By leave of the House, I shall put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments.

The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been widely reported in the press that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be making a statement to-ay on cash limits. As we are about to go into recess, may I ask whether you have received a request from the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement?

I read the same report; but there is a big difference between reading a report and receiving a request, and I have had no request from the Chief Secretary.

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

The Bill proposes to correct two anomalies in the licensing law, which is necessarily very complex. The bible on the subject is "Paterson's Licensing Acts", which refers to 200 Acts and statutory instruments and runs to about 2,000 pages. I am fortunate in that Mr. John Martin, the editor of "Paterson's Licensing Acts", has given me tremendous assistance in the drafting of the Bill.

I should say at the outset that it is not a controversial measure. It has the enthusiastic support of the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society. I should declare an interest because I am a member of the Newcastle bench. The brewers have supported the Bill and I have consulted the National Union of Licensed Victuallers and the National Association of Licensed House Managers and they have raised no objection to my proposals.

The Bill is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House and I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) in the Chamber. His work as chairman of the National Committee on Alchoholism is well known and he takes a great interest in the subject. I am pleased that he is here to help in the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), who was one of my original supporters, wished to be present, but unfortunately he has to attend an important conference on Health Service matters and must therefore be absent. I should not anticipate the remarks from the Front Benches, but I understand that favour will be shown to the Bill by both Front Benches.

I thank the Minister for the co-operation that she has shown and thank her advisers for their co-operation in the discussions that took place before the Bill was presented. I also appreciate the presence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) on the Opposition Front Bench. I shall welcome the addition of his wisdom and learning to our deliberations, and I am sure that if I find myself a little stuck on some complex aspects of licensing law I shall be able to turn to him for a ready response.

It will help the House to understand the background to the two anomalies that the Bill seeks to correct if I briefly review some of the history of licensing law. In doing so, I shall draw heavily on an excellent book published in 1903 by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who were great campaigners on matters relating to drink. Their book gives a good background to the licensing laws up to 1903.

There has always been a problem with drink in this country. As a moderate drinker, I am in favour of reasonable drinking habits, but when drinking is carried to excess it is a problem for the public.

The first licensing Act was passed in 1552 in the time of Edward VI. Justices were authorised, for the first time, to select people to keep ale houses. Until then, anyone had the right to keep an ale house, but in 1552 it became a privilege to keep such a house and the justices decided who should have that privilege.

From the end of the seventeenth century, the justices became rather lax in their administration of the law and the Webbs' book refers to

" The superfluous number of such petty inns and alehouses."

The reason for their existence was that application was frequently made

" on behalf of some broken, half-starved merchant or idle fellow, who rather than beg or steal, and be hanged, or at best become chargeable to the parish, hopes to get a subsistence by the little cheatings and degenerate shifts of ale selling."

That presents a very different picture, of course, from the publican of today, but it shows the state of affairs at that time.

By 1722 the Webbs computed that 36 gallons of beer a year were consumed by every man, woman and child. After the Restoration, taverns—which was the name applied in those days to wine shops—multiplied fast. But a far worse feature of the time was the result of the free sale of gin. I do not mean that it was given away, but there was no control over the establishments and persons who could sell gin.

The Webbs referred to the fact that

" Not only were there in London and Westminster six or seven thousand regular dramshops, but cheap gin was given by masters to their workpeople instead of wages, sold by the barbers and tobacconists, hawked about the streets on barrows by men and women, openly exposed for sale on every market stall, forced on the maid-servants and other purchasers at the chandler's shops, distributed by the watermen on the Thames, vended by pedlars in the suburban lanes, and freely offered in every house of ill fame."

Not surprisingly, the results of that were that

" even in shops of a creditable and wholesale appearance, a crowd of poor ragged people, cursing and quarrelling with one another over repeated glasses of these destructive liquors…".

was to be found. And afterwards the people were

" laid together in heaps, promiscuously, men, women and children, till they recovered their senses, when they proceed to drink on, or, having spent all they had, go out to find wherewithal to return to the same dreadful pursuit…retailers of the poisonous compound set up painted boards in public, inviting people to be drunk for the small expense of one penny assuring them that they might be dead drunk for twopence…"

and that they could have the straw in the room behind to sleep it off for nothing. We have not quite come to that state of affairs today, but one can see that drink was certainly a social evil at that time.

A bid was made to attempt to control the system by imposing a £50 licence for the sale of drink, and by taxing spirits at the then very high rate of £1 per gallon. The result of that, sadly, was rioting, and it proved quite impossible to enforce. No one took out any of the £50 licences.

At that time over 7 million gallons of spirit were sold—that is the figure for the year 1742. As far as I can establish, only about 6 million gallons are sold today, when the population is five or six times greater than it was in 1742. As a result of the scene that I have described, in 1743 moderate duties were imposed instead of fierce duties, and the licensing powers of the justices were restored.

The situation continued until 1830 when the Beer Bill was introduced during the Administration of the Duke of Wellington as Prime Minister, and beer sales were encouraged. The retail sale of beer was therefore, thrown completely open, and anyone could sell beer if he wished to—the aim being to discourage the sale of spirits. Any ratepayer could sell beer without licence or control by the justices. The result of that was that tens of thousands of new beer houses were opened, and again the Webbs described the effects:

" A fortnight after the Bill came into force everybody is drunk and those who are not singing are squalling. The sovereign people are in a beastly state."

That continued to be so until 1869 when the Wine and Beer Houses Act was introduced and all licensed premises were then brought under the control of the justices, which was probably the start of modern licensing law. But while beer shops and wine shops now had to obtain a licence from the justices, the discretion of the justices to refuse did not exist other than in very limited circumstances. Therefore, a privileged status was granted to those who had an existing beer shop or wine shop for which they had had to obtain a licence in the past. Under the 1869 Act that privileged status was apparently intended to apply only to the first application to the justices. But, for some reason that I have not been able to discover from history, in 1870 there was another Act and the privilege was enshrined for subsequent renewals. Therefore, we find that that class of premises that had had no licence but which had been selling beer before 1869 was automatically entitled to a continuation thereafter of licensing without discretion of the justices.

That continued until 1961, when there was a major licensing Act, and section 14 of that Act is now section 37 of the Licensing Act 1964, which is the main Act in force today. At a late stage in the proceedings of the 1961 Act a new clause was introduced by the Government of the day in what was a major Bill. It was subjected to about half an hour's discussion in Committee. The Committee stage of the Bill had 25 meetings and no fewer than 45 Members of the House served on that Committee and gave half an hour each to this subject.

What happened under this new clause, which, in time, became section 37 of the 1964 Act? It provided that

" on an application made by the holder of a justices' on-licence, or on the renewal or transfer of a justices' on-licence, and at the request of the person applying for the renewal or transfer, the licensing justices, if satisfied that the application or request is made with the consent of the registered owner, shall vary the licence so as to add to the descriptions of intoxicating liquor authorised to be sold in the licensed premises."

It is clear from discussions in that Committee that the aim of that new clause was to allow the by then diminishing number of those who had these traditional beer houses—which, I repeat, had not had to obtain a licence originally and had the right in perpetuity to a licence after 1869—to develop into full public houses.

One or two members of the Committee spotted that the clause had its defects. Sir Frank Soskice said:

" I think that we ought to look rather more carefully at this new Clause. It looks to me as if this may be a method by which, as it were, one can use a short cut to get a full licence."

Sir Cyril Black said:

" Is this merely a procedural arrangement or a substantial change of policy in the existing licensing law? If I understand the position aright, it goes beyond procedural questions. There is a substantial matter of policy involved. I would be glad if my right hon. Friend could tell me whether I am right in what I have said. The first word in line 5 of the new clause is ' shall '. Why not the word ' may? If the word ' shall ' stands, surely it will remove discretion from the justices in dealing with applications for licences and will impose what appears to be an obligation on them to vary the licence subject only to the condition that they are satisfied that the consent of the registered owner has been obtained."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 April 1961; c. 1226–29.]

