rather that they need to act very quickly. Only in the most exceptional circumstances should it be necessary for there to be a delay of more than three working days before action is taken.

We must remember that a man's livelihood is at stake. One could argue that the man should never have allowed his place to get into a disgusting state, but I hope that in 99·9 per cent. of cases the environmental health officers will act quickly.

I hesitate to disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington on a subject in which he is an expert, but I dispute his claim that our courts are tending to get nearer maximum than minimum fines. One of the most frequent criticisms of our legal system is that people are being fined pitifully small amounts. Rather than getting nearer maximum fines, the courts are often fining offenders only one-half or one-third of the maximum.

I was trying to explain that when a maximum fine is included in a Bill, we are indicating to the courts what should be the standard of punishment. In the same way, the inclusion of the 14-day period in this Bill will give a criterion to local authorities on the time they should take.

What the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is not true in practice. I do not agree that our courts are getting anywhere near maximum fines—on the contrary.

I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument even though I do not agree with it. It has been useful to have this debate to clear up the matter.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (7).

This is the amendment which will take most time, though I hope it will not delay us for too long. We had a lengthy discussion on this point in Committee, but the position was not resolved to my satisfaction and I make no apology for raising it again.

The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) has reminded us forcefully that we have a responsibility not to pass legislation which puts unreasonable burdens and handicaps on people. It might be a good idea if hon. Members occasionally visited courts and saw the results of our handiwork.

The proposal in the Bill to allow a single magistrate to be a court in the first instance for closing down food premises has caused universal concern and displeasure among the magistrates with whom I have discussed this matter in the last few days. One told me:

"To my mind, it is not a trial, in front of one justice."

Another said:

"Such a clause would worry me immensely. I would feel very unhappy with the Bill as it stands."

A third said, and this may be regarded as contentious:

"Such a suggestion smacks of rule by civil servant. It is too sweeping."

A recently appointed justice said:

"It could mean that I alone will have to take a decision based on technical evidence of which I have little practical experience. This puts considerable pressure on me as a single magistrate."

For magistrates' sake, I hope the House will agree to remove this subsection.

The object of the Bill is to protect the health of the public and I wish to illustrate how easy it is for that wish to be interpreted in different ways by different people. If we are to present a single magistrate, who may not be experienced in this subject, with the evidence of environmental health officers presenting their interpretation of what constitutes a health hazard, we could find ourselves giving too much power to people whose evidence is, to put it no higher, disputable.

In Committee I quoted the situation which had arisen at the Holiday Inn in Bristol—one of the hotels in the group with which I am connected. An environmental health officer claimed that an open buffet, per se, constituted a health hazard. Since then a firm of public analysts has produced its ruling on the environmental health officer's ruling and it makes clear that there are many ways of interpreting what is a health hazard.

A letter from the analysts, Messrs. Moir and Palgrave of Southwark Street, London, says:

"During the last visit I asked for the covers to be removed completely from the buffet because there was no evidence that they were having any effect. The results in my opinion show that they can have none since in this case no hazard exists."

Attached to that letter is a long technical report on the open buffet. It would be an abuse of the House's time to go right through this long document. However, I feel bound to make one or two references to comments in the document. I quote:

"Examination of the results from both sampling occasions shows no definite pattern which would indicate an increase in contamination following exposure during the lunch period."

Under this clause, to which I object so strongly, we are faced with the situation that the environmental health officer—one among many in the country—may go to a single magistrate, present him with technical evidence, and ask him or her to adjudicate in a way that, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, could ruin the livelihood of the restauranteur or caterer concerned.

It turns out from the report that

"the inherent variance in the techniques of counting"—

that is, counting bacteria—

"can be as high as 200 per cent."

That is not a situation that allows us to believe that there is only one reading of the position, that it is black or white, right or wrong.

The final quotation from this public analyst bears directly on the point I am making. I quote from the report dated 30th April this year:

"In my opinion the desire to have food covered in the manner required at the Bristol 'Holiday Inn' is dangerous in that it is taking action where none is needed and diverting attention from areas where a real need may exist. Furthermore the type of cover specified is not effective since it is open on all sides and cannot prevent bacteria being blown in from the sides."

I hope that the House will agree that I have made a reasonable case to show just how dangerous it is to think that every environmental health officer knows the facts and that they are indisputable, and can seek permission from a single magistrate to close a restaurant. I do not believe that the Bristol Holiday Inn is the dirtiest restaurant in Bristol.

The company with which I am connected is fortunate. It is a large company. It can afford to take the best advice and to fight these cases. However, the small people who will be most affected by the Bill are not in that fortunate position.

I now turn to the question of precedents. In Committee the only real precedent that the Minister was able to cite was the 1955 Act. We had a brief discussion, and I explained then that throwing away dirty food was one thing, but closing down the restaurant was altogether different. I have done my best to find precedents of one justice sitting alone, bearing in mind that we are dealing not with private legislation or local authority legislation but legislation covering the whole of England and Wales.

The nearest and most recent precedent that I have been able to find is the Criminal Justice Administration Act 1914. The words that appear alongside Section 38 of that Act are these:

"One justice to be competent to exercise certain powers in respect of charges of drunkenness."

Perhaps I may read the section. It is as follows:

"Notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, it shall be sufficient for a court of summary jurisdiction to consist of one justice only when hearing, trying, adjudging, and determining a charge or information against any person of having been found drunk in any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or on any licensed premises, under section twelve of the Licensing Act, 1872."

That is not, I believe, a sufficiently close precedent to enable my hon. Friend to recommend to the House that the powers contained in his Bill, to close down premises and do away with a man's livelihood, should be given to an environmental health officer appearing before a single justice.

I have sought other forms of legislative precedent. It seems to me that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is not altogether inappropriate as an Act with which to compare what my hon. Friend is doing in the Bill. Many bad meals are eaten in Britain and I am sure that many people become ill as a result of dirty food. However, I think that few are actually seriously injured and even fewer are killed in Britain, day in and day out, year in and year out, through dirty food.

I should hope so.

I entirely agree.

However, as to safety at work, four people will be killed today while working, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, will be injured. This will be repeated day in and day out, yet even in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act there are neither powers totally to close down a premise nor powers for a single magistrate sitting alone to deal with a situation.

There is an interesting article in today's edition of The Times on this point. I should like to refer my hon. Friend to it. It deals with the powers of factory inspectors. Under the Act, the factory inspector is empowered to seize and render harmless any article or substance which, in the circumstances in which he finds it, the inspector believes will cause serious personal injury. He can issue an immediate notice to require the employer to take action to remedy the contravention within a specified time or issue a prohibition notice to stop a process which involves risk of serious personal injury.

However, all these powers are somewhat less harsh than the powers in this Bill—to which in principle I do not object. The point I am disputing is that related to this particular amendment. That is that a magistrates' court should be the proper place in which to hear the case and issue the emergency order.

I understand the need for urgent action. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that I am a supporter of his Bill. But if speed conflicts with fairness or accuracy, we should support the latter.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on the enormous amount of research and homework he has done in regard to the amendment.

Normally, of course, it is right, in order to protect the rights of the individual, that proceedings should be brought in the ordinary way before a stipendiary in the magistrates' courts or before at least two justices. I must confess, however, that at first sight, looking at the Bill, I thought that the promoter was right in putting in subsection (7) and that the power should be exercised by a single justice. I thought that because we are dealing with an emergency order and some drastic step ought to be taken.

However, the only reason why proceedings are brought before a single justice to obtain a warrant or a summons is that one has to act with expedition. On looking at Clause 2, I note that:

"The court shall not consider an application under this section unless it is satisfied that at least three clear days' notice in writing of intention to make that application …has been given."

There is ample time in which the authority can move. Therefore, it seems to me that there is no emergency reason, even though this is in connection with an emergency order, why we ought to restrict it to one single justice. I think that the amendment is right in leaving the matter to the ordinary course of court.

In about three sentences, I should like to support the amendment so eloquently and persuasively moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley).

It is of great importance to ensure, in a matter such as this, where the livelihood of a very small enterprise may be at risk, that the responsibility for a decision whether a single lapse or a series of lapses should result in the closure of the enterprise altogether should be more widely spread than it would be if it fell entirely on one individual.

One has a nasty feeling that if one particular individual who is a magistrate and probably a member of the local community, perhaps living close by the restaurateur concerned, they meeting each other daily, is responsible for the decision to close down the restaurant, this could produce very unhappy strains within a society. There could be suspicions of ulterior motivation, that he had been got at, and so on.

It is of enormous importance that the responsibility should be spread more widely. If my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) will accept that, I think that the amendment should be accepted so as to spread the responsibility more widely.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley). He has done considerable work on the Bill. I am sure that the amendment and the discussions that he has initiated have improved it. He has made it clear from the beginning that he fundamentally supported the Bill, and I know that he has worked in the spirit of improving it and ensuring that it keeps the right balance. He has made a powerful case.

Although we had a Division on this matter in Committee, it was a marginal decision. Having taken further advice and done some research since the Committee stage. I believe that the House should accept the amendment.

We should still keep in the back of our minds the fact that we are dealing with an emergency order. As the hon. and learned Member for Hackney. North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) pointed out, three days are involved. What concerned me, in view of representations from environmental health officers, is that there could have been difficulties over a weekend. But the case made is so strong —again, my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—that I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has decided that this amendment, which was resisted in Committee, should be accepted. I think that it would be helpful if I said, in a little more detail, exactly why we in the Department also feel that the hon. Member is right.

We originally included the subsection because it was in line with the precedents of the local Acts, in order to avoid any risk of delaying proceedings on an application for an emergency order because of the difficulty of finding a second justice to deal with the application. We regarded the provision for payment of compensation, which is an essential feature of the Bill, as a sufficient safeguard in the event of a full court later deciding that the emergency order had been made on insufficient grounds.

But on further consideration—we have given much further consideration to this point—it seems to us that the precedent of the local Acts does not provide strong grounds for denying the force of the argument of the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley). The first of those local Acts was the Manchester Corporation Act, which provided for the hearing of an application on an emergency order after a minimum period of notice of 24 hours.

In this context, there are obviously clear advantages in a provision allowing for the hearing of an application by a single justice, but in subsequent local Acts, the period of notice was increased to three days as the result of specific consideration in the House of Lords Committee. That provision has been followed in this Bill.

However no consideration appears to have been given to the implications that change from 24 hours to three days for the provision relating to hearing of the application. There is obviously a clear link between the two provisions, and in the context of a three-day period of notice the case for allowing one justice to hear the application is obviously not so strong. In practice, it is difficult to believe that the hearing of an application would be delayed simply for want of the attendance of a second justice. Under the magistrates courts legislation a court may consist of two or more justices.

For these reasons, we share the feeling of the hon. Member for Kemptown that this is a worthwhile amendment. I join him in congratulating his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington on his research and on pressing the point.

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

I should like, first, to record my deep gratitude to a number of people for their help in ensuring that the Bill has reached this stage and now has a good chance of becoming law before the end of this year. Right at the top of my list of grateful thanks must be the Minister and his officials. Without their invaluable aid and guidance at every step, it is doubtful that the Bill would have reached this stage. Their help with the wording, the technicalities and the formulation have been of such value that it would have been difficult for me to do it on my own.

I thank my co-sponsors for the active encouragement and help they have given me, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. I thank my own chief environmental health officer in Brighton, whose guidance and help have been of great value to me and to members of the Committee and have played a major part in improving the Bill.

The Bill makes one important amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. It is an addition which will be a powerful weapon in the hands of environmental health officers. I have been immensely gratified by the massive support that I have received from individuals and organisations. Among those who have written to me are the Bakers Union, the sea and air port health authorities, the Consumers Association, the National Federation of Consumer Groups, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Environmental Health Officers Association, the London Tourist Board and a substantial number of individual local authorities and EHOs.

The catering trade as a whole reaches high standards. I am sure that the vast majority of the members of the trade will welcome the Bill. Indeed, it will improve the reputation and the name of the trade, because it will give EHOs that additional weapon to move rapidly to deal with the tiny minority who think that they can get away with running a filthy restaurant or a filthy establishment without being dealt with speedily and effectively.