There was no difficulty at all as far as the application was concerned. At that time, there were 5,355 beer licences out of a total of 69,184 on-licences of all kinds. Two members of the Committee spotted the problem that has given rise to the anomaly that exists and which my Bill seeks to correct. The word was introduced as "shall" and not "may". The aim of the Committee was clearly to help those who had a limited beer licence to expand into a full public house. But what that clause, when passed into law, achieved was to remove from the justices any discretion if someone with any form of limited licence subsequently applied for a full licence. That has been happening around the country, mostly in respect of wine bars.

We have a situation where an applicant applies for what would seem to be a for cider only—on evidence which would licence for a peaceful wine bar—perhaps not have supported the granting by the justices of a licence extended to other types of liquor. The applicant then has the right to apply the next week, if he likes, and demand a full licence. Because the word is "shall" and not "may" in that section in the 1961 Act subsequently incorporated into the 1964 Act, the licensing justices can do nothing about it and must grant a full licence. That has caused trouble all over the country.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the majority of applications for upgrading occur not within the first few weeks but at the end of 12 months? People may have had time to forget the original history which otherwise might worry them.

That is true. The answer to the problem is that if they wish to change the nature of their business from a limited wine bar to a full licence, they should apply, like anyone else, in the proper way, giving full particulars why they think they should have a full licence. That is what would happen if the Bill was passed.

Apart from this problem of a complete change in use by right, there is also the possibility that justices might be reluctant to grant a limited licence for wine in case it should subsequently develop into a full licence. Some legitimate wine bars might well be hampered by the present situation.

Clause 2 of my Bill seeks to give effect to the presumed intention of Parliament by applying the upgrading provisions specifically to licences in force at the time it was introduced in 1961. An alternative would have been to repeal section 37 of the 1964 Act on the basis that its purpose is now exhausted.

I understand that there are 178 beer and cider licences left in the country. There are some 85,000 on-licence premises. There has been a dramatic fall since 1961, when there were over 5,000 of these limited beer licences. Those premises which had the right in 1961 would still have it under my Bill, but the measure would prevent anyone who had obtained a limited licence since 1961 from having the benefit of an automatic extension of the type of drink he can sell.

The withdrawal of the opportunity of taking advantage of the provisions from holders of licences granted for the first time since the beginning of 1962 should not be regarded as a serious disadvantage to such holders except in cases where there is likely to be abuse of the upgrading facility. The discretion of justices to grant new licences to such holders in return for the surrender of the lower-grade licence will remain unfettered. Indeed, the loss of the facility should prove a positive advantage to bona fide applicants for restricted licences by removing any cause for reluctance on the part of licensing benches arising from the handicap to the exercise of their discretion to which I have referred. That is the first of the two anomalies which my Bill seeks to correct.

I should perhaps at this stage point out that as well as the two anomalies the Bill proposes another minor change in the licensing law. Clause 4(1) removes a fault in the wording of section 83(2) of the 1964 Act which disregards the fact that a seasonal certificate may be granted under section 82 so that reference to any grade in any 12 consecutive months is inappropriate in relation to such a certificate. That is purely a drafting correction to the 1964 Act. It is a drafting correction spotted by Mr. John Martin as editor of "Paterson's Licensing Acts" and not by myself.

I should like to return to the second main amendment. It deals with the grant of special hours certificates. They are the basis of late night drinking in establishments providing meals and music and dancing on a regular basis. The origin of the growth of these establishments should briefly be touched upon to explain the present difficulties.

Prior to 1949 there developed, mainly in the West End of London, a group of night clubs, the proprietors of which exploited the fact that the consumption of intoxicating liquor on premises without a justices' licence by the owner of that liquor or his guests was lawful not only during the permitted hours but at any time outside those hours. The method employed was for the members, or so-called members, to place orders with the proprietor, who acted as their agent to purchase bottles of drink on their behalf, and each member had his individual purchase earmarked for his personal use when visiting the so-called pub. That was a way round the licensing law.

To stop this abuse, the Licensing Act 1949 prohibited parties organised for gain, more colloquially known as bottle parties, outside the permitted hours, and no doubt as a palliative to some of those interested in the continuance of this facet of London's night life, introduced the special hours certificate procedure for premises in a district of London known as the metropolitan special hours area.

The change was designed first to ensure that the management of the night clubs would not be in the hands of undesirables by the requirement that the applicant for the certificate must be the holder of a justices' licence in respect of premises which had to belong to a defined class of hotels and restaurants, or could apply to a registered club. Secondly, to prevent all-night drinking in those premises, there was a limit to the extension of the hours to two o'clock and also a requirement for a public music and dancing licence then granted by the London County Council, as the local authority then was, in the case of licensed premises. In the case of a registered club, there was a certificate from the council that the premises were suitable for music and dancing.

In 1962, the law was altered by the Licensing Act 1961 with the following effects. The special hours certificate provisions were extended to the whole of the country where there was legislation requiring licences for public music and dancing. It is interesting that there are apparently areas where there is no provision for public music and dancing. I have not been able to track down these areas, but it is interesting to speculate where they might be. In all built-up areas where there are large concentrations of people, there is a procedure for licences for public music and dancing. It must be in some of the more remote areas that there is not.

The 1961 Act also changed the terminal hour for premises in the metropolitan special hours area—just in this central area; not in the rest of London—from two o'clock to three o'clock. It remained two o'clock for the rest of the country. It also altered the law in relation to the registration of clubs, which meant that many establishments formerly operating as registered clubs became licensed premises.

Throughout those developments, the requirements concerning the qualification of premises for the grant of a certificate were that they must be used for providing music and dancing and also substantial refreshment to which the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor was ancillary, and, as I have said, there had to be a music and dancing licence or, in the case of a club, a certificate of suitability.

The difficulties arise in this way. The provision of dancing means providing facilities for dancing which are adequate having regard to the number of persons for whose reception provision is made. That is under section 83(2) of the Licensing Act 1964. It would be difficult to justify the contention that "adequate" meant a dance floor big enough to accommodate every customer at the same time. My researches have revealed that there are places which can accommodate 4,000 people, and one can understand the size that the dance floor would have to be if all 4,000 were to be accommodated at once. It is difficult to avoid relating the adequacy of the facilities to the habits of the customers.

Although, clearly, it is the intention of the Act that late-night drinking shall be ancillary to the provision of music and dancing and meals, there is no direct requirement that those who are admitted for drinking shall either eat or dance. It is often difficult for justices to distinguish between an application made to serve the needs of those who wish to eat or to dance and one which is made primarily to enable customers who wish to do neither to drink until two o'clock in the morning.

A contributory cause of the difficulty is that the requirement to provide facilities for dancing may be met by providing a very tiny dance floor in relation to the capacity of the premises, unless it can be shown to be quite inadequate for those who want to use it. That is a factor which in many parts of the provinces is less likely to be found in the kind of area with which night life is traditionally associated in city centres. These are premises qualified to receive a special hours certificate for late night drinking in neighbourhoods with residential populations needing to be protected from unreasonable disturbance and annoyance. There is no means of giving this protection under the existing law except in areas where the music and dancing licensing authority chooses to exercise its power to curtail the hours under the music and dancing licence.

In areas where the justices are the music and dancing licensing authority, they have the power by restricting the hours for music and dancing and can thereby restrict the hours for drinking. But, nowadays, local councils are beginning to take powers under Private Bills themselves to have the granting of music and dancing licences.

I can see some advantages in that procedure. I have seen some of these establishments in Newcastle late at night. Fire precautions and safety should be a major factor in the granting of music and dancing licences. Usually the premises are cellars, and they are crowded with young people to such an extent that very often one cannot get in until someone comes out. One has read of disasters abroad where hundreds of people have been burnt and wondered how it could happen. I have seen some places in this country where one can well understand how in a crowded establishment, with the lights out and panic ensuing, such an incident could occur if there was a fire. In my view, fire precautions and safety precautions are a very important feature of these establishments. For that reason, I can see an argument for licensing for music and dancing being in the hands of the local authority with specialist staffs on the side of fire precautions and safety.