Perhaps one of the most important points of the Bill is that it will involve no additional work for members of the catering trade. Certainly, we shall not have to set up a massive new organisation of civil servants or local government officers to put it into operation. It will simply give the existing officials that additional weapon in their day-to-day work.

As the law stands, there are limits on what an EHO can do if he finds an establishment in a disgusting state. For example, I have been told of a case in which an inspector found a great deal of filth on the floor of one establishment. He opened the refrigerator and a cockroach jumped out at him. There were verminous droppings on the floor and bottles of soda water and other cordials stacked on shelves with the tops rusted on—not because of water or moisture but because of the urine of mice and rats.

Having found a case of that sort, an EHO would certainly issue a large number of summonses, but it could be between six and 12 weeks before they were heard and the restaurant was closed. In the meantime, the proprietor would be entitled to continue operating and serving meals to totally innocent members of the public, thereby creating a real danger to health. One does not want to exaggerate, but in the worst cases there could be a danger to life.

The Bill will give the officer power to make it clear to the owner that he can get his emergency order in three days and thus ensure that, until the conditions are met or the case is heard again by the magistrates when the other summonses come forward, he cannot continue to operate that business. I am sure that the House will accept that the public must be protected against the tiny unscrupulous minority.

A number of local government Acts give protection and coverage in some areas. Those areas are fortunate, but they represent a minority of the country as a whole. Among the areas covered are the London boroughs, Manchester, Coventry, Derby, Port Talbot, Rhondda, Salford—and there are others. The Bill will put this protection on a national basis and thereby ensure that every part of the country is covered.

It is only fair to emphasise that if circumstances arose—I think it unlikely, but the possibility exists—where the powers in the Bill were misused and abused in a totally unfair way against the restaurateurs and establishments affected, substantial compensation could be claimed. The Bill incorporates that basic safeguard.

I turn now to the point on which we touched earlier in a different way regarding the level of fines. It could be argued —indeed, I support this argument—that the level of fines stipulated in the Bill is too low. But, in view of the advice and guidance that I have had, great difficulties would be created if the level of fines were higher than is specified in the Bill. If I may sidetrack slightly, I hope that it will not be too long before the Government bring forward legislation which will enable fines for a whole range of offences in magistrates' courts to be substantially increased because they are not adequate, as inflation has overtaken the original figures.

Earlier I talked about the deterrent value of this measure. I did not make that up. I have a letter from the environmental health officer in my area, and he uses these words:

"It is certainly a great step forward and will be extremely helpful. The deterrent effect alone will be worth its weight in condemned food."

The Bill provides a new vital safeguard to protect the public. I commend it to the House.

I did not have the privilege of taking part in the Committee stage of the Bill, but I have taken a great interest in its proceedings. This is clearly an extremely important measure.

From time to time there has been considerable criticism of unwholesome conditions in food premises—fortunately, a small minority. However, it is important for ourselves and for the tourist trade that this country should enjoy the greatest possible standards in the provision of food.

Section 13 of the Food and Drugs Act 1959 gives power to close grossly insanitary premises after a successful prosecution, and Section 14 prohibits the carrying on of a similar business after a successful prosecution. But, from my experience at the Bar, I recall how easy it was for people to evade the consequences of defalt. Unfortunately, legal proceedings often take a very long time. The business could go on and the insanitary conditions prevail until the conclusion of the legal proceedings. The law was of limited application. It was applicable only to premises where food was being consumed. There has been a tremendous growth of take-away food shops and stalls which sell food. The 1955 Act does not provide for prosecution in relation to those premises.

The artful owner of a business could easily evade the consequences of his de- fault by transferring his business to another operator. He could carry on until the actual prosecution or await the local authority's decision, if he transferred the premises to someone else, regarding prosecution against that person.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Bowden) has rendered a real service by promoting a Bill which remedies these obvious defects. I like his idea of two types of order—the closure order, requiring 14 days' notice, and the emergency order which will deal with a situation almost immediately. Moreover, I agree that there should be an order for compensation where the prosecution does not prove the alleged unsatisfactory conditions.

I agree that there should be a right of appeal against a closure order but not against an emergency order. We discussed the question of three days being allowed for an emergency order. Clearly, an emergency order would be made only in a case of extremely unsatisfactory conditions. In such a case steps should be taken to deal with the matter without the delay which might arise if an appeal were allowed.

I have one criticism, which I have made before, about the £400 maximum fine. I agree that courts are often too lenient. I think that £400 is too little as a penalty, especially in the case of an emergency order, which would arise only where premises were in an insanitary condition. In these days of inflation, £400 is very little to the people concerned and they would be able to carry on.

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his great legal experience and knowledge, will be aware of the problem that I was up against regarding the level of the fine. If I had put in the Bill a sum in excess of £400, I should have come up against considerable difficulties with the Home Office because of the powers of magistrates' courts. I repeat—I am sure that the Minister will play his part—that the Government should bring forward legislation quickly to deal with the whole range of fines available to magistrates' courts. I suggest that fines should be substantially increased. I trust that, the Bill being an Act, it would be covered if such legislation were brought forward.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was about to make that very point. I appreciate his difficulty of putting in a maximum fine of only £400. That is the general standard of maximum fines for other offences. I was about to add that I hope that at an early opportunity the Government will look at the various statutes which provide these maximum fines and try to upgrade them, because, due to inflation, in many cases they are not adequate.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member on the valuable work he has done in introducing this Bill, and I congratulate him further on his having carried the Bill through the various stages. I hope that it will soon reach the statute book.

I wish to take this opportunity of thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) for his kind words about me, and to make one or two points of a general nature.

I hope, as my hon. Friend does, that it will be only what he described as a tiny unscrupulous minority who find themselves confronted with the powers of this Bill. They certainly should be. It will be up to the courts and the magistrates to see that the application of the Bill does not go beyond that tiny unscrupulous minority.

As my hon. Friend knows, not everybody in the hotel and catering industry welcomes the Bill. In fact, a leading article in the Catering Times said last week that the Bill contains

"some fairly hair-raising sanctions against caterers and hoteliers."

That is true. But, as I have said, these sanctions are directed at, and should be used only against, those who thoroughly deserve the imposition of such sanctions. It is for that reason that I support the Bill.

In Committee we debated a code of good conduct. The Minister is aware that in Section 13 of the 1955 Act there is a proposition that the Minister shall produce a code of good practice, but there was not a great deal of enthusiasm for this in Committee, although the Minister said that he would at some stage give consideration to it.

The Minister may be aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), the Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, was speaking at the annual luncheon of the Hotel Catering and Institutional Management Association in London last week, and he called for a code of practice in the catering industry. He said:

"In principle I would welcome this and I am sure that my colleagues in other departments would agree. Standards in many places are high, but I am sure we would all agree that there is always room for improvements and for maintaining standards, even in the best establishments."

That is not a precise statement of my views. I am concerned with a code of practice, in connection with the implementation of the Bill, so that environmental health officers, magistrates and caterers may have a guide. We have discussed the dangers of such a code being used as a Bible. I believe that it could be a protection as well as a weapon, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's views.

In Committee we also discussed the Fire Precautions Act. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown chided me for seeking to compare his Bill with the Fire Precautions Act, but I will not be swayed from my view that there is too close a parallel for total comfort in the method by which both pieces of legislation can and probably will be used by local authorities. I refer particularly to the wide variation in implementation. That is the reason I believe some form of code of practice would be helpful.

I should like again to quote from the Catering Times of 29th April. Somebody who is not unknown to my hon. Friend, Mr. John Cutress, who, I believe, is a prominent Brighton caterer, says:

"The real thing that concerns me is that the proposed new law on instant closures for hygiene offences will be applied with the same inconsistencies as the Fire Precautions Act. For instance, London and Glasgow are three times more stringent than anywhere else over this Act."

There are other quotations that one could use, but the Catering Times itself says—

When these gentlemen who write about hair-raising penalties—perhaps they have not got much hair, which is why their

hair is so easily raised by what many consider to be rather moderate penalties —talk about the danger of the application of the law being different in one part of the country compared with another, does the hon. Gentleman think that their aim is to achieve the strictest application of the law so that the whole country should be treated as strictly as it is in Glasgow, or does he think they have another aim in mind?

I can reply to the hon. Gentleman from my own experience. Under the Local Government Act changes in local authority boundaries have led to totally different interpretations of the law in regard to the same premises by different officers. There is the more common instance of the fish-shop owner, which I mentioned in Committee. When there is a new environmental health officer, he may see it as his job to show that he is on top of things, and possibly he will demand that the caterer should do things that he has never been asked to do before. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this does happen. A number of such cases have been brought to my attention. I mentioned the company with which I am connected.

The hon. Gentleman may remember the question of rebated doors under the Fire Precautions Act. One authority says "You shall not have rebated doors" and another authority says "You must have rebated doors". What we need is a code of practice so that people know what they are expected to do, instead of finding six months later that they must do something different. It is not necessarily that Manchester is right and London is wrong or that Birmingham is right and Liverpool is wrong.

I understand what is in the back of my hon. Friend's mind, but, with respect, I must remind him that the magistrates have to be convinced—to quote from the Bill—that the situation involves:

"imminent risk of danger to health".

That is categorical. Surely it is unlikely that there would be a degree of variation of any great consequence between one part of the country and another.

I take my hon. Friend's point, but I do not believe he is as aware of the day-to-day situation as I

am. I mentioned the Bristol Holiday Inn. The environmental health officer believed that an open buffet was itself a danger to health. I do not know of a similar view being taken elsewhere, certainly not in London. The words in the Bill, "a danger to health", are open to totally different interpretations in different parts of the country.

My hon. Friend has many small hotels and boarding houses in his constituency. He must be aware that from Land's End to John o' Groats many small hotels and boarding houses are going out of business, and there are many examples of different interpretations of Government legislation passed with all-party support. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that this applies to the Fire Precautions Act. People are anxious lest the same problems arise from this legislation. I hope that they will not. Nevertheless, even though I support the Bill, I cannot give a guarantee that no problems will arise from differences in interpretation.

There is a responsibility on us all to ensure that we do not pass legislation which has as its end product an objective that is different from that intended. I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to quote from the present Government's Rent Act legislation which has resulted in immigrants having to be housed at £600 a week at Gatwick—

So please do not quote from it.

As I said in Committee, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We have to do our best to see that our good intentions are combined with effective legislation. If the catering industry has suffered in the past, there are those who would say that it has only itself to blame. It is an industry which until recently, until the merger of the British Hotels Association and the Caterers Association, has not had an effective body to speak for it.

The BHRCA now does an extremely good and effective job in speaking out on behalf of its many thousands of members. However, there remain hundreds of thousands of people working in premises or owning and running premises who are not members of any trade body, trade union—call it what one will. Again, I quote from the Catering Times—this is yesterday's edition—

"There has never been a time when the BHRCA has needed more members more urgently, and has needed to be seen to represent the entire hotel and catering industry more clearly."

That is part of the leading article, which is headed

"Fighting from a weak base."

In my view, the need for some form of national hoteliers union, perhaps similar to the National Farmers Union, has never been more imperative, because, unless the trade is willing and able to ensure that it is protected from legislation contrary to its interests, perhaps it will be more than partly itself to blame for what happens in this place. However, as I say, I hope that my hon. Friend's Bill does not bring problems to those who do not deserve them.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right when he describes his Bill as a deterrent. I understand that his environmental health officer in Brighton has stated that he hopes never to have to use the Bill. I am sure that that is the wish of us all. I am certain that it is the wish of the overwhelming majority of environmental health officers. Deterrence is a powerful weapon, as those of us who follow these matters well know.

Perhaps I may end by saying that, if I am ever fortunate enough to be able to introduce a Private Member's Bill. I shall wish to introduce one to bring in far more severe penalties on the importation of animals, because I regard that as the deterrent which we need to prevent the coming of the terrible disease of rabies to our shores.

I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) on introducing an extremely valuable Bill and on the way in which he has handled it throughout Committee and Report, right up to this stage. I think it right also to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), as other hon. Members have done, for, although his proposed amendments have been prolific, he has an undoubted wealth of experience in the catering and tourist trades which has been of great value throughout our consideration of the Bill. He has ap- proached it in a most constructive way and, as we have responded as far as we could by accepting a number of his suggestions, it is entirely right to say that he has done a great deal to help to improve the Bill.

It is refreshing to be able to work on a Bill such as this. In the first place, it is unusual in that it has the support of the whole House. Perhaps I may add a word here to the Minister, whom I congratulate on his new appointment—I have not done so before—and I assure him that, if he approaches other tasks in the spirit in which he has approached this measure, it will augur extremely well for Parliament.

The Bill has other advantages of more general application. It is comprehensible, which is a rare characteristic of any legislation. It is designed not to complicate but to simplify, which also is a rare feature in legislation—I am not thinking here of any particular Government—and it adds teeth to the existing law.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown said, the Bill commands wide support among many organisations in this country. I shall not duplicate the list which my hon. Friend has already given, but we know that a large number of reputable and important organisations lend their support to it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown touched on this country's reputation in food hygiene, and I regard this as a most important matter. I am sure that we have a high reputation in other countries and among tourists, but there are a minority of people running food premises of one sort or another who have done a great deal to damage Britain's reputation in this respect. I shall not weary the House with statistics. but statistics are available to the Environmental Health Officers Association. It is not compulsory to give these statistics, but the figures show that there are a minority who do a great deal of damage to our reputation abroad.

As other hon. Members have said, the value of the Bill lies in the closing of a number of loopholes in the present law. The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) pointed to one of its important provisions in this respect in that it enables premises to be closed, if need be, as opposed to mere disqualification of the caterer himself. If it is merely the caterer who is disqualified, someone else can come in to take his place and the premises may continue as before. That is the first loophole closed.

Second, the Bill makes the law more comprehensive in such a way as to cover —this is how I see it, and I hope that I am right—all places where food is served. For the first time, our food hygiene law will cover such places as corner stands, hot-dog stalls and—as a result of the new clause—certain kinds of ships carrying on business of this sort.

Third, the Bill will overcome the long delays which have hitherto taken place before conviction and closure of premises. The hon. Member for Pentlands (Mr. Penistone) referred to this in Committee, as other hon. Members have today. Clauses 1 and 2—the closure order and the emergency' order—will help to deal with that.

Fourth, the Bill will facilitate enforcement by environmental health officers. There has been a significant weakness here in the past, and their powers have been too limited.

The experience of a broad range of local authorities which have introduced their own Acts bears out the importance of the Bill. In Committee I cited the example of a restaurant in the area of the old Brent local authority. Before the Greater London Council brought in a Bill to strengthen its powers, the local authority tried time and again to take steps to close that restaurant. Only after two years, when the GLC finally secured its own powers—powers along the lines of my hon. Friend's Bill—was it able to take action and close the premises. That is a significant illustration of what the Bill can do in such rare but none the less important cases.

Almost every hon. Member has referred to the deterrent value of the Bill. I am certain that environmental health officers will be sparing in their attitude to it, that they will not rush in and seek to close vast numbers of premises, but they will none the less have this power in reserve, although, as I say, I am confident that they will use it with care.

I am sure that the prospect of having a closure order pinned on his premises, with all the attendant publicity in the area, will be a powerful deterrent to any owner whose standards are not good enough. The local authority in Manchester, for example, has this power, but in only a very few cases has the matter needed to be pursued through to conviction. The deterrent value of that power has itself done much to enhance standards of hygiene in that area.

The real beauty of the Bill—I say this with considerable feeling—is that it requires no extra expenditure, no increase in the number of environmental health officers and no increase in the size of the public service, while at the same time giving more teeth to the enforceability of the food hygiene regulations. The Bill allows the environmental health officer to do the job that he was always meant to do and for him to do it effectively. The effect of the Bill is to bolster reputable catering and food businesses and to deal with those small minority of people who drag down the country's reputation for good hygiene.

The message should go out to tourists in all countries that our intention is to provide the best possible standards for them. The message to consumers in this country should be that the Bill will minimise the risk to them of food poisoning. For those reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown has done us a great service.

I must congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) on using his good fortune in securing a place in the Ballot to introduce a relatively simple and non-controversial measure, though one which could have an important effect on the wellbeing of a significant number of people. The Government support this Bill and we are glad that it made such swift progress in Committee that we are able to debate it today.

It may help the House if I briefly set out the background to the Bill. Hygiene in food premises is controlled by regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act 1955. Normally, advice from local authority environmental health officers, backed up where necessary by prosecution for breach of those regulations, is sufficient to protect the health of customers. But in severe cases there can be a need to close the premises. Under the Act the courts have power to prohibit an operator of insanitary catering premises on conviction of breaking the regulations from carrying on a catering business at those premises.

There are, however, weaknesses in this power. First, the legal proceedings can be protracted and in the meantime the business can continue operating in an insanitary state, thus remaining a serious risk to the health of its customers. Secondly, the power relates only to premises where food is consumed and does not cover other food premises such as take away food shops or stalls. Thirdly, the operator can transfer the premises to someone else, who can continue the business without rectifying the faults until the local authority is able to mount another prosecution. The Bill seeks to remedy these weaknesses—Clause 1 dealing with full closure orders which would remain in force until necessary improvements are carried out, and Clause 2 with emergency orders.

The Bill will make general the powers granted to a number of local authorities —London boroughs, Manchester, Coventry, Derby, Afan, Rhondda and Salford —a total of 39 districts. My Department has reviewed the operation of these local powers and we are satisfied that they are working well. A number of highly insanitary premises have been closed, thus removing a serious risk to public health.

My attention has been drawn to a report in The Times headed,

"Court orders closure of restaurant",

which describes how a restaurant in a fashionable part of London was ordered to close temporarily after allegations that cockroaches and mouse droppings had been found in the kitchen. The full case against the proprietors will not be heard until 22nd July, which is two months away. It is therefore right that the powers in local Acts should be extended to the rest of the country. The existence of the power to seek closure has acted as a strong inducement to operators of food premises to follow the advice of environmental health officers and rectify the faults found in their establishment.

The Government welcome the measure. We know that it receives general support from local authority associations, the Environmental Health Officers' Association and from consumer interests. We see no grounds for opposition from the owners of reputable businesses, since only those premises which are a serious risk to public health are affected. The Bill also provides effective safeguards against hasty or ill-considered action by local authorities.

We do not envisage that there will be any increase in public or local authority expenditure or in local authority staff as a direct consequence of this Bill. The powers would make action by environmental health officers more effective. They would not necessitate the employment of additional officers. There is, of course, the possibility that a local authority may be required to pay compensation, but this provision is a necessary safeguard and follows broadly comparable provisions included in several sections of the Food and Drugs Act.

During the Committee stage I gave an undertaking that I would look at our existing codes of practice, issued under Section 13 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 to see whether there were any gaps in these codes where we should issue guidance on matters not at present covered. I have done that, and the House will no doubt wish me to say something about this. The following codes of practice issued under Section 13 of the Act are at present current "Hygiene in the Retail Fish Trade", "The Hygienic Transport and Handling of Fish", "Poultry Dressing and Packing", "Hygiene in the Bakery Trade and Industry", "Hygiene in the Operation of Coin Operated Food Vending Machines", "Hygiene in the Meat Trades", "Hygiene in Micro Wave Cooking."

Some branches of the food industry produce their own excellent codes about trade practices. Each of the departmental codes has been produced to meet a known need which is not met by the trade advisory publicity. Each code in the series follows a similar format and aims to provide unequivocal recommendations about sound food hygiene practices that both the enforcing authorities and the trade concerned wholeheartedly support. The advice is given in simple but firm terms that every food handler should be able to understand and follow and is printed in easy-to-read type.

The two existing codes on the fish trade are now a little out of date in some respects and should be revised in the near future. They might, with advantage, be replaced by one code covering hygiene in the fish trades. My Department is considering whether new codes should be prepared to cover the distribution and retailing of foods for which chilled temperature storage is required and canned foods.

There is no code of practice issued under Section 13 of the Act which covers catering as such. The need for such a code is met by "Clean Catering" published by my Department in association with the Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh Departments. This is an 80-page handbook on hygiene in catering establishments which was first published in 1953, before the Act came into force. It has been republished several times. The current edition is the fourth and was published in 1972.

This handbook deals in detail with the location and surroundings of premises, the design and construction of premises and equipment, pest control and various aspects of food handling, storage and service. This handbook was well received from the outset and my Department has seen no need to replace it with a code of practice under the Act. Accordingly, although it has been substantially revised to bring the text up to date, "Clean Catering" is still in much the same format as the original edition and, though an official handbook, is not formally a code of practice issued under the Act.

I have seen the handbook to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I do not dispute that it is comprehensive. But we now have legislation. Will the Minister consider producing a short guidebook, not necessarily only for people who work in food premises, but for those who are responsible for building and operating the premises? Magistrates would also welcome some guidance. There are certain obvious things that are a health hazard and others that are not. Will he consider producing a document relating to the Bill?

I am grateful for that intervention. "Clean Catering" is excellent guidance not merely for food handlers but for those who operate food premises. It could perhaps be printed in one or two other languages used by those working in restaurants, but the cost might be prohibitive. I undertake to consider distribution of the pamphlet to make sure that it is getting into the hands of the people who need it—food handlers, restaurateurs, proprietors, and so on.

I agree that a maximum fine of £400 may seem rather low for a serious catering offence of the sort we are considering, but I do not think it right that such an alteration in the maximum fine which can be imposed in a magistrates' court should be made in comparatively minor legislation. If the £400 limit is to be increased—and there may well be a case for that—it should be done in general legislation and not in a rather piecemeal way. I undertake to convey to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the views expressed on this matter so that he can take them into account.

Finally I should like to emphasise a point I made earlier, and repeat something I said in Committee. The Government believe that the main effect of the Bill would be to provide food inspectors with an additional deterrent argument when they are seeking to persuade operators of food businesses to improve their premises, stalls or floating restaurants. That has been the experience in those areas, including London, in which local Acts have provided similar powers. We do not foresee a wholesale purge in which large numbers of food businesses are closed down. I think it important to emphasise again that the Bill provides additional power to the courts—the food inspector cannot take arbitrary action on his own authority.

I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman, and for all the good reasons I have given, I ask the House to support the Bill.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 20, leave out Clause 5.

With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

It is with no criticism of the Bill that I ask the House to reject the clause. The Government have every sympathy with the Bill, as I have personally. How could I, with the Greenwich Theatre in my constituency, oppose legislation with the purposes of this Bill? Perhaps I may indulge in a little advertising by saying that my wife and I go to the Greenwich Theatre on a number of occasions—we wish that it could be many more—as I hope you do, Mr. Speaker, because of the very high standards that the theatre achieves.

I move the amendment because I believe that the purposes for which the clause was drafted can be better carried out in other ways. The difficulty with the clause is that it would be out of keeping with the general pattern of legislation on the requirement to consult if we added the words proposed to Section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I am aware that there is one exception, but as that was fairly dealt with in Committee by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, I need not go into it now. The requirement to consult with which the clause is concerned is normally covered by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order under the Act.

This Order requires consultation with bodies such as the National Coal Board and the Nature Conservancy Council. Therefore, it is logical and natural to put the requirement to consult in that Order and not in the Act. It is more than just a convenient way of doing the job. There are considerable, advantages. I doubt whether in many cases consultation would take place if the Bill became law with the clause in it, because I doubt whether many planning officers or staff would have a copy of the measure or would be able to obtain one quickly and easily. We are all aware that many people possess copies of Acts in which amendments have not been entered. Therefore, it is probable that owing to an oversight the requirement of the clause would not be met and that a change of use, demolition or whatever might be approved without anyone realising that consultation should take place and without consultation taking place.

I am told that one document which a planning officer or member of a planning staff is certain to possess is a copy of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order. It will be a heavily-thumbed copy to which he will repeatedly refer when faced with decisions of this kind. Therefore, if the requirement were placed in the Order it would undoubtedly be effective. That would make it almost certain that the law was adhered to.

I know that there has been some public concern that by putting the provision in the Order we should be devaluing the legal requirement. I assure the House that the legal requirement would be the same whether it appeared in the Act or the Order. The provision would have exactly the same sanction of law. What I am arguing is that there would be more likelihood of the law's being obeyed if it were in the Order. I think that part of the concern resulted from Press reports that were not entirely accurate.