In effect, however, where the local councils have taken such powers, they are depriving the justices of licensing control in city centres. The justices must give a special hours certificate if a music and dancing licence has been given.

I have been supplied with examples from all over the country. I choose one at random which has been sent to me from Berkshire. The story concerns licensed premises. They changed hands in 1976. The new owner, with a view to increasing trade, applied to the district council and was granted by the council a public music and dancing licence. Susequently, he applied to the justices and, since he had fulfilled all the conditions, the committee had to grant him a special hours certificate. As a result, the place now runs disco evenings. The noise and the drinking by the large number of people concerned carry on until two o'clock in the morning. Local residents in what is basically a rural area complain about the noise, the trouble caused by illegal parking—although the premises have adequate parking, people do not use it—and the noise caused by people leaving the premises at two o'clock in the morning.

The residents formally objected to the brewster sessions for the removal of the licence and were represented by a solicitor. The licensee was represented by counsel. The objection was to the renewal of the full licence since, as private objectors, they could not object to the granting of the special hours certificate. The committee had no discretion, as there has to be a complaint by the police, and unfortunately there had not been in this case. Accordingly, the licence was renewed. The clerk to those justices wrote to me:

" My committee would have welcomed the opportunity to impose a time limit and fully supports your proposal."

I have many similar letters from all round the country.

Even where magistrates have power to limit the drinking by, in effect, limiting the music and dancing licences where they still grant them, it is a very clumsy way of limiting drinking. It has been used on the South Coast in both Bournemouth and Torquay. The cases were taken right to the highest level and the Lord Chief Justice pronounced judgment. One concerned a well-known five-star hotel, and it, like all the other establishments in the town, found its drinking cut off at one o'clock by the means of cutting off the music and dancing at the hotel. This is a bit of a blunt instrument, and I suggest that my Bill would help in dealing with the problem by enabling magistrates to choose a different hour for the ending of late-night drinking compared with the ending of music and dancing.

I ought to stress that my Bill does not interfere with the basic policy that the grant of a special hours certificate is not within the justices' discretion. The applicant is entitled to a certificate if he can prove the matters to which I have referred about the provision of food and dancing. There is no intention to interfere with that basic policy.

The proposal to amend the law under clause 2 and clause 4(2) of my Bill will enable the justices to attach to the certificate a condition limiting the hours for the sale and supply of drink to a time earlier than two in the morning but not earlier than midnight. There will be two cases in which they can do it. First, they can do it if there is a bona fide case for extended hours which does not justify ancillary drinking until two in the morning. The second is where they think it is necessary to impose that limit to avoid disturbance, as would have been the case in the example from Berkshire to which I referred.

Clause 3(2), in conjunction with the concluding words of the new subsection (3) added to section 83 of the Act by clause 4(2), enables steps to be taken for the insertion of a similar condition in a certificate which has already been granted without any previous limitation. Where there has been such a certificate, the limitation can be written into it either in pursuance of an application directly to that end or on an application for revocation. At present, it might be that the certificate could be revoked completely because the justices were able to do that in a specific case. But perhaps they would find that a more sensible solution to the problem would be to limit the hours, instead of a complete revocation.

Since there has been no suggestion that the major difficulties have arisen in the metropolitan special hours area, the effect of these amendments has been excluded from that area by the provision at the end of clause 2 and the words in brackets in clause 3(2) and clause 4(2).

My Bill, therefore, seeks to deal with two major anomalies in the law to date. Perhaps I might quote my own local bench. The clerk to the Newcastle bench has written to me saying:

" You will observe…that there have been many breaches of the licensing law in the Northumbria police area, but, those apart, there were 2,035 prosecutions for drunkenness during 1978 at these courts, together with 305 prosecutions for offences in connection with drinking and driving. Of those persons prosecuted for drunkenness, 32·6 per cent. referred to non-residents of the city."

One can see what a magnet the night life of Newcastle is for the area.

" It is not possible to relate the drinking habits of the populace and visitors to other crimes, but it is a matter for constant observation by the justices that so many offences of another nature are drink-related or are committed when under the influence of drink. This particularly applies to so many cases of violence, hooliganism, breaches of the peace, football hooliganism and theft, including shoplifting and others."

I do not think that there would be much shoplifting at two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning.

" It will be well known to you that the streets and public places of a metropolitan city such as Newcastle are now dangerous at night, and self-respecting citizens do not go abroad except under most stringent conditions. In the opinion of magistrates and so many informed observers, this is due to the excessive consumption of alcohol, particularly by young people, who then commit offences which are totally out of character ".

We should remember that young people can be started on a disastrous path for the rest of their lives by being allowed excessive hours in which to consume drink.

" No little part of it is due to the continuing consumption of alcohol, which can commence early in the evening when public houses open at 5.30 p.m. and continue right through until two o'clock the following morning, with very little substantial food in support."

I emphasise that this is a non-controversial Bill. It has the support of the Justices' Clerks' Society, the Magistrates' Association and the brewers. No opposition has been expressed from the licensed trade. I believe that both sides of the House are in general support of the Bill. The streets of our cities and even small towns are now not safe to walk on late at night because of drunken brawls. The Bill will not affect the respectably-run club or any other peaceful establishment, as the grounds upon which the justices' discretion is based are purely grounds of breach of the peace.

The Bill deals with a very refreshing matter, though I fear that it makes for a very dry debate.

The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) referred to "Paterson's Licensing Acts". That brought back to me vivid memories of paging through those books in order to ascertain what the position was.

The hon. Gentleman rightly described the law on liquor licensing as very complex. I cannot hope to rival his detailed history of this branch of the licensing law. He has obviously given great attention to the matter and has engaged in considerable research. I congratulate him on taking this opportunity, given to him by his luck in the ballot, to try to bring a measure of order into that branch of the law. These laws were enacted when it was not contemplated that there would be the developments that we see today.

The hon. Gentleman deals in his Bill with two specific subjects. As the long title shows, he deals with

" the grant of special hours certificates and the extension of existing on-licences to additional types of liquor."

I ask the House to consider the position of the applicant for a wine-only licence. Section 37 of the Licensing Act gives licensing justices no discretion where an application is made for a wine-only licence to be extended to cover the sale of all types of intoxicating liquor: the application cannot be refused. That is putting the matter very simply.

When the law as it is today was enacted, presumably no one foresaw to what extent the number of wine bars would grow, as they have in the past few years. Clearly, the intention behind section 37 was to protect the rights of holders of certain categories of older on-licences. It could not possibly have been to permit a successful applicant for a wine bar licence to apply to the bench after some time for a full licence, which the bench could not refuse. Therefore, the need for a further outlet of this kind should require much greater scrutiny.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society have expressed their concern that there is no discretion to refuse such an application. Clause 1(2) deals with this problem. It does not give the justices a discretion to upgrade such a licence. What it does—and this is important—is to give the right to restrict the application to licences in force or suspended on 31 August 1961. That is an eminently sensible compromise. It closes the loophole for holders of new wine bar licences but permits the benefit allowed to old on-licences.

Many hon. Members have from time to time received complaints about noise and other disturbance to residents in the vicinity of establishments. Therefore, I welcome clause 4, which specifically enables that to be taken into account when an application is made for a special hours certificate or for the revocation of such a certificate.

There are far too many examples of people living near night clubs, perhaps not very well managed night clubs, having to endure such nuisances as shouting, slamming of car doors and other annoyances caused by customers going home. I hope that this new provision will ensure that proper regard is paid to such conduct.

The West End is, of course, a special hours area. It has developed a particular character over the years. Perhaps for that reason it is right to exclude it from the provisions of the Bill in this respect.

The grant of a special hours certificate is something to which an applicant is entitled if he can satisfy certain requirements. The Act clearly intended that late night drinking should be ancillary to the provision of music, dancing and meals, yet there is no requirement as to that. Justices are unable to distinguish between those who wish merely to drink until 2 a.m. and those who wish to eat or dance. The lack of discretion in this respect to refuse the application still re mains, but under the Bill discretion in regard to the conditions which may be imposed is increased. I think that that is right.