I wish to advance another relevant argument. As many of us know, a good many other admirable activities take place in theatres. I am aware of the fact that Clause 6 gives a definition of the word "theatre" and describes it as

"any building or part of a building constructed wholly or mainly for the public performance of plays."

I am no lawyer, but I am aware of a number of institutions in relation to which it could be argued that they were not

"wholly or mainly for the public performance of plays".

For example, I can think of one institution asociated with the Greenwich Theatre namely an institution in Woolwich called the Tramshed. The Tramshed puts on anything that comes along and is worth putting on. At the moment there are jazz performances at that theatre, which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to be within the definition of the public performance of a play.

There are other institutions associated with drama, such as the Roundhouse, or an institution which many hon. Members will remember, the Players Theatre under the arches of Charing Cross. They are institutions of great value in which all kinds of experimental performances of one kind or another take place.

It could be asked whether there is any need to consult in respect of an institution of that kind, which may not be

"wholly or mainly for the public performance of plays".

Therefore, if we were to write the words in Clause 5 into the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, they would appear there for all time, whatever developments might take place in the world of the theatre. It would be much easier to include such a provision in the general development Order, which is amended or revised from time to time. If we wanted to widen the definition in any way, that could be handled by means of the order. On the other hand, it would be virtually impossible to include such a provision in current legislation.

I intend this argument to be taken seriously because I am trying to demonstrate that, in moving the amendment, I am in full support of the purposes of the Bill. I am well aware of the "Save the London Theatres" campaign and of the good work carried out by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in promoting and piloting this Bill through the House.

I want to give an absolute assurance that the Government support the purposes of the Bill and accept the need for consultations on the lines suggested in the clause. I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that when the general development Order comes up for revision this year, we shall ensure that the Order contains wording corresponding roughly to the wording suggested in Clause 5. I wish to assure the hon. Gentleman that, barring unforeseen accidents, that will be done this year.

I hope that with that assurance the House will be prepared to accept the amendment to delete the clause, on the full and fair understanding that the Government intend to see that the requirement in the Bill will be included in the revised general development Order when it is laid later this year.

I apologise to the House for not being present when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment began his remarks. I regret that I was not present because it is the first occasion upon which I have had the opportunity of hearing my hon. Friend speak from the Front Bench. However, I heard the bulk of his remarks and obviously he will be as persuasive from the Government Front Bench as he was from the Back Benches.

I listened to his remarks with great care, but I hope that he will not mind if I seek to press him a little further. I understand that we are now addressing ourselves to Clause 5 and to the amendments thereto.

And also Clause 7. We are now dealing with Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, which are being taken together.

I am obliged to you for that information, Mr. Speaker. In that case, I may have to speak for a little longer period than I had hoped.

I wish to address myself initially to the first part of Clause 5 and to press my hon. Friend on the question of the general development order. Obviously, the theatre is in a special and different position from many other spheres of activity. Therefore, what is being asked for in the Bill is different from what is usually required to be done in relation to land and buildings.

In the past when an application has been made to convert a building to another use, the matter has been examined by the planning authority to see whether it has a special architectural value. The authority is frequently advised that, in such circumstances, it should not grant planning permission to pull down that building and for the site to be used for another purpose.

However, not all these matters can be dealt with from the point of view of the special architectural value of the building concerned. Experience in the 1950s was very drastic indeed. In view of that situation, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) brought forward this Bill, a measure which I welcome. I congratulate him on his good fortune in the Ballot.

The reasons for the vulnerability of the theatre are of a special character. The Minister said "If the House agrees with the Government to delete the clause, the Government will give an assurance that later in the year they will give effect to a proposal which will have precisely the same effect and which will further improve the situation." May I press the Minister to say when the changes in the order will be issued? Will this happen before the end of the current calendar year? I am sure that any information he can give on that score will be helpful to the House.

The reason for the special vulnerability of theatres stems from experience in the 1950s. Members who are old enough will recall that as late as the 1950s the country was covered with a forest of theatres. There were 150 theatres throughout the country in quite regular use.

The reasons for their disappearing were complex. Television was one of the main reasons, but there was another which was less well known—namely, increased site values. That increase meant that the land upon which the theatres sat suddenly became much more valuable. Site values became more valuable than the monetary return that the theatres were capable of achieving.

There was the curious situation that if a theatre happened to be in a good position in the High Street in a provincial town, it would disappear, even though in theatrical terms it was paying its way. But the theatre would remain which was in an obscure position in a back street, even though it was possibly not paying its way. That was because the site was of less value. The theatre which was being utilised commercially for only two hours in the day became unable to provide the same returns as an office block, a development site, or a department store, which could be used for eight hours or more in the day. With that sort of usage the return would be very much greater.

2.30 p.m.

For those reasons the theatres became extremely vulnerable. In fact, they disappeared. The local authorities were unable to prevent their disappearance. However, I think that some authorities could have done more. They found themselves threatened because they knew that if they failed to grant planning permission, the site owners would sue them and they would have to pay enormous compensation.

The authorities became frightened. In many instances they gave up their right to maintain the theatres at an earlier stage than was necessary. In other cases they gave up their rights when they should not have done so. They became convinced that if they decided to preserve a theatre, they would have to pass on to the ratepayers a demand for a great deal of money.

In the 1960s and 1970s the end result was that some authorities decided to build their own theatres because of the disappearance of the commercial theatres. That provision cost the ratepayers a great deal more money in the long run. That demonstrates once again that we can be short-sighted in failing to spend municipal money at the right time. We can end up spending much more at a later stage because of a failure to spend money wisely at the proper time.

Perhaps I have said enough to illustrate why we are sensitive and worried, why it is that we are seeking to press my hon. Friend quite considerably before we agree to his proposal to remove the clause. It was my proposal not to remove the clause but to add to it. I suggested that an additional subsection should be inserted to add the words:

"In any case in which the Theatres Trust have advised that planning permission be refused and the local planning authority concerned have acted in accordance with such advice no claim for compensation shall lie against the authority concerned as a consequence of such refusal."

My hon. Friend will recognise immediately why I suggested that addition. I did so because of the experience of the past, when many authorities were deterred from giving theatres the protection that they might have given because they thought it would cost a great deal of money to do so.

I believe that my hon. Friend may be able to give us some worthwhile assurance. If he is able to say that, owing to subsequent legislation, perhaps the legislation of 1974, there is not the possibility that a local authority that refuses planning permission will have to pay heavy compensation, it will be possible for me not to press the amendment. Whether I take that course must depend on what my hon. Friend has to say. I shall be grateful if he addresses himself to this issue. The fear that I express in the amendment is that an authority might be deterred from refusing planning permission if it thinks that the financial consequences will be grave. Is that a real fear? If it is, we need the additional subsection. In any event, this is a matter on which I want to hear my hon. Friend's views.

It is relevant to consider the position of the London theatre, which illustrates why the Bill is of great importance. The London theatre is a great artistic and commercial asset. It acts as a magnet for foreign tourists and makes a considerable contribution to our balance of payments. There are 15 London theatres with leases which fall due before the end of the present century. Four of them are safe in that they are already in public hands. Of the remaining 11, five of the freeholds are owned by property development companies—namely, the Cambridge, the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, the Palace and the Royal Court.

The land on which those five theatres stand is already in the hands of property development companies. It is possible that they may be content for the buildings to remain theatres, but that is not in the nature of the beast. The remaining six have freeholds which are owned by individuals and trusts. They include the Albery and Wyndham's, which are owned by the Salisbury estate, which has not yet indicated to Mr. Albery that it is prepared to renew his lease although he has been pressing the matter for some time, the Globe, the Queens and the Ambassadors, which are owned by a charity, and Drury Lane, which is owned by the Duke of Bedford.

I am sure that the House will agree that if we were to remove about half of those 11 theatres the heart of the West End theatres would disappear. One has only to name theatres such as the Albery, Wyndham's, the Globe, the Queens, the Ambassadors, the Cambridge, Covent Garden, the Royal Opera House, the Palace and the Royal Court to realise that they are vital to the continued existence of the entertainment complex which constitutes the West End.

The Bill is vital to drawing public attention to the reality of the problem, but it is vital that we have a measure which will deal with it. That is why my hon. Friends and I are detaining the House this afternoon. That is why we shall await my hon. Friend's reply with great interest.

By this amendment the Minister seeks to remove an important clause from the Bill. I listened carefully and closely to his argument because naturally I am concerned that I should not lose Clause 5, which is the heart of the Bill, giving it meaning and reality. I congratulate the Minister as this is the first time that I have heard him address the House from the Dispatch Box. I am pleased that he is now on the Government Front Bench and trust that he will deal with matters in future as he is dealing with this delicate and important matter today. The hon. Gentleman has earned his place and I am sure that he will be there for as long as the Government remain.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) because he has only recently left the Government Front Bench having been a distinguished Minister responsible for the arts for the past two years. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome him to the debate and to hear him speak strongly in favour of the Bill and in favour of protecting the theatre in London and the rest of the country. This is a subject which has been close to his heart for a long time. As a Minister he sought to serve the theatre with all the powers that his office could give him.

I am particularly grateful that he has found time to support me and to add his weight, which stems from a long experience and knowledge of the theatre, to the Bill. He has given us this catalogue of danger concerning the London theatres in particular. In doing so he has helped the debate greatly. I am glad that he has said that he will withhold acceptance of the Minister's proposal until he is sure that his hon. Friend is in no way weakening something which he feels must not be weakened.

I am addressing myself to Amendment No. 1 and Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 which are consequential. These deal with the heart of the Bill which the Minister has suggested should be taken out. I must explain the view that I have taken about the Bill and this clause. The Bill has not exactly filled the Chamber, but the Chamber is not filled very often on a Friday. That is of no consequence. What is important is that on a Friday, Private Members' Bills are given the opportunity of reaching the statute book. These Bills are by no means insignificant. They have an important part to play in our legislation, and Fridays are still a vital and treasured part of the House of Commons routine.

I am happy to have the opportunity of speaking about my Bill. I hope that before the end of the day it will be on its way to another place. It is a small measure compared with those other great pieces of legislation which are so necessary and which are Government-inspired. Some would say that this Bill is not necessary. Some would argue that there are already sufficient powers to protect theatres in danger of being overtaken by the desires of the developer or the bulldozer. Some would maintain that it does not require an Act of Parliament to establish a trust. I would not deny these assertions.

There are powers available to local authorities and the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning Acts, whereby local authorities can withhold planning permission in a wide variety of circumstances, described, in the main, in general terms. It is true that we do not need an Act of Parliament to establish a trust, in this case a Theatres Trust. The object of this Bill, as described in the Title, is to

"Establish a Theatres Trust for the better protection of theatres;"

It is this and no more.

2.45 p.m.

The hon. Member for Putney rightly said that theatres were vulnerable. It is because they are vulnerable that I and those supporting me feel that something must go on to the statute book which takes especial care of them and does not leave them to the general care of the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning Acts. We feel that theatres are so vulnerable as to require a measure which will safeguard them. I believe that "better protection"—the phrase used in the Bill—is needed. I am convinced that the law needs strengthening for this purpose. That is why, after a great deal of consultation with learned counsel and parliamentary draftsmen, I decided to include Clause 5, which seeks to insert a further subsection into the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

The strength of this small Bill was to be written into it for all to see. That was my intention in including Clause 5. In the centre of the Bill is the legal statement that the theatre would be so protected. Planning authorities, theatre owners, the public, developers and those who get their livelihood from the theatre —actors, actresses, authors, playwrights, producers, directors and all the rest who make up the living theatre—would see that there was the protection which so many so desperately wanted.

I feel it is important that this Bill should send up a signal for all to see. It will, on the one hand, be a warning shot to all those who want to disregard the significance of the theatre. The Bill will be welcome to all those who want to see one of the great treasures in our rich artistic heritage preserved whenever possible. I say "whenever possible" because the Bill does not give complete and absolute protection in perpetuity for the theatre. All the Bill seeks to do is to fire a warning shot across the bows of any developer who might seek permission to change the use of a building which is today a theatre and which tomorrow might be used for some other purpose or might even suffer the indignity of being bulldozed so that a shopping centre or a factory might be built. The Bill does not stop that. It is a warning shot. It provides a pause. It requires the giver of planning permission, the local authority, to say "Not so fast."