Clause 4 gives the right to impose a condition limiting the hours of sale or supply to a time earlier than 2 a.m. but not earlier than midnight. Thus, in a proper case, the supply of drinking could be limited to midnight.

The proposed provision could do much more to bring greater control of late night drinkers, particularly in areas where there are complaints of noise or disturbance to residents in the vicinity. The discretion given in clause 2 is to be welcomed.

The Bill is a step in the right direction which could help to deal with abuses in the present system. The hon. Member has rendered a useful service in his effort to promote a Bill which will deal with the problem. I congratulate him.

I enjoyed the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), whose contributions are always refreshing.

I support the Bill and perhaps I should declare a double interest. I am chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism and also chairman of the all-party group on alcohol abuse.

For some time, all hon. Members have been aware of the growing concern in the country about the proliferation of licences and what that entails. We have been told about this not only by those who have to deal with problems arising from the excessive consumption of drink but by the licensed trade itself, whose members are traditionally the guardians of public sobriety.

I join the hon. and learned Member in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on seizing the initiative to introduce this modest but useful and timely measure. My hon. Friend has explained how his Bill would give back to magistrates the powers that were so unwisely taken from them in two innovations of the Licensing Act 1961 and incorporated in the 1964 Act.

The Bill should be supported by all who consider that the control of licences and hours of sale should be determined by local magistrates. It is they who are best acquainted with local conditions and problems and therefore best equipped to respond to the needs of the community. Certainly, the Bill has the warm support of all on this side who have a serious desire to check the current grave increase in alcohol problems arising from ever-increasing consumption.

The first limitation of magistrates' powers introduced in 1961 provided that, if the holder of an off-licence limited to certain types of liquor requests the magistrate to add to his licence other kinds of intoxicants, the magistrate shall grant that request. Alas, that provision aroused very little comment or discussion at the time. The only kind of limited on-licence known at that time was the old street corner beer house, the atmosphere of which somewhat resembled the atmosphere of a public house, so the removal of the limitation seemed innocuous enough. Nor did the matter cause any concern during the following decade.

However, since about 1972, those of us who watch these matters closely have seen a growing spate of applications for licences to open wine bars, often in areas already crowded with on-licence premises. In many instances, it has been clear that the plea which led the justices to grant these applications was that a wine bar was totally different from a public house. It might attract a different clientele—including for example, women, who would be glad to use the wine bar to refresh themselves at the end of a tiring shopping expedition. The Minister looks puzzled, but that is the kind of argument that has been used.

Let us consider what has developed since. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth made it clear that the West End is excepted from the provisions of the Bill. If what is happening in the West End is permitted to extend to other areas, as well it might unless we alter the law, and as is happening in other cities, this House should sit up and take notice.

In the area of Soho about half a mile long by half a mile wide, there are almost 100 public houses. Yet, since 1970, six wine bars have been granted permission to open there. In Covent Garden, close to Bow Street, it is possible to draw a circle of 100 yards radius containing eight public houses, yet in recent years two wine bars have been authorised within that area. Just behind Holborn tube station, two public houses face each other across a narrow passageway, yet two wine bars have been granted permission to open within 100 yards of them.

My information is that that pattern is being repeated elsewhere in the country. I find this distressing and worrying, for reasons that I will not go into in detail now but which should be apparent to all hon. Members.

Latterly, the tendency has arisen for wine bars to seek upgrading, permitting them to sell, beer and spirits without restriction. The absurdity of the present law is that magistrates have no power to refuse an application to that effect. That is what the Bill seeks to rectify. In London at present, such upgrading of a wine bar can be hindered by the London licensing planning committee, but few parts of our country come under licensing planning areas. There are even suggestions that licensing planning committees should be abolished.

In short, wine bars cannot be prevented from graduating to the status of full public houses as the law stands. At a time of growing concern about the proliferation of licences, it would be foolish and dangerous not to restore the powers of magistrates in this regard.

The second way in which magistrates' powers have been eroded since the early 1960s will be seen in section 76 of the 1964 Act, which provides that permitted hours for premises holding special hours certificates shall last until two o'clock in the morning. Section 77 provides that premises holding a liquor licence and a music and dancing licence shall be granted a special hours certificate by a magistrate should that be sought.

No matter how disturbing late night drinking may be to neighbours, nothing can be done about it unless the chief officer of police steps in to seek the revocation of the certificate. That is a drastic remedy which chief officers of police would be most reluctant to apply. Therefore, it is timely and reasonable that the House should restore to magistrates the right to modify hours in which late drinking is permitted.

It is timely for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, and on which I shall not elaborate. It is reasonable because we should never allow ourselves to forget that the dispensing of alcohol is not like the selling of any other product. It should not be confused with lemonade or soap powder. Alcohol is a drug. Many who dispense it want the levels of consumption to increase.

I am not saying that the liquor trade as a whole wants levels of consumption to increase, irrespective of the effect of that upon health. Of course it does not. By and large the liquor trade takes a responsible attitude to these matters. But those who are using this loophole in the law to apply for an increase in outlets are concerned with only one thing—the making of money by dispensing a drug, in areas where the magistrates do not have the power to determine whether the need for that increase is proven.

We who have a responsibility for the health of our society have a duty to recognise that rising levels of alcohol consumption are directly linked with the rising tide of abuse. The safest and best place for the consumption of alcohol outside the home is the public house. That is because of the obligations which are put upon the licensee and his long experience of ensuring sober drinking habits.

Until recent years, one reason why the level of sobriety was higher in Britain than in many other countries with a comparable society was our strict licensing laws and the type of man who ran our public houses. Publicans are controlled and responsible. They are dedicated to the idea that a public house is a place where people can go and enjoy themselves in decent, friendly and cheerful surroundings. That type of public house has long been one of the glories of our land, as many visitors have testified down the ages.

Licensees in particular have given their strong support to the Bill. At a recent meeting convened by the all-party alcohol abuse group in the House, a spokesman for the Licensed Victuallers Association said:

" Discipline in the drink industry has been upset by the proliferation of licences given to those whose only interest is making money. The ordinary publican has a much wider social role than that."

I am sure that we can all agree with those words.

The proliferation of licences which we have allowed the law to permit and which my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth seeks to check is therefore a matter for grave concern. The responsibility here should rest firmly with the licensing justices. The Bill will strengthen their hands and ensure that the needs of an area are properly and responsibly met.

I promise my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State that I shall not make a long speech. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for introducing the Bill. It is pleasant to think that the Bill is sponsored by an hon. Member who represents the constituency adjoning mine. We know each other reasonably well. I do not flatter him when I say that he presented his case in a fine manner. The House is indebted to him.

This is a complicated Bill. The licensing Acts are also complicated. I could extend the argument about alcohol abuse but I am sure that I should be ruled out of order. We accept that the Bill is technical. But we should not overlook the fact that if the Bill is passed it will put an end to the significant abuse of the present system.

There is no doubt that police and magistrates are worried about the present situation. The increasing number of wine bars throughout the country, even in rural areas, is an example of the abuse. There is undeniable evidence that this is responsible for the drinking habits of some young people.

I took my first drink when I was 17 or17½ years of age. I have been a regular drinker ever since, but abuse of alcohol has not been my practice. I enjoy alcohol. It is a good and pleasurable hobby if one is in controlled circumstances.

Late night or early hours drinking causes anxiety throughout the nation. In the North-East of England the Government ran a campaign pointing out what happens to people who abuse alcohol. If that abuse is curtailed by this Bill, we shall be helping the Government and possibly the unfortunate people who are addicted to alcohol.

I can see no justification for continuing the present arrangements whereby the holders of wine bar licences are entitled, as of right, to obtain a full on-licence. There is a trend towards setting up more wine bars. The sooner that problem is dealt with, the better.

The proposed amendment to section 37 is drafted in such a way as to limit the benefits of that section to certain categories of licence. I assume that the purpose of the Bill is that a holder of a wine bar licence who wants to increase the range of intoxicating liquor sold on the premises will have to make a fresh application.

That is the intention.

The proposals for special certificates will be welcomed as a means of strengthening the justices' power to revoke and vary existing certificates. The provisions will give the justices greater flexibility to terminate drinking earlier than 2 a.m. The amount of drinking after midnight is a cause for concern. The purpose of the original Act has been prostituted by that abuse. The Bill will reduce the incidence of late-night drinking.

In some senses London is different from the rest of the country. I have a limited knowledge of pubs and wine bars in Soho, so I cannot challenge the statistics produced by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). If they are correct, they illustrate that there is an enormous problem in Soho and other parts of London. Perhaps later we shall hear a first-hand account of the situation from my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) and for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr).

The Bill reaches a reasonable compromise for London, since it is a city that attracts tourists and will continue to do so. The Bill represents a substantial advance on the present system. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise its merits and support it. The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth for bringing this issue to the fore.

May I start by declaring my interest as parliamentary adviser to the National Union of Licensed Victuallers, which has for a long time been concerned about some of the anomalies which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) seeks to cover. I am grateful to him and envious that he managed to get such a high place in the ballot.

I am glad to see the all-party support for the Bill. It is pleasing that at least on one occasion the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is being constructive instead of destructive, certainly in the interests of the people of London. It was also a pleasure—about the only pleasure there is, not yet having had a general election—to have heard the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), whose Friday speeches repay reading over and over again. He will be a great loss, particularly as one fears his replacement. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) on this subject are always knowledgeable and always listened to with great respect. There are few people who would not agree that he is a diligent supporter of all whose cause he champions.

One or two issues are missing from the Bill. I have been pressing for nearly three years for some legislation to deal with the upgrading of wine bars. I have met total resistance and cowardice from the Home Office. It is unwilling to plug even the minor holes. They could have been the subject of a Government Bill which would have gone through virtually unopposed. Some licensing benches have been trying in various ways to prevent the automatic upgrading of wine bars. That is not a satisfactory way of proceeding. One should know in advance whether it is possible to upgrade or whether at a much earlier stage one has to muster the right opposition before the pass is sold.

I spent a decade as an active member of the bench, and I regret now that I did not sit on the licensing bench. It would have been an opportunity to gauge the needs of the area. The needs of the area can be ignored by the automatic upgrading that Parliament, when it amended the earlier licensing laws in 1964, omitted to consider. It did not look at that point.

There are other areas that need to be covered by a Government with sufficient courage to implement much of Erroll. A dangerous area that gives rise to an increase in alcoholism is the totally unfettered sale of liquor from many supermarkets by people with little or no experience and in some cases who do not even ensure that their staff are over the age of 18. I have looked with care to see if it would be possible to amend the Bill. But I am afraid that the only reason why my hon. Friend had any Government blessing for the Bill was by keeping the long title so narrow that he could not do more than he has tried to do.

It was my judgment that that might be the best way to proceed.

I know the Home Office fairly well and I think there might have been different views had my hon. Friend tried. If the Under-Secretary is able to say that she would have welcomed a longer title, that would give joy to many people.

I have a note here that refers to violence at football matches. A publican in Southampton was asked by the police to close his public house in case of violence when a match was being played nearby. He co-operated, but at a loss to his trade. Another match took place and, because the publican had not heard from the police, he assumed that on that occasion everything would be under control. He did not close. Two of his windows were smashed and he suffered a loss. In many cases the sale of drink is not from public houses but from supermarkets.

The Bill is trying to ensure that there shall not be an automatic increase in the number of outlets where all forms of liquor can be served, especially where that is the opinion of the licensing justices, who are best qualified to judge. In England and Wales it is easy—I am sure that Scotland is much wiser, as, indeed, is Northern Ireland—to get permission to open a wine bar and to get an almost automatic upgrading within a short time. That is not right. It is unfair to those who live in the locality, because they do not know in advance that it might happen. It is unfair to those already in the licensed trade. In 99 per cent. of cases publicans act with total social responsibility, yet they suddenly find this unfair competition against which they were not able to argue before a licensing bench.

On this occasion, rather like Oliver Twist, we must be content with this modest measure and hope that there will be a further opportunity afforded by the Government or by a Private Member to deal with other matters. But the Government should be willing to look at the licensing laws. They should not treat with contempt many people who gave up time to serve on the Erroll committee. If this goes on much longer, people who serve on Royal Commissions and other public bodies will begin to wonder why they should waste their time if Governments are scared of dealing with subsequent reports. Governments set up these bodies and hope that the issue will go away by the time they report, and are unwilling then to take action.

For all these reasons, I warmly welcome the Bill and hope that it will proceed speedily through the House and on to the statute book.

I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I should like to make a point from my native experience as the only Australian to be a Member of the House. This is a sensible measure and should go some way to sorting out the licensing trade. In Australia, until recently we were bound in by what is known as the "wowser" attitude. That is the fundamentalist religious attitude of mind that is restricting and constricting. As a totally unsought consequence, it produced a fantastic catalogue of crime that was a bad development in Australian social life.

I shall not weary the House with a whole catalogue of everything that went wrong. Suffice it to say, as one or two of the lawyers in the House may know, it took a Royal Commission of inquiry headed by a very enlightened high court judge, Mr. Justice Maxwell, to blow to bits a lot of the pretence that surrounded the licensing trade at that time. There were revelations that included what we call "sly grog"—that is, illicit selling after hours, and all the rest—prostitution, corruption, financial corruption in the main, and so on. Links were shown to exist with the bookmaking profession. Incidentally, a long list of socially prominent members of Sydney society were hailed good and proper. They were branded more or less for life. The income tax experts had a little black book in which they kept detailed notes, and that cost many of Sydney's citizens tens of thousands of pounds in back tax.

It took all that before my state of New South Wales came to its senses in 1955, having 10 years before decisively rejected, mainly because of the working-class women's vote, proposals to liberalise the trade and to get away from the 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. opening hours which were then a characteristic of our drinking. So there was, I am pleased to say, a bit of a clean-up. In wishing the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) a fair wind and a speedy passage with his Bill, I utter this tiny note of warning, without pretending to any particular expertise beyond that of the average consumer of the wares of those premises, I hope that from my warning he and his hon. Friends may learn a little from the experience of their Australian cousins.

I declare an interest, not so much as the representative of Burton-on-Trent, the greatest brewing town in Europe, although that would be an interest as important as any I could think of, but also as a practitioner in licensing law until I became a Member of Parliament. I had the good fortune to be the pupil of the greatest living licensing practitioner at the Bar at the time—James Burge, Q.C. I hope that I learned something from his very wide, deep and greatly esteemed knowledge of the law.

Even my experience enables me to observe that perhaps some of the fervour which is shown in support of this Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who represents the licensed victuallers, may not be completely untinged by the fact that the Licensed Victuallers' Association nearly always opposes applications for permission to open wine bars on their territory.

I hope that my hon. Friend will be clear that I do not represent the association. I merely advise it. There is a great difference.

I am sorry. It is seldom in the interests of the licensed victuallers and the public houses to have a wine bar established nearby. I can recall one case in which I made an application for a wine bar that was situated 8 ft from a public house. However, a sizeable body of the population now likes the idea of wine bars because wine is sometimes preferred to beer and spirits, and because the bars tend to provide higher quality food than do many public houses. The atmosphere in wine bars is congenial.

However, it would be wrong to suppose, as one may have done from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead, that the existing law prevents the licensed victuallers or anyone who is opposed to a wine bar from making known his opposition. A licence to open a wine bar has to be applied for just as any other application has to be put before the justices. I think that my hon. Friend was objecting to the next stage in the process when a wine bar, wishing to increase its area of consumption to that of a public house, undergoes a procedure by which the publicans are stopped from objecting. On that I have the greatest degree of sympathy, and I think that the amendment proposed in the Bill to deal with the point is wholly warranted.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) raised what he called a tiny objection. Lest we all die of a surfeit of congratulation for my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) about the wonders of the amendments he is proposing to the 1964 Act, and which I fully support, we should appreciate two matters.