The developer cannot proceed without this matter being referred to the Theatres Trust which is set up under the Bill. The trust would comprise a group of persons appointed by the Secretary of State, not lust theatre-lovers but a mixture of persons who would apply themselves to seeing whether there was a case for protecting and safeguarding the theatre. It may be that they would reach the conclusion that there was no case for protecting a theatre in a certain circumstance and that planning permission should not be withheld. Alternatively, if they felt that there was a case for safeguarding the theatre and allowing it to continue, they would make that statement to the local planning authority, which would in turn, ask the trust what it would do about it. The trust would then have to take such steps as are set out in the Bill, using its own funds, to see that the theatre was maintained.

I believe that it was necessary to single out the theatre for special consideration. There will he those who argue "why the theatre, why not some other type of building?" I do not believe that the existing planning laws are sufficient to safeguard our theatres, which are particularly vulnerable. Theatres often do not have artistic or architectural merit. The artistic merit in the theatre is mainly inside. It comes from within, from living people performing on the stage. It is the live theatre that I want to protect—the platform on which the live theatre can grow and develop as it has done in this country for several hundred years.

I regard the Bill as a recognisable barrier against aggression—not an impenetrable barrier, but a hurdle which would keep the public eye on anyone who sought to jump it. It is an important message that in these days of economic bleakness, when such progress as we do make seems to take us further into the concreted jungle, we are still prepared to use a Friday morning in Parliament to show that we are determined to protect some of the great traditions and heritages of this country.

Our theatre, and all those who work in it in London and the Provinces, contri- butes much to our enjoyment and artistic achievement, and gives much enjoyment to tourists who make their contribution to helping our bleak economic situation. What a rich flowering we have seen in recent years with new theatres being built, notwithstanding the fact that in the last 30 years we have lost many. New ones have sprung up—in Sheffield, Coventry, Guildford and Chichester and, of course, in London. In London there has been the particularly great achievement of the establishment, across the river, of a National Theatre for the first time in our history.

I realise, of course, that the largest theatrical audience these days sits before the television screen. Millions still go to the cinema. But for the great majority, a visit to the live theatre is all too rare an event. How terrible it would be if we lost the opportunity of seeing our actors and actresses—dare I say it—in the flesh. It is fitting that in the year when we saw the opening of the National Theatre we should also establish a means of protection for theatres throughout the country.

I listened to the Under-Secretary very carefully and I was heartened when he spoke of the Government's full support for the purposes of the Bill, and mentioned his own personal interest. It is very important that a Minister should feel that he can back up his brief with his heart and head as well.

I have listened to his arguments, and the proposal he made to delete Clause 5 and to replace the strength of it by something which, he claims, will be even better from a legal point of view. I am not completely convinced because I feel that to amend the Town and Country Planning Acts to require local authorities to consult was absolute enough, but I do take his point that the general development Order placed before the House has the force of an Act of Parliament. I take his point also—and he has more experience than I have—about the attitude of planning officers in councils throughout the country towards the mass of legislation that ends up on their tables. Perhaps they would be more aware of an amendment to the general development Order than of a small measure like this clause which goes through Parliament on a Friday morning.

I am prepared to accept his assurances that his processes in law will, in fact. perform the duty of giving legal strength to the Bill better than the way I suggested. I note that the Minister said that such an amendment to the general development Order of the Town and Country Planning Act would be made this year. I would be grateful for this, because I would like to see the Bill come into effect this year. I do not want any further delay and I would not like to think that it would be reconsidered in the Department, amended, and even rescinded in future years. Here we have a chance with a new Bill before Parliament and the Minister hoping to strengthen it by an amendment to the general development Order. I want to be absolutely sure that the Minister would not expect it to be amended or rescinded at the drop of a hat. I do not think that this is his intention, but I want to be doubly sure because I am making a great concession in allowing Clause 5 to run away like this.

As a result of the Under-Secretary's assurance I have been prepared to give way and not to oppose his proposal to drop Clause 5. I note, however, that the Minister said that there would be an amendment to the general development Order this year "barring unforeseen circumstances". In view of my concession those circumstances would have to be almost catastrophic.

I strongly support the Bill. I recognise its object in protecting the theatre. I also appreciate the need for that to be done, particularly in these days of television, bingo halls, and so on.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said that Clause 5 was the heart of the Bill. I do not think that he really meant that. The heart of the Bill is surely Clause 2, which sets out the very deserving objects to be performed by the Theatres Trust. In his view, Clause 5 is important. He has used a great many words about it—preserving the traditions, upholding the theatre, and so on. But, when we come down to practical effect—to brass tacks—what is the difference between Clause 5 and the Minister's proposal? Clause 5 does not say that the planning authority must not only consult the Theatres Trust but carry out what the trust desires to be done: it merely demands that there shall be consultation.

3.0 p.m.

I read the interesting debate which took place in Committee on this clause. I read the categorical assurance given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science that Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order would be amended so that specifically the planning authority would be required to consult the Theatres Trust.

What is the difference between the two? They both achieve the same object. The only point is that one must look at the matter from a legislative point of view, from the point of view of convenience. As has rightly been said by the Minister, the planning authority looks at the regulations dealing with planning, paying attention primarily to them. If there is an amendment to the regulations specifically requiring the planning authority to consult the Theatres Trust, the object is achieved. The Minister's proposal is much more satisfactory.

It might be useful if I explain that we pressed the point in Committee because we wanted to be sure that the bird which is in the bush is equivalent to the bird which is in the hand here and will eventually be plucked out of the bush and allowed to fly.

I wonder why my hon. Friend said that. Surely the bird in the bush was the Minister who gave the categorical assurance in Committee.

The bird in the bush really was a bird, if I may say so, since it was the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. She rather suggested that the planning authorities are encouraged to consult in advice given in a departmental circular. We all know, however, that advice by a Minister to a local authority does not carry the weight of a general development Order. I am not suggesting that the hon. Lady did not say later that she had in mind a general development Order, but today we have had a more than categorical assurance that there will be an Order. We were concerned in Committee that perhaps we might be dealing only with a bird which could easily fly away.

I read the Official Report very carefully, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science gave a categorical assurance that there would be a provision on this matter in the planning rules: From the practical point of view, there is no difference between these two proposals, but there is greater advantage in its being done in such a way that the planning authority has the whole matter before it. I applaud everything that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said about the necessity to protect the theatres and the great importance of paying attention to their vulnerability, but surely the proper way to deal with the matter is to accept the Minister's proposal.

Not for the first time, the House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). He is a regular member of what I call the Friday Club. He attends nearly every Friday and, unpaid, gives us the benefit of his legal advice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is to be congratulated on his success in the Ballot and on introducing this Bill. He requested my presence today because he feared that the Bill would be ruined by the removal of Clause 5. He regards it as the guts of his Bill though, elegant orator that he is, he would not use such words. The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said it would not be ruined if a different course of action were taken.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has explained the importance of Fridays when we can discuss Private Members' Bills and motions, but I do not think that this is a widely-held view. The Deputy Speaker has to be in the House, as do all the servants of the House, the Serjeant at Arms and the police. But what happens on a Friday? Only half a dozen hon. Members turn up.

When I was told that the deletion of Clause 5 would ruin the Bill and that it had to be resisted at all costs, I ex- pected to see a reasonably crowded House today. I thought that at least the sponsors of the Bill would be here.

Like the boy on the burning deck

"whence all but he had fled",

my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is here, as is the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), who is also a sponsor. The rest of the sponsors have disappeared. If this matter is of such vital interest, one would have thought that a few of the sponsors would be here, if only to say "Hear, hear" occasionally during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and to resist the attack on the guts of the Bill. But nobody is here.

I must protest at this attitude of hon. Members who sponsor Bills and do not bother to turn up when they are being debated. It is an abuse of the House. I have mentioned it many times before, but my words have fallen upon stony ground. Perhaps one day hon. Members who sponsor Bills will feel it incumbent upon them to do something active to support the legislation.

I come to the Bill as a stranger, apart from the advice given by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. The Minister, whom I congratulate on his new appointment and wish every success, seeks to delete Clause 5. I should like some advice whether this is necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury feels strongly about the matter. I presume the other sponsors do not feel much about it at all. Without the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington I would not know whether or how I should cast my vote, in the unlikely event of a Division taking place.

This is an important Bill. Better protection for our theatres is a very good cause. As the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) has very rightly said, they are a great source of attraction to tourists. London theatre is the best in the world. It is also the cheapest in the world. To try to see in New York the kind of theatre that is available in London would cost a fortune. The Americans have a black market in the sale of their tickets in the great American cities. However, in this country for a comparatively moderate charge one may enjoy some of the best theatre to be found anywhere in the world. Therefore, it is right that we should support a Bill that aims at giving theatres some protection from those with predatory ideas about the sites that they occupy.

I am glad that the Bill has come forward. I congratulate my hon. Friend on having introduced it. I shall wait a little while longer before I leave the Chamber in order to discover whether I am supposed to oppose the amendment or to support it—a situation about which I am in some doubt. I do not doubt that my doubts will be resolved in due course.

I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He has joined the Friday Club, apparently. I am a Friday Front Bencher and a late-night performer at the Dispatch Box; not an understudy, not yet quite a matinee idol, I suppose.

On behalf of the Opposition, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) on bringing the Bill forward and on his skill in bringing it back to the House for consideration. He has a wide and lively interest in the arts. Indeed, he is part of a team of Opposition Members who are doing much in a wide variety of fields.

I must refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden). His talents in this field are many. At one time he was a levision star. He has been seen in the Palace of Westminster in the company of a succession of Miss Worlds. He looks after the interests of the music users. He gives very good value for money. We have all enjoyed him here this afternoon, free of charge.

I recall also the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), whose interest in the performing arts is well known. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) deals with music, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) deals with the Arts Council, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), with great assistance from me, attempts to fight for the national heritage and all that that means. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) has an interest in historic churches that is well known. All of us work with, if not under the wing of, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), that distinguished former Minister for the Arts.

The Minister began by saying that he had a genuine personal interest in the theatre. I followed him in much of what he said because, together with my wife, I all too seldom get the opportunity to visit those theatres such as the Theatre Royal in Bristol, the oldest theatre in the Kingdom, or, at the other end of the scale and quite recent in construction, the Pavilion Theatre at Weymouth, which the Minister will know from his previous political activities.

It is a sad reflection that the Georgian theatre in our county town of Dorchester was destroyed to build shops comparatively recently. That was all the more tragic because of the flourishing Dorchester Amateur Dramatic Society, members of which I am happy to welcome frequently at Athelhampton. Unfortunately, I do not possess a theatre in which they can perform. I believe that the Dorchester theatre would not have been destroyed if my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had been fortunate in getting this Bill on the statute book earlier. More public interest would have been aroused.

3.15 p.m.

The central point of the argument is whether we should accept the Minister's assurance that words included in the general development Order will be even more effective than Clause 5. I believe that the Minister is right, subject to certain qualifications, and I want to question him on exactly what he meant.

The general development Order is dated 1973, amended in 1974, further amended in 1976. The Minister said that there was to be a review of the Order. Do I take that to mean that the whole of this series of order and amendments will be reviewed this year and that a comprehensive, complete general development Order will be brought before the House? We already have three documents, one of them fairly slender. The part of the new order which will embrace what my hon. Friend seeks to do in Clause 5 will presumably be another slim piece of paper.

It is important that there should be a comprehensive document embracing all these matters. Certain, signals that I have observed suggest that we shall have such a document before the end of this year. I hope that before the end of this debate, we shall be given an assurance that we are to have a composite comprehensive document. That is vital to back up the Minister's contention.

If we have a document, a planning bible, which is a shortened version of the Town and Country Planning Act procedures on all these matters, that will be most helpful. I am glad that the Minister did not suggest, as I think was suggested in Committee—at least, we had that impression after the Committee proceedings—that a circular would do.

I want to raise a matter relating to listed buildings which I raised in Committee. I do not believe that the provisions protecting listed buildings, even in Article 14 of the general development Order, are entirely satisfactory and comprehensive. I do not believe that the Department thinks so either. A recent circular which I saw only yesterday draws the attention of planning authorities to the need for special care in development proposals affecting the settings of historic buildings.