First, the need for these amendments underlines the utter complexity of the licensing law as it has developed over the years and as my hon. Friend has so well described. It was thought necessary in 1970 to set up the Royal Commission under Lord Enroll to cut away some of this complexity, and to some extent a lot of us now feel sad that that report has been left on the shelf without any form of implementation. The Commission reported in December 1972, but it covered too big a subject and it was too controversial. It arrived at a time when law and order were of great concern to the House and there was worry that relaxation of the licensing law would strain the resources of the police. In many aspects the recommendations were too revolutionary—they were certainly too much for my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine).

May I remind my hon. Friend that it is not that the recommendations were too much for me but that they bore in some cases no relation to the evidence that had been submitted to the Royal Commission.

I had the privilege, the pleasure and yet the disappointment of listening to my hon. Friend for many hours through the night as he spoke on this subject in a successful attempt to defeat a Private Member's Bill which sought to introduce one or two of the Royal Commission's proposals. I know my hon. Friend's arguments, therefore, and I know how deeply he feels about the matter. I have a great deal of respect for the view that he always so eloquently expresses. However, the licensing atmosphere in this country is the worse for our not having implemented some of the Erroll proposals.

I spoke about the complexity of the law and the fact that anomalies underlie it. Let me give an example of one of the root complexities that Erroll analysed and upon which it recommended action. That is the distinction between the different types of licence. They are now granted according to the category of premises to which the licence is to apply and the type of intoxicating liquors authorised to be sold. Erroll recommended that all existing licences should be amalgamated into one single form of premises licence, and that any restrictions on the category of liquor which should be authorised to be sold should be imposed as a condition of that licence. That was a very far-reaching and sensible simplification.

That leads me to the second point which emerges from these otherwise wholly praiseworthy amendments—namely, that they make the law more complex. They provide more hurdles for the applicant for a licence to overcome. It is not a matter which the House usually ignores when it is presented before it, but it means more work for the lawyers and more expense for the applicant.

I am not suggesting that the overall advantages of these changes are not greater than the disadvantages, but we should realise that these recommendations will result in more hurdles. It will now be necessary for a lawyer to be instructed to appear before a court to argue points not arguable now—for example, the reasons for wanting to upgrade a wine bar. I hope that some reduction in complexity will come in due course when the licensing planning committees are abolished, as was recommended by the Society of Conservative Lawyers in its wholly praiseworthy pamphlet "Liberty and Licensing"—I say that with knowledge, since I helped to write it—which contained the evidence that it gave to the Erroll Commission.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one result of the Bill may be that a large number of wine bars will not try to become upgraded because they will know that they will not succeed? That may be one of the effects of this measure. Therefore, they will not necessarily need all the extra fees for skilled lawyers.

That is a point, but I should like to know the numbers of applications. Perhaps the Minister will in due course tell us how many successful and unsuccessful applications of upgrading have been made by wine bars. My experience has not shown any, but my experience of that branch may be somewhat limited. The saving will be limited if the numbers of applications are small.

There is a body of opinion that believes that the complexity of special hours certificates and the unnecessary legal work involved in making applications would best be avoided by extending the ordinary licensing hours to two or three o'clock in the morning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) waxed eloquent and long and with a great deal of force in his argument on the point that to extend licensing hours would be to take an unnecessary risk regarding law and order at this time. He won that argument in Committee on the Licensing (Amendment) Bill. As the Government have not proceeded to try to implement any of the Erroll proposals, he appears to have won that argument in the House, too. I think that he deserves to do so. However, that underlines the fact that special hours certificates will be unnecessary if we were to simplify the rules governing drinking laws.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) has proposed another alternative. But his recommendation would make the law more complex, because we would have another hurdle to overcome. According to this proposal, there would have to be an application not only for a music and dancing licence but for a special hours certificate, taking into consideration again the matters already covered by a music and dancing licence.

It would be a good idea, if it were possible, to abolish the committee which considers the music and dancing licence so that the justices considering the special hours certificate could deal with both matters in one. Of course, that is impracticable because many music and dancing licences do not involve liquor. Therefore, the committee to deal with the music and dancing licence must remain.

The Erroll committee proposed that in any case where a music and dancing licence was preparatory to a special hours certificate, the two might be amalgamated. I believe that some benches, which adjudicate not only on the special hours certificate but on the music and dancing licence, already deal with both matters together. That is one way of simplifying the matter and keeping down the costs and work of lawyers.

I hope that I have not poured any cold water on these proposals. I remind the House that they show the complexity of the law. They would provide more work, more cost, more delay and more work for magistrates or licensing justices. Instead of simplifying the law, they would make it more complex.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth on the excellent way in which he has presented the matter—a way worthy of the best licensing practitioners at the Bar. But I hope that this measure will remind us that there is a bigger job to be done in reforming the licensing law. I hope that hon. Members present today, or those reading these proceedings later, will be reminded that the sooner the larger job is done, the better it will be for society.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on introducing a Bill which attempts to straighten out some of the mistakes of previous legislation. Those mistakes are obvious today, but they were not at the relevant time.

The hon. Gentleman spanned a period of over 400 years, from 1552, when the keeping of an ale house was licensed, to 1964, when the last Act dealing with licensing was passed. The hon. Gentleman described in graphic detail what went on during that period. He is to be congratulated on the amount of research and everything else that he has done in relation to this matter.

I want to make only three points, and they relate mainly to London. In London, without the intense observation of the licensing laws by the Metropolitan Police, the system would be far worse than it is. I recall that before the war a special licence application would be made for perhaps three occasions a year—St. Patrick's night, new year's eve and May Day. Whether a function were held in the town hall or elsewhere—it might be a local dance at which drink was to be consumed—the police would come in and see that the rules were strictly observed. The Metropolitan Police carried out that job in London. No doubt other police forces carried out similar duties in other parts of the country. Today, with the onerous duties that the police have placed upon them, with the introduction of wine bars and extended special hours certificates, the Metropolitan Police now have a really formidable task.

The two main points with which I want to deal have to some extent been covered by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) referred to the purchase of alcohol from supermarkets. Whilst I agree with the Bill, I believe that it does not go anywhere near far enough. I agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead that the Home Office must come to grips with the whole of our licensing laws and with what is taking place in big towns today.

It is easy for someone of reputable character to open a disco in a basement somewhere in London, in which he sells only soft drinks. However, young people attending such discos, some aged between 14 and 17, take in their own liquor which they have purchased from a supermarket. They then dilute or lace orange squash, say, with gin. That is what goes on in those places which do not require a licence. That is one problem on which the Metropolitan Police must keep their eyes. To the police goes the task of trying to keep some order under our licensing laws.

I agree with what has been said this morning. However, what is happening in London today? In many suburbs—I do not doubt that this goes on in Hampstead; it certainly takes place in Wands-worth, and I have had many complaints about it—private parties are held in houses. No licence is required. Canned music is taken into the house, and there is a party on a Saturday night. Car load after car load of drink is taken in, mostly canned beer, and literally hundreds of people come from all over London to go to a particular house.

Sometimes this takes place in very nice residential areas. These parties are called private parties, but in the real sense of the word they are commercial parties run for profit. Those who run them do not have to apply to the Metropolitan Police or magistrates for licences to held them.

In my constituency I have had complaint after complaint from law-abiding, ratepaying citizens who have been denied, time and again, the right to their sleeep on a Saturday night until three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning.

Have they complained to the police?

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question. They have complained to the police on many occasions. The police have come along and have been told by the owner of the house in which the party is taking place that it is his private property, and, although people are making a bit of noise, the police can do nothing about it for the simple reason that no licence is required. The people can carry on with their party. The police ask them to cut out the noise, and the people say "We will do that". The police cannot force an entry into the house. They then go away, and the noise goes on just the same. This goes on somewhere in London every Saturday night or Sunday night.

I am sure that the Home Office has received numerous complaints from the Metropolitan Police about this sort of thing. It is one of the problems that must be tackled. The question of a licence is dodged in this regard. My constituents, people in Wandsworth and people in other suburbs of London, are continually confronted with this nuisance. There are many drunken parties at night, particularly on Saturdays, which disturb the peace and quiet of decent people living in residential areas.