When we started along the road of trying to protect buildings, we gave scant attention to the subject of settings. It was all buildings, and very little about their environment. The word "environment" was not invented in the first Town and Country Planning Act. Therefore, the circular suggesting to planning authorities that they give special attention to the settings of historic buildings is not an effective way of dealing with them.

I hope that in the general review which is to take place—now we know that there is to be a review—all matters affecting the preservation, possible uses and the settings of historic buildings will be enshrined in a new general development Order. That would do a great deal to allay the widespread fears on this matter and seek to prevent some of the awful planning decisions such as those which have been made recently.

I gave many examples along these lines when I tried to put through a similar Bill myself some years ago, but I will limit myself today to one. The Historic Buildings Council for England recently went on a tour. One of the houses that it went to see was Harlaxton, not far from Belvoir Castle, which has the finest view in Europe, according to Professor Sir Nikolaus Pevsner—a marvellous straight avenue from the house leading down to a church spire of an earlier age. The house itself is of 1837—a magnificent house.

What has the local planning authority done with the middle of this view opposite the entrance gate screen of Harlaxton? It has allowed the development of half-a-dozen quite nice but utterly inappropriate modern houses, which have ruined the view. If they had been sited differently, the view from the house would not have been ruined. People could have enjoyed that view for all time, for Harlaxton House will never be demolished. I could wax eloquent about it, but I must not digress further. That is why the general development Order review is most welcome. I hope that the Minister will assure us that it will be a comprehensive review.

I come back to theatres. Of course they need special protection. They are all too vulnerable to the pressures of modern development. I hope that, if the Minister has leave to speak again, he will give us the assurances that we require.

The Bill will go to another place. We have the advantage of a new Minister for the Arts in the other place. That is no reflection on the former Minister. The Minister said very little about historic or theatre buildings. I hope that the Minister in another place will wax eloquent on this subject, because we should appreciate his view.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said that there were not many of us here on a Friday, but that all the policemen and other staff of the House have to be here, including you, Mr. Speaker, in the Chair. We are grateful for your presence this afternoon.

I commend the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury in accepting what the Minister said, subject to his giving certain assurances which I think I have made clear to him.

With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to this interesting debate.

At the outset, I should like to thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for their kind remarks about my appointment. I took particularly to heart the fact that my personal commitment to theatres and, indeed, to matters ranging into the arts, was welcomed. After all, I have been appointed only as a humble planning Minister. However, I hope that a humble planning Minister may in that capacity do one or two things for good because of a direct personal interest in the arts and in theatres.

What came across during the debate was that all who took part are united in the same purpose. Where there may be difference—clearly there was for my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins)—is in regard to an absolute feeling that the proposals that we have put forward are as effective as the Bill was thought to be. The debate has been about means, not ends. 1 think that we are all totally united about the ends that we are trying to achieve.

Naturally, and understandably, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney sought further assurances. I respect his reasons. I know of his life-long interest in the theatre, apart from the responsibilities which he shouldered as Minister for the Arts until recently. Therefore, he has a deep personal concern and natural anxiety that the assurances that I gave meant precisely what they said.

The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) asked certain questions about the assurances that I gave. I gave those assurances barring unforeseen circumstances, by which I meant something catastrophic. I meant what I said. I added that rider because no Minister likes to say anything absolutely, as though nothing could conceivably go wrong. The Government intend that there should be a review of the general development Order, that this item should appear in Article 13, and that the document as a whole should be consolidated. That is the intention and those things will be done. Naturally, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will not expect me to give a date. I cannot say that it will be done on 5th December, or anything like that. However, I assure him that it will be done by the end of this year.

I hope that he will accept that that is as satisfactory as we can get, and that it is about as copper-bottomed a guarantee as it is possible for a Minister to give. It is given in the hope that the House will agree to the deletion of this clause.

I should be grateful if we could have a copper-bottomed guarantee that the Minister will endeavour to consolidate the aspirations expressed in the ministerial circular together with Article 14 as it applies to listed buildings as a whole. It would be a pity not to use this opportunity to do so. May I have that assurance?

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is asking for a circular?

No. There has been a circular—I said so in my speech—on development as it affects listed buildings, particularly their settings. I hope that what is said in that circular can be included in the general development Order, amplifying Article 14. It would be a pity to have a review and not get Article 14 right.

May I write to the hon. Gentleman about that? We are, after all, concerned with a debate on the amendment of the Theatres Trust Bill, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect me to give an assurance on that point now. I acknowledge its importance, and if I may write to him as soon as I have received advice on it, I think that would be the best and most reliable way of dealing with it.

I was about to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) for accepting the assurance which I gave to the House, in the spirit in which he did. I am aware of the work that he has put into the Bill, and I know the work involved in preparing a Bill, meeting outside interests and piloting it through the House.

I felt for the hon. Gentleman when he said—I am only paraphrasing his words —that I was taking the legal guts out of his Bill. That is why I appreciate the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), who has now left the Chamber, when he said that in a sense that was not the guts of the Bill. Indeed, as I read the Bill, I do not think that it is. The guts of the Bill is that it is intended to set up a theatres trust. That is perhaps the vital feature that we are giving responsibility to a body set up by the Secretary of State to look after our heritage—our unrivalled heritage, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) said —which we are proud to possess in this country and particularly in my own city of London.

I am grateful that this assurance has been accepted. But I recognise the doubts which my hon. Friend the Member for Putney expressed. At one point he expressed worries, and very rightly so, about the experience of the theatre during the 1950s. As I know he understands— in fact, as was expressed so often in his speech—there is a limit to what planning can do. The situation which he described was economic. The threat to theatres arises basically from economic factors. The only effective solution to the problem is the provision of adequate finance.

I was interested when the hon. Member for Canterbury said that he saw a theatres trust being able to contribute directly to that purpose. Clearly its purpose could easily be frustrated unless it had the right, which it will be granted in the general development Order, to be consulted on every occasion on which a change of use is proposed.

A very important technical point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney when he asked about the issue of compensation. As he referred particularly to an Act passed in 1974, I ought to refer to the Town and Country Amenities Act and explain the situation, because he may have misunderstood the position.

It is provided in that Act in relation to listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas subject to listed building control that if listed building consent to demolish is withheld, in the calculation of compensation there shall no longer be a presumption that listed building consent would have been given. The effect is to reduce the quantum of compensation. This is essentially a listed building matter, and, as my hon. Friend will be aware, not all theatres would be such buildings, although in London some probably are.

The point remains that, in our view, it is undesirable to discriminate in the way my hon. Friend proposes in his amendment and thus deprive owners of theatres on their own of any compensation to which they might be entitled where planning control had refused the possibility of change of building use.

I ask this question for clarification. In the event of compensation becoming payable by a local authority as a result of its refusal of planning permission, would such compensation be based on the existing use value of the site, that is, at theatre value —which would be reasonable, because the trust could, perhaps, then acquire the theatre—or would the compensation be payable at a future use value, which would be quite out of the question since the possible use of the site might be for development as a supermarket or the like? It would be unreasonable to expect the local authority to find such compensation or to expect the Theatres Trust to find money of that sort. If my hon. Friend could give an assurance that the compensation payable would be at existing use value, that would set some minds at rest.

I cannot immediately answer that question, as my hon. Friend will understand. I hope that I can obtain the information for him, or, if I cannot do so now, I shall let him have it after the debate. It is a technical matter, and it might be better dealt with afterwards.

I have done my best to answer the points raised in the debate, and I hope that the House will accept as satisfactory my general assurance regarding what we propose to put in place of Clause 5. Indeed, I feel that in many respects what we propose is far preferable to the form of control or protection for theatres proposed in the Bill itself.

The whole House is grateful to the hon. Member for Canterbury not only for introducing the Bill but for the eloquent speech which he made today, a speech of great sincerity expressing a great love for and belief in our theatres for the future. In many respects, I thought, he expressed feelings which most, if not all, of us in the House share.

I return now to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. I am advised that there is seldom compensation for refusal of planning permission. My hon. Friend was referring to compensation stemming from listed building control. I think that it would be simpler and more satisfactory if I wrote to him about it, since it is a narrow point. Perhaps I got on to the question of listed buildings rather too quickly, and I ought to have made the generality of the matter clearer. The basic point is that, in general, refusal of planning permission does not automatically—indeed, it hardly ever does—involve any question of compensation, and I think that my hon. Friend may have been misled about that.

I commend my amendment to the House and, in so doing, I reaffirm the undertakings I have given about changes which will in due course be made in the general development Order.

I accept the Minister's assurance and I am prepared to put my trust in him. The Bill is designed to give effective protection to theatres. I am prepared to accept the use of Article 13 of the general development Order on the requirement to consult. Adding the Theatres Trust to Article 13 is as strong a safeguard as Clause 5 would be.

It is no longer necessary for me to call up my reserves of several hundred hon. Members who are waiting outside the Chamber. I shall leave the Chamber quickly so that they will know that I do not require them to come to my aid.

I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) on his Bill and I am pleased that it has made such good progress. I hope that it will reach its final stages without any difficulty. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) for the way in which he has spoken from the Front Bench.

All this is in harmony with Amendment No. 1.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) on his success on getting his Bill through. If he can gather together 100 or more hon. Members who are waiting outside to give me some support, perhaps he will let me know.

Since I received the consent to introduce the Bill on 5th February, the day after your own introduction to high office, Mr. Speaker, two of my sponsors have joined the Government and can therefore be with me only in spirit. They have assured me that they are. Their appointments show that I chose hon. Members of some distinction to support me because their talents have now been recognised by the Prime Minister.

The Bill is simple. I seek merely to extend the powers of local authorities under Section 233(i) of the Public Health Act 1936 to enable them to ensure that the proprietors of private swimming pools, in hotels, holiday camps and private schools maintain them to standards which are satisfactory to the local authority. That is already a requirement for public swimming pools, under byelaws passed 40 years ago. It is now time to cover private swimming pools. I should have liked to go further in the Bill but a Home Office working party has been looking into water safety for two years and I hope that it will make more far-reaching proposals.

Since I introduced the Bill the South Wight Council has particularly requested that the Bill should include private schools as it wishes to see them properly supervised. I believe that entry to a school in my constituency has been refused.

The matter has been causing concern in other quarters. At a meeting on 3rd February this year of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents attention was drawn to tragedies in private schools, including a recent tragedy when two schoolchildren were drowned. The report of the meeting said that the education authority had been making inquiries about life-saving aids, but

"the view was expressed, and supported, that it was far more important to have fully trained supervisors than to spend large amounts of money on equipment for emergency use."

It is the supervision angle that local authorities are particularly concerned about.

Support for my Bill has come from the Isle of Wight Hotels Association, which is directly concerned, and the Isle of Wight Tourist Board, which makes certain recommendations for amendments, which can be dealt with in Committee.

I have had drawn to my attention an interesting article in Municipal Engineering of 30th April, which talks about the growing problem of swimmers' itch". It says:

"A developing problem in the States and one which perhaps should be considered in the UK because of the large number of private swimming-pools now installed and in use, is ' swimmers' itch'. Dermatitis, conjunctivitis, pharyngeal infections and meningo-encephalitis cases have been traced back to the use of private pools and particularly 'whirlpools' incorporated in the pool design…It raises the point that there are needs for public health controls over private swimming-pools. Our apparently improving summers are producing much increased interest in swimming-pools for private use in hotels, clubs, hostels and private dwelling-houses. Added to the large numbers of school swimming-pools already in use and those planned, the number distributed throughout Britain is running into thousands."

It is a problem to which we shall have to pay attention.

It is the Government's view, confirmed in a letter to me from the Home Office, that where no separate charge is made for entry to a pool, it is not normally possible for local authorities to impose the model byelaws under the Public Health Act 1936, and that therefore further legislation is necessary. However, it seems that the old Newquay Urban District Council—I do not know of which authority it is now part—got round the problem under a local Act of 1967 by deleting some of the wording of the 1936 Act. Perhaps the Minister will see whether that method could be extended to the rest of the country.

I gather that the Government may not be disposed to allow me a Second Reading, on the ground that this action is premature, but I urge them to think again. I ask all hon. Members to think of the people who will drown this summer because of the failure to impose proper safety regulations.

Miss Vera Bryant, Water Safety Organiser of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, has written, on safety in hotel swimming pools:

"The fact that upwards of 700 people accidentally drown in the United Kingdom every year and that some 40 of them do in swimming pools stresses the need for more adequate parental supervision of children observation of the rules of water safety; vigilance at all pools plus on-the-spot telephone for emergency calls, whether they be owned by local authorities, hotels, holiday camps, or schools; and facilities for all to learn to swim well and to learn to life save. Far too many of us fail to realise that water can be lethal, even a few inches, and drowning can happen very quickly."

She goes on to talk about a recent tragedy in a Bournemouth hotel swimming pool.

I wish to mention in particular Mr. T. E. Payne of Erith, a guiding light for the Bill, whose son unfortunately died in an accident at a holiday camp in my constituency only last year.

The matter is urgent. I accept that a better vehicle for the legislation that I have in mind would probably have been the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I tried to table an amendment to that Bill last Monday, but it was ruled out of order because of a technicality. Therefore, if the Minister intends to ask the House not to give this Bill a Second Reading, I hope that he will consider the possibility of tabling an amendment on this matter to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. If he likes, I will draft the amendment and he can consider whether it has any chance of being included when that Bill goes to another place. That Bill may be a suitable vehicle to cover the situa- tion and will give local authorities the power I seek in my Bill. I hope that it will avoid many of the tragic accidents which take place in swimming pools, and which inevitably will occur again. Even better, the Minister could advise the House to give my Bill a Second Reading so that we may be able to examine these matters in greater detail in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.

In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) spoke of the growing problem of the number of accidents in swimming pools. On the other hand, it is only fair to point out that the number of accidents may well be related simply to the increased opportunities and the facilities available for young people at swimming pools.

The hon. Gentleman quoted some statistics, and I shall do likewise. I am sure he will agree that, whatever statistics one quotes on a subject of this kind, everybody regards it as an appalling tragedy when a person or a young child is drowned in a swimming accident. It may assist the House if I give the latest available information on accidents in swimming pools, if only to illustrate the scale of the problem.

The principal source of information is the Office of Population Census and Surveys, which publishes reports each year based on death certificates issued by coroners. The latest information relates to 1973 when there were a total of 816 accidental deaths by drowning in England and Wales. Of that number, 59—only 7 per cent.—occurred in swimming pools. The figures can be further broken down into public pools, recreation centres, municipal pools and so on, amounting to a total of 26; hotels and holiday camp pools, 8; school pools, including universities, 2; private pools, clubs, hostels, and so on, 8; and others, including domestic pools, 15.

In some respects the fact that many examples appear to come to light may make people believe that the number of accidents is greater than it is, but this is in no way to underestimate the appalling tragedy for a family when an accident of this kind takes place. I could give the House other information about the situation, but the hon. Gentleman has illustrated the matter very well from his own research.

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that at this stage the Government must resist the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not in any way wish to decry the intention behind the Bill, which I believe to be wholly admirable. Indeed, the measure would have the Government's support, apart from the existence of a few matters which I shall deploy in a few moments.

There is no question of the Government not wanting to safeguard life, or not wanting to do anything that can be done to help towards that end. We agree that anything along those lines should be encouraged. However, with any legislative matter it is important that we should be sure of the ground before we proceed. If we are to take action we must be certain that what we seek to do will satisfactorily do the job that needs to be done and will leave no loopholes.

As we have been talking about accidents, it is as well to emphasise that the great majority of swimming pools are well managed and maintained to a high standard. No doubt there are exceptions where high standards are not achieved and maintained. It is unfortunate that so often the legislation that passes through the House is concerned with a minority of cases where proper standards of safety or health are not observed. We pass legislation in an attempt to tighten up standards. Nevertheless, our general impression is of a high standard.

Unfortunately the Bill would not necessarily correct the position, as the power of the local authority to make byelaws would be permissive and not mandatory. It may have been that the hon. Gentleman was pressing his case too far when he referred to deaths which might not take place this summer on the assumption that the passage of the Bill would necessarily lessen the risk of death by drowning. It is important to point that out. Under the Bill it would be up to the local authority concerned to decide whether it wished to make the byelaws under the Bill. The present powers in Section 233 of the Public Health Act 1936 enable local authorities to make byelaws in respect of swimming pools not under their control. That power has been exercised by only 33 local authorities in the past 20 years.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a Home Office working party is considering the whole issue of water safety. It is examining the means adopted by local authorities and others to prevent drowning accidents and to effect rescue. Its report is expected later this year. We believe that it would be wrong to proceed with legislation, or for the Government to give a view on legislation, until the working party's report has been received and there has been time for proper consideration of its contents and recommendations. Until we have seen the report we shall not be in a position to say whether any improvements in the law are necessary or practicable.

Well-intentioned though the Bill may be, I suggest that we should not give it a Second Reading. Before I conclude, I shall say something about the present position because of the important matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. In Part VIII of the 1936 Act local authorities have powers to make

"byelaws with respect to swimming baths"

under Section 233. Under Section 223 a local authority has power to make byelaws in respect of its own management, and under Section 233 in respect of swimming pools and areas not under local authority management. However, in Section 233 there is an exclusion in respect of swimming pools which are not open to the public and for the use of which no charge is made. As I understand it, it is in respect of those swimming pools that the Bill is to deal. In fact, the definition has been drawn to cover swimming pools in hotels, holiday camps and in the private sector.

The byelaws which local authorities can make under Section 223 of the 1936 Act in respect of their own swimming pools relate almost entirely to public health and safety. Those made under Section 233 for baths not under local authority control relate to such matters as the purity of the water, adequacy and cleanliness of the accommodation, the conduct of persons using the baths and the prevention of accidents.

The category of baths with which the Bill would deal has never been covered in this way before. There is undoubtedly growing concern about the number of deaths from drowning accidents. After fatal accidents on the roads and in the home, drowning accidents probably represent the next largest group. I illustrated this point earlier by quoting statistics showing the degree to which death by drowning is a serious aspect of the accident problem.

I want to say a word or two about the Home Office working party on water safety which is examining the means adopted by local authorities and others to prevent drowning accidents and to effect rescue. The working party expects to report before the end of 1976. It is expected that the report will cover safety in public and private swimming baths, including the adequacy of the existing law, the need for a code of practice on pool management and the problems posed by private swimming pools.

Until this report is published we shall not be in a position to say with authority that improvements in the law are either necessary or practicable. I ought also to mention that there is the issue of law enforcement—inevitably at the moment one which has to be thought of in terms of expenditure. Expenditure would be involved if there were to be proper enforcement of regulations which might arise as a consequence of any report we receive.

I am obviously interested in the Minister's reply and particularly in the activity of the working party. I have made two points to the hon. Gentleman about the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which he piloted through the House last Monday. Does he not think that there is scope for an amendment to the Bill which could cover, in the interim period, the point I have been trying to get over, allowing local authorities access to private swimming pools, particularly in private schools and holiday camps, enabling them to make recommendations as to how facilities could be improved?

On Monday of this week I knew the answer to that question. Unfortunately I cannot recall it now. I have had a number of things on my mind this week. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point. The hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment to the Bill—an amendment which was not called. The issue was not therefore discussed. I believe that the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of raising the issue on Second Reading.

I was about to raise the issue on Third Reading but the Bill went through in about one and a half minutes flat. I was caught out.

I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I repeat that there is no question that the intention of the Bill is other than wholly admirable. No one wishes to underestimate the degree to which this is a serious problem deserving our attention. That is why the Home Office working party has been set up. Later this year I hope that its report will lead to some recommendations upon which action may be taken. Whether that action should be in legislative form, let alone in terms of the legislation proposed by the hon. Member, is another matter.

Nevertheless, because we fully accept that the intention of the Bill is good I would like to congratulate the hon. Member on moving its Second Reading and on the concern he has shown over this subject. There is no question of the Government's concern because as I said—

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

In the last few weeks 70 gipsy caravans have been illegally parked on Mitcham Common. A wide area of amenity land has been taken over and strewn with litter and scrap metal. There are no lavatories and no refuse collection services, the 300 people living in these caravans have left excreta, rubbish and the by-products of scrap dealing on the common. There is no water supply so residents in the area have been pestered for water. They are also pestered by dogs, horses and mischievous children who are not at school.

Many of my constituents are apprehensive about crossing that part of the common but many of them have to do so to get to the bus route. A large number of them are bitterly incensed by the gipsies and have held protest meetings which filled the school hall and the playground as well. They have organised marches and petitions and there is a great deal of ugly and irresponsible talk of violence.

I sympathise with my constituents, but I am aware that there is another side to the problem. It was the residents who elected me and not the gipsies, as I am reminded daily by the many frequently offensive letters in my post. But there is a social problem here which a speedier eviction—which the residents are caling for—will do nothing to solve. When the gipsies are evicted from Mitcham Common, as they will be, they will go and camp illegally somewhere else. They will be evicted from there and move on to another illegal camp. This will happen again and yet again, and sooner or later they could well end up back on Mitcham Common.

We must find somewhere else for the gipsies to camp lawfully. Many of the problems which have arisen at Mitcham would not arise if these people were in a lawful camp. The local council will not provide a refuse skip or any other facilities for emptying Elsans because they fear it will appear that they are condoning the illegal presence of the gipsies on the common and this would make the situation a great deal worse.

There are 300 to 400 gipsy families in Greater London for whom there are no sites and no lawful accommodation at all. This pattern is repeated throughout the country. I believe there are 7,000 gipsy families altogether in England and Wales and only 2,110 sites.

Unless we provide more sites urgently these problems willl become steadily worse. The children cannot go to school. They are moved on all the time, so inevitably they do not attend school. I spoke to a number of the children on Mitcham Common and most of them have never been to school. Some had been to school for short periods before they were moved on. Inevitably the great majority are as illiterate as their parents.

Inevitably, they will grow up illiterate and isolated from and antagonistic to the community which forces them to move on every six or seven weeks. It is understandable antagonism. I do not excuse or condone it, but it is a fact of life. If we treat people as pariahs, they will be antagonistic to the community, and we shall see a new generation of children growing up to be illiterate like their parents.

The parents for the most part get no health services and are not registered with a doctor. They do not receive adequate health care. Most important, they do not use family planning services, with the result that the gipsy population in Great Britain, if the 1965 census and my hon. Friend's figures are right, has virtually doubled in 10 years. I believe that that is probably an exaggeration, arising from census error, but there is no doubt that the rate of population growth among gipsy families is immense. One of the causes is that they have nowhere that they can settle and get the family planning services they need.

The problem, unless we find a solution to it—the solution must be humane and satisfactory to the residents in the area as well—will become steadily and increasingly worse. We all hoped that the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which only came into force in 1970, would solve the problem. If it had been effectively enforced, it probably would have solved the problem, but it has not been enforced.

The Act requires every local authority to provide sufficient sites to meet the needs in its area. That has been done scarcely anywhere. It also provides that a local authority which has fulfilled its obligation may be designated, and for designated areas the Act provides a speedier, though still defective procedure for moving gipsies off unauthorised sites.

I suggest a number of solutions. First and foremost, we should recognise that this is a national problem, a Government problem, and one which local authorities cannot resolve, not because they have not the capacity to do so, but because, in the nature of the problem, it is one where every local authority will be in immense trouble with its electors if it seeks to do anything more than what it is absolutely compelled to do by law. The Government must now say "We will accept this problem as our responsibility and we will find a solution". The local authorities simply cannot do it because, everywhere, residents, even if they accept the problem, say that the gipsies can go somewhere else.

It is commonly and constantly said that these people are not real gipsies anyway but come from Ireland or the North or elsewhere. A gipsy is defined as a person with a nomadic way of life. We cannot, in any case, set up customs posts and cut off the right of access from Ireland. There is really no way of preventing gipsy families from camping. They will camp somewhere, legally or illegally. Unless we provide legal sites where they can pursue their way of life, they will be pestiferous nuisances to the rest of the community and do damage to themselves by perpetuating the problem for future generations.