I ask the House to forgive me for what I am about to mention. The number of cars that are driven to these houses runs into dozens and dozens. Because of the inadequate toilet facilities at these houses, people go outside and, to put it in vulgar Cockney terms, they urinate against someone's else's car, then return to the party. This is going on in London all the time at parties for which no licence is required.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has received such reports from many branches of the Metropolitan Police. I have been inundated with complaints from people whom I have known for years, people who own their own houses in my constituency. These parties have even taken place in council flats. People are very disturbed to think that the Metropolitan Police are- powerless to do anything about them.

We talk of wine bars. It all depends upon the interpretation of two words—"shall" and "may". It boils down to the fact that if we say that a magistrate "shall" give a licence, that finishes it and a person can get a licence. But if we say that a person "may" get a licence, the magistrate can consider the matter. Some objectors can relate what is happening, but if the phrase is "shall give a licence" there is no option about it.

When the hon. Member for Hampstead was a magistrate in London, I am sure that he lived in the immediate locality of his bench and knew what was going on. However, many magistrates in London do not live in the area in which they act as magistrates. The Home Office should think about that matter, too.

I am very glad to have had the chance to bring this matter into the open. It is a subject on which many Londoners feel strongly. I wish the Bill a speedy passage.

I should like to define briefly at this stage the Government's attitude to the Bill and congratulate, as have preceding speakers, the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) on his fortune in the ballot and his decision to introduce a Bill amending a complex area of licensing law.

I listened with great interest to the hon. Member's extremely detailed and clear case in favour of the Bill. Whatever the views of individual hon. Members—although it would appear that there is unanimous support for the Bill—the House will be glad to have had the opportunity to debate not only this Bill but, it would appear, general licensing issues in this Second Reading debate.

I have taken note of the criticisms of the Government in this respect. For many years, under many Governments, the whole subject of licensing law has been found to be so controversial and cross-party that it has not been possible for Governments to bring in licensing measures without a great deal of controversy, so this has been left to private Members. That is why we find a very satisfactory situation here, where a private Member has brought in a Bill which has met with general agreement throughout the House. Therefore, the law can be improved in a very satisfactory way.

As we have heard, there was another Private Member's Bill on which I also sat all through the night while the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) gave his views and won the day and the night. There was an example of a great controversy between hon. Members of one side of the House on that Private Member's Bill. There was great feeling and great passion about that subject, and rightly so. I have great feelings about it, as the hon. Member knows. I cannot say that I was disappointed about the result in regard to that Bill, but the Government are traditionally neutral, leaving these matters for the House to decide.

I am glad that the sponsor of the Bill has received, and will receive, the support of interested bodies outside the House. In legislation of this kind, it is most important that he should have ascertained beforehand that he had their support, because obviously the measure will operate far more satisfactorily with the support of all interested bodies.

As regards the general remarks that have been made about increasing alcoholism, especially among the young, I share the concern expressed by many hon. Members.

The Bill seeks to remedy what some may regard as defects in the Licensing Act 1964. We all agree that there are defects. Its effect is to increase in certain respects the discretion of the licensing justices when dealing with applications for extension of the range of liquor that may be sold under an on-licence or for late-night drinking to be permitted in conjunction with music and dancing.

As we have heard, the Bill falls into two parts. Clause 1 is concerned with applications to the justices for extensions of the range of liquor that may be sold under an on-licence. Under section 37 of the 1964 Act the holder of an on-licence limited to the sale of certain kinds of liquor is entitled, with certain exceptions, to have the licence varied so as to extend the range of liquor that may be sold on his premises. In recent years, this has given rise to problems relating to wine bars.

A minority of these establishments, having obtained "wine only" licences on the basis of meeting a need not met by local public houses, have insisted on their licences being upgraded to full on-licences. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) asked me how many such cases there are. I cannot provide him with the exact number now, but I will write to him and let him know the figures that are available.

In many cases it is clear that, had the application been made for a full on-licence in the first place, the justices would have refused to grant it. Where section 37 is exploited in the way I have described, the justices have virtually no control over the creation of another fully on-licensed outlet for which no real evidence of need has been produced.

The effect of clause 1 is to limit the range of licences which may be extended in this way—that is, those in force or suspended on 3 August 1961, the date of the enactment of the Licensing Act 1961, which originally conferred the right to such a variation.

The remainder of the Bill is devoted to changing the present law on special hours certificates. These permit late-night drinking on licensed premises and in registered clubs. There have been passionate speeches, from both sides of the House, about the effect of those certificates. These provisions arise from a concern, with which I have every sympathy, about the very limited discretion which the justices have in dealing with these applications. As the law stands, if such premises are licensed to provide music and dancing and substantial refreshment, the justices are bound to grant the certificate allowing drinking to continue as long as the music and dancing. This could be up to 3 a.m. in parts of central London and 2 a.m. in much of the rest of the country.

I am interested to see that the Bill goes beyond the mere removal of this anomaly and not only strengthens the justices' powers to revoke and vary existing certificates but enables them to require drinking to stop earlier than 2 a.m. though not earlier than midnight. The Bill does not alter the position regarding the end of drinking in the "special hours area" of central London, the West End. I believe that to be right, because we have no reason to suppose that major difficulties have arisen in that area.

The Government take the view that the amendments to the 1964 Act are, in substance, an improvement on the present law and support the hon. Member's Bill. However, matters affecting the liquor licensing law give rise to strong feelings, and we are content that the final judgment on the hon. Member's proposals should be left to individual hon. Members.

I should like to add my warm congratulations to those of other hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter). I hope that he will forgive me for mentioning that he told me in private that, being a chartered accountant, the law was not his line. If his mastery of figures is even better than his mastery of law, those of us who stand as much in awe of accountants as we do of dentists must be impressed. My hon. Friend presented the Bill with a clarity and cogency that impressed the whole House. He preceded that with a history of the licensing laws which I found fascinating.

The Bill deals with two narrow but important points that go to the root principles of licensing law. It is generally accepted that the sale of intoxicating liquor must be restricted by law and that the restriction should be as reasonable and effective as possible. We should bear in mind that the Bill comes before us in the face of the spectre of the increasing abuse of alcohol, the growth of alcoholism and the appalling problems of crime, particularly among the young, that are associated with excessive drinking. The crimes range from those of a petty character, such as theft, right up to murder and are committed by people under the influence of drink.

The aims of the Bill are to abolish the automatic grant of a full on-licence to holders of limited licences and to allow the licensing justices outside the metropolis to restrict the hours of drinking outside normal licensing hours. Those aims are wholly admirable. We regard the Bill as a valuable and necessary reform. There are many who readily agree with that view. I found it a comfort to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), who has devoted such a heartfelt interest and understanding to these problems, giving his support to the Bill. I was also glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who spoke on behalf of the licensees and gave his good will to the aims of the Bill.

The Bill has the full support of magistrates, justices' clerks, brewers, licensees, the Government and the Opposition. We welcome it and wish it a fair passage.

With the leave of the House, I should like to express my gratitude to those hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. It has been a good experience to hear every speaker giving his support to the Bill. All the speeches have been based upon great knowledge and spoken with great feeling. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) was particularly knowledgeable on the subject. He emphasised rightly the place in society of the British public house and the responsibility of the licensing trade. In no way is it the aim of the Bill to offend or attack that tradition of responsibility or the way in which the licensed trade has carried it out.

My colleague—perhaps I might say my marrer—the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and I, share the same local council and the same problems on Tyne-side. I agree entirely with his comments that a good, pleasurable hobby can be found in drinking, so long as it is not abused. He raised the question of section 37. As he said, under that section the holder of a limited licence can still apply, but the justices now have the right to refuse the licence. Of course, if the justices do refuse the licence, an application can be made in the normal way for a full licence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) spoke with a depth of knowledge about the licensed trade. He pointed out to my satisfaction the need to go wider than this Bill in future. Having spent a considerable time during the last few months researching the background on licensing law, I shall be happy to support him if he is lucky in the draw next year.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) explained from personal experience some of the problems of Australia. I visited that great country about 20 years ago, when I was a young man in the Air Force, and I noticed the particular drinking habits. Speedy consumption was a feature that I particularly noticed. The trams went into the sheds at about six o'clock at night, and everyone disappeared for the rest of the evening. The number of pints that were sunk between 5.30 p.m., when people finished work, and 6 p.m. was quite astonishing.