The first step that the Government should take, if they accept responsibility in the matter, would be to utilise as many as possible of empty sites belonging to the Property Services Agency or the Ministry of Defence, as was done on a temporary basis for the Ugandan Asians. In this way, they would house the surplus gipsy families so that they could have somewhere to go, even if was not where they would prefer to be. They could camp quite legally and carry on their trades. I have tried to find a number of such sites and I have had a number suggested to me which I will communicate privately to my hon. Friend.

If the Department really set its mind to the matter, I have no doubt that it could come up with enough sites to resolve the problem within a matter of weeks, because it is difficult to believe that there are not sites which are not immediately required—for example, sites which have been acquired for future road widening, and so on. They need not be big, elaborate or expensive sites. One of the most satisfactory permanent sites was provided at Farnham at a total cost of £4,000 for 15 caravans. Tem- porary sites need even fewer facilities, but they should be provided quickly. The Property Services Agency has the resources and I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that it produces them.

As a longer-term solution, the Government should consider cancelling the designation orders outside inner London. It is crazy that inner London boroughs like Hackney, Camden, Islington and Lambeth should have to provide gipsy sites. There are greater needs for housing and recreation in these areas.

I think the inner London boroughs should be relieved of their responsibility to provide sites under the Act, but we must then increase the obligation of the outer London boroughs and ensure that where they have not provided enough sites to meet the needs of gipsies in the area, the designation is cancelled.

We should issue designation orders sparingly and for only one year at a time so that they last for only as long as a local authority is meeting the needs of gipsies in its area. Of the 15 district councils in Kent, only seven have provided sites. Of the four district councils in Berkshire, two have provided sites. Four of the 12 districts in East and West Sussex have provided sites and only three of the 11 district councils in Surrey have done so.

There will be problems when local authorities are neglecting their responsibilities in this way. It is up to the Minister and his Department to ensure that councils carry out their responsibilities. One method may be the use of mandamus. Although that is a cumbersome method for a Government Department, there is no fundamental reason why it should not be used. If the Government showed a determination to solve the problem, local authorities would respond. Removal of designation would probably be only a first step, but it is a necessary first step.

All but five of the 32 London boroughs have provided sites, though whether outer London boroughs have provided enough sites is a different question. I should like local authorities in the outer city and rural areas to be required to provide transit sites which gipsies could use for up to a week at a time to enable them to fulfil their legal and traditional function of moving from one part of the country to another. That is how they ply their trade.

I am constantly being told that gipsies are parasites on society, but the gipsy community provides one-fifth of all the scrap metal recycled by British industry. This is not a very attractive function and it does not have a high amenity value, but it is necessary and we cannot afford to neglect it. It is one of the traditional functions of the gipsy community. We have had gipsies in this country for many hundreds of years. It would be a sad reflection on us if we decided we could not accommodate them and their traditions any longer.

It is necessary to ensure that sites give opportunities for work. Under the Act, a site should have access to working facilities but few do. This deprives gipsies of the opportunity to make themselves self-sufficient and sometimes drives them on to social security and influences them into becoming parasitical though they might not wish to be. They should also have access to local authority dumps to dispose of their residual scrap without causing a nuisance to the community.

Sixth, where there is designation—I accept that inner city areas and a number of others which have fulfilled their function should be designated—we should have a much more effective procedure than we have at present of enforcing the law. Under the Caravan Sites Act the local authorities that were designated were given the right of application to the magistrates' court for an order to move the caravans on. But the local authorities still have to try to identify by name the occupier of the caravan, and all the problems with which those who have been dealing with squatters have become very familiar are met in an even wider variety of forms.

We have had to revise the Order 119 procedure to deal with squatters. Where there is a designation procedure, I agree that local authorities should be entitled to use the Order 119 procedure and the rules of the Supreme Court—that is the procedure for dealing with squatters—so that local authorities can enforce the law where they are entitled to do so, without the law making an ass of itself, as it frequently does in proceedings that are brought under the Caravan Sites Act.

Above all, however, I urge that the Goverment act speedily. I appreciate that there would be planning problems if the Government took responsibility for designating sites in rural areas, but I suspect that local authorities will co-operate if the Government show themselves to be really determined to find a quick and effective solution to the problem. If they do not, there will be very great hardship, not only for the gipsies but for the residents of the areas in which they camp illegally, and a very genuine risk in areas such as mine and many others that I know that communal violence will result. That is something that the Government must take very seriously indeed. I am not given to alarmist talk, but if my hon. Friend cannot give me an outline of a complete solution this afternoon, I hope that he will be able to assure me that the Government have it in mind to produce one very quickly indeed.

The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) for a speech which I found perceptive, sensitive and well-balanced. As he was speaking about some of the issues involving gipsies, I was reminded—as perhaps you were, Mr. Speaker—of a former Member of this House, the late Norman Dodds, who was once the Member for Erith and Crayford, who did a great deal of magnificent work on behalf of the gipsies and an enormous amount to try to increase public understanding of the gipsy population in Britain.

This is the second time this year that the matter of gipsies in London has been raised on the Adjournment. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government has during the past six months received deputations on the subject from several London boroughs, as well as representations, personal and written, from a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright). This is a clear measure of the concern which is rightly felt by many hon. Members and councillors in London about the continuing lack of any apparent solution to a problem which is proving far more intractable than its actual dimensions would seem to warrant.

There are at present anything from 600 to 800 gipsy families in Greater London. The number varies from time to time for seasonal or other reasons. Of these, just over 400 are accommodated on the official sites, permanent and temporary, which have been provided in 25 of the 32 London boroughs. There are plans to provide sites in at least two of the remaining seven boroughs, and to replace most of the temporary sites by permanent ones, but at the end of the day there will still probably be between 200 and 400 gipsy families in the area for whom there will be no room on official sites.

It is the presence of these few hundred families that is responsible for the kind of situation that my hon. Friend has described as having arisen in his constituency. and for other large unauthorised encampments which have been brought to the Department's attention in, for example, the London boroughs of Havering and Greenwich.

This is not a problem which will go away if nothing is done about it. Moreover, simply evicting the gipsies from unauthorised sites, which may seem to some individual authorities to be the obvious answer, is no solution at all when seen in the broader perspective in which I and my right hon. Friend have to view the matter. The buck has to stop somewhere. Nor is it any good hoping that the gipsies can all be made to go away to some quiet country place and pursue some inoffensive and traditionally "gipsy" craft. Times have changed. These gipsies will stay in or around London—for reasons my hon. Friend well illustrated—because that is where they can earn a living, and this, for most of them, probably means that their main occupation will be scrap breaking and dealing.

Assuming then, that the gipsies are in London to stay, the choice lies between accepting the continued existence of unauthorised encampments, with the threat to public health and all the other nuisances which they inflict on residents in their proximity, which, in urban areas, is often too close for comfort, or providing official sites on which at least the basic facilities essential to hygiene can be provided and over which the degree of control essential to public order can be exercised.

Successive Governments for many years now have in fact recognised that the only solution to this problem lies in the provision of a sufficiency of official sites, properly equipped and managed. Therefore, after years of Government exhortation to this effect had failed to produce a significant number of sites. Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. which had the support of all parties in its passage through Parliament, imposed a duty on local authorities to provide caravan sites for the gipsies in their areas.

The Act came into operation in April 1970 and, frankly, has not worked very well. Not nearly enough sites have been provided, and today more than two-thirds of a gipsy population of probably between 6,000 and 7,000 families in England and Wales cannot be accommodated on official sites. London's performance as regards site provision has in fact been rather better than that of the country as a whole.

The Act, like most others, is not without its defects and anomalies, not least as regards its operation in London, to some of which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. In fairness, though, to those responsible for drafting and enacting its provisions, I am bound to say that these faults have become apparent largely with hindsight. It was not to be foreseen in 1968 that in eight years' time we should be dealing with a gipsy population in London of 800 rather than 100 families.

I do not intend, however, to discuss the possible advantages of amending the Act in this way or that. In the first place, the possible need for amending legislation will no doubt engage the attention of Mr. John Cripps who, as hon. Members will be aware, is at present carrying out a study, at the request of my right hon. Friend, of the effectiveness of the arrangements to secure adequate accommodation for gipsies in England and Wales, as required by the 1968 Act.

Mr. Cripps's attention has, incidentally, been especially directed to the provisions in the Act for the exemption of local authorities and the designation of their areas. I know that the working of these provisions has caused especial concern to a number of hon. Members for London constituencies. I will see, though, that any suggestions for legislation arising from this debate are brought to Mr. Cripps's attention.

My hon. Friend has made a number of specific suggestions, many of them requiring a much greater degree of responsibility for coping with this problem falling on central, rather than local, government. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for these suggestions, and for the notice he gave me that he would be raising them. I do not want to answer those points in detail. My right hon. Friend's intention in setting up the Cripps study was to look at these sorts of suggestions, and I do not want to prejudge the outcome of that study.

None the less, I should like to make one or two points in response to my hon. Friend, and I will ensure that this debate is brought to Mr. Cripps's attention, so that he can consider my hon. Friend's arguments and my points.

First, he suggested that Ministers should identify sites in particular areas where gipsy camps could be placed. As my hon. Friend appreciated, this raises problems with the quasi-judicial function my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be called upon to exercise in the context of any planning application. I must stress that, in my view, it would not be proper, in a situation like this, to put that role at risk. This would be direct interference with the land-use planning function of local authorities.

My hon. Friend also argued that the Government should take a much more active role in enforcing local authorities' obligation to provide sites. I well understand his concern, and I have to say that there are authorities which have not accepted their responsibilities here. The Government have the powers in Section 9 of the Act, but up to now successive Governments have been reluctant to use them since the Act only came into force in 1970, and local authorities needed time to decide on the needs of their areas. My hon. Friend will, of course, know the value that the Government place on maintaining local authority independence. His remarks will be very carefully considered, so that we may judge whether six years is long enough, and it is time we started to act as he suggests. The threat of revoking a designation or of reviewing designation annually as an alternative means of persuading authorities to shoulder their responsibilities will be looked at at the same time.

The question of transit sites, with lower standards of facilities was also mentioned. I agree with my hon. Friend that such sites would be useful and that there is no need for a rigid insistence on high standards of site provisions. But I suggest that the provision of permanent sites must have priority, particularly in the current economic climate, and such sites would not in any event be suitable in London.

My hon. Friend suggested that inner London should be exempted from the duty to provide sites. My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has been discussing this proposal with various boroughs, and discussions with the London Boroughs Association are also in progress. His suggestion is also a matter to which Mr. Cripps has been asked to pay special attention. I do not want to prejudice those discussions or Mr. Cripps's inquiry in any way. But I should like to pay tribute to the work that the London boroughs have done. In the 390,000 acres of London—perhaps the most congested part of the country—sites for 405 vans have been provided. In contrast, six counties surrounding London, with an area nearly 10 times that of London, have so far provided only 386 pitches.

My hon. Friend mentioned the provision of work areas. The 1968 Act empowered, but did not require, local authorities to provide such sites. A joint working party of the Local Authority Association and the Gipsy Council in 1971 said that local authorities should have discretion on this, since needs would vary from area to area. My Department sees no need to vary that view.

My hon. Friend suggested that surplus defence lands should be used for emergency accommodation. I understand his concern, particularly with the 70 gipsy families due to be evicted from Mitcham Common. He will know from his discussions with my right hon. Friend that we are looking at this suggestion, and I assure him that if there happened to be any surplus Crown land which the London borough of Merton wished to acquire to accommodate the Mitcham Common gipsies, every effort would be made to meet its request.

But I do not think that land is the real difficulty. I have shown that the amounts required are very small, especially in relation to the areas of some of the outer London boroughs. The real difficulty is that many people simply do not want gipsy camps of any kind in their vicinity. Opposition of this kind must, I am sure, arise from impressions of unauthorised encampments like that at Mitcham Common. Indeed, so long as there are more of such encampments than there are official sites, it is not surprising that the former make the dominant impression. This is unfortunate, because the Department's experience suggests that local antipathy towards gipsies usually dies down once properly equipped and managed official sites have been established. In any case, given that the alternative is the perpetual recurrence of the kind of situation which my hon. Friend has described, surely the effort to provide a better, even if not more popular, solution is worth while.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for a useful and wide-ranging debate, which I am sure will be very valuable to Mr. Cripps. I appreciate what he has said and the balanced, sensitive and perceptive way in which he has put this difficult problem before this House this afternoon.