My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke with knowledge not only of the subject under discussion but also of legal practice. He brought out well the complexity of the licensing law. As I said in my introductory remarks, I have been most fortunate in having Mr. John Martin as my assistant. He is probably the foremost expert on this subject with regard to textbook writing.

Obviously, a bigger job has to be done, and I am sure that we shall see another major Bill in the years ahead. There is a lesson to be learned from what happened to the new clause in the Licensing Bill 1961, which later became section 37. Perhaps sometimes in Committees on very long Bills we as Back Benchers are just a little too ready to accept Front Bench assurances which are later proved not to have been justified. It might have been interesting had we preserved some of the notes on clauses with regard to that particular section all those years ago, in order to see what was in the mind of the parliamentary draftsman at the time.

The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) brought home the particular problems of London. I am sure that the sort of experiences he described are worse in London than elsewhere, but I suspect that the type of nuisance to which he referred can be found in other cities, although obviously not on so great a scale. This is a problem that is difficult to solve at the present time.

I believe that the Bill is in the public interest. It will lead to a reduction in late night drinking, to a reduction in breaches of the peace, to less annoyance in our town centres, to more safety and to less crime. As well as reducing breaches of the peace, I also believe that it will prevent young people from starting their lives on the road to ruin in terms both of their health and of the prospect of their turning to crime. I am grateful to the members of both Front Benches for the kind way in which they have supported the Bill and for their kind personal comments.

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

When last I was fortunate enough to introduce a Private Member's Bill the House of Commons was packed to capacity. Great emotions were aroused, but fortunately on that particular day we won the vote. That Bill concerned the unborn child, Today, although the House is not packed, I believe that this subject is equally important, because it concerns the born child.

I do not intend to go through the Bill clause by clause. I intend to leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who, as a lawyer, is more capable of doing so than I.

Although the birth rate has dropped dramatically, unfortunately the number of illegitimate births is rising. In Scotland, one in 10 children is born illegitimate. That means that an extra 6,000 illegitimate children are born in Scotland every year. I intend to say only a few words about the Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for taking such a short time on his Bill and for enabling me to introduce my Bill.

I must begin by quoting clause 1, which states:

" Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, whether contained in any statutory order or rule of law, a child born out of wedlock shall have and enjoy rights, privileges and duties identical in all respects to those of other children.

There is no special novelty in putting the Bill forward. Similar legislation has already been introduced in other countries, especially New Zealand. I think that we in the House of Commons must apply ourselves to this matter today. We must establish the difference in paternity laws between Scotland and England. Even if paternity of a child is established, and the full armoury is made available to ensure that periodic payment under an order is actually made to the child, it is not as yet deployed in Scotland. This happens in England, and I should like to see it carried out in Scotland as well.

With regard to the scandalous rules governing the guardianship of illegitimate children, the law in Scotland states that if the mother and father require a tutor they must go to an outside person and apply to the courts. Only if we accept the principle that a child born out of wedlock should be treated as all other children can we get rid of anomalies of the kind that I have described. Some hon. Members may take exception to some of the clauses in the Bill, but I and my sponsors guarantee that in Committee we shall be pleased to discuss them.

In the past 20 years there have been seven different Bills dealing with illegitimate children, and each did something to help them. Today I expect the House to have a grand slam and to abolish once and for all the dreadful title "illegitimate children".

The House may be interested to learn that I have had more correspondence on this subject than I have had with regard to the referendum. This is a silent lobby. Illegitimate people do not want to parade with placards or to make their case known, because they are ashamed. The House of Commons must do something about that.

Christ said:

" Suffer the little children to come unto me…for of such is the kingdom of God."

I believe that the House of Commons can do nothing less, and I expect the House to give its full-hearted support to the Bill.

I am sure that the whole House is deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) for having used his good fortune in the Ballot, yet again, to pursue the interests of children. I am sure that his constituents will be proud that their Member has sought to bring in a Bill which, if the principles were accepted, would be historic, because it would mean that for the first time in our history we would be giving equality before the law to the illegitimate.

All, indeed, are equal before the law, except those who are deemed to be bastards. Blacks, women and Jews are by statute and commission specifically protected against discrimination. Contrary-wise, against those born out of wedlock, discrimination is enforced by law.

Although there are probably 3 million illegitimates alive in Britain today, 1½ million of whom have been born since 1945, no significant lobby exists in respect of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Pollok emphasised the silence of illegitimates. Unlike gay people, they do not come out. They remain too diffident to unite to break their chains and their very silence imposes special duties on the House.

Perhaps the wounds of illegitimates are much deeper than others fully appreciate. It is precisely because they feel the wounds so deeply that they have such reticence. Is it not our duty to seek to help and to be articulate when they are silent? They evidently have deep feelings which prevent them from expressing themselves in the fashionable way, in lobbies.

I do not doubt that they are probably the largest minority group in Britain. Despite contraception and abortion, their numbers are increasing each year. The birth rate is declining, but the illegitimacy rate is increasing and is now double that of 15 years ago. One child in 10 is born a bastard and there is not only a duty on Back Benchers but an enormous duty on the Government to make certain that those millions of people feel that nothing is being done that is an obstacle to the bringing into effect of a law that gives the illegitimate equal status.

Although many are born and many survive, many illegitimate children do not survive. The proportion of very young mothers is five times greater among illegitimates than among the legitimates, and the unmarried mother receives far less antenatal care than does the married mother. Stillbirths and deaths in the first year of life substantially reduce the number of illegitimate children.

If survival is achieved, many of the children will live in a poor social environment and in atypical family circumstances, lacking the stability of a constant father, and at greater risk than are legitimate children of developing difficulties in behaviour and learning because family relationships are disturbed or disrupted.

In the meantime, the economic and social status of the mother trying to keep the child nose-dives. Since many give up the unequal struggle, the proportion of children who are taken into care is five times higher among illegitimates than among the legitimate. Not surprisingly, when children arrive at school and tests and assessments are used to compare abilities, it is revealed that the illegitimate are almost invariably at the bottom of the league table—whether in general knowledge, oral ability, creativity, perceptual development, reading attainment or arithmetical skills.

Since it is a fact that to be born illegitimate is to be born socially and educationally disadvantaged, the additional handicaps imposed upon bastards by the law provide an unseemly display of the courts kicking children when they are down.

The troubles of the illegitimate begin at the beginning. The law severely curtails the right of the newborn to be born with a certain and confident identity. If a mother seeks a paternity order in the courts, a special rule of evidence applies. Her evidence, however convincing, must be corroborated and those of us who have had the bitter experience of appearing for an unmarried mother often find that, if a putative father declines to give evidence and refuses to submit to cross-examination, the high standard of proof that is demanded—far more than applies in any issue affecting a legitimate child—means that the child remains in limbo—fatherless.

Those requirements are otiose. Naturally, evidence must be convincing to a court if it has to decide on paternity, but recent great advances in the reliability of blood tests have led to a very high degree of probability not only in establishing what we have known for years and what has been used frequently, the negative establishment that a man is not the father, but in establishing positive paternalism. That has removed the justification not for convincing evidence but for the old corroboration rule.

Apart from the rules of evidence, there are procedural rules which severely disadvantage the unmarried mother. Delay in making application for a paternity order can prove fatal. If the father is an unemployed young adolescent and the mother does not, within the prescribed time limit, enter into the humiliating experience of establishing in a court the paternity of her child, that child may be reduced to being permanently legally fatherless. If a father absconds overseas and the mother does not learn of his return until after 12 months has passed, the father may be immune from any legal process.

Even if the mother obtains an order directing financial support for the child from the father, she can obtain an enforcement on any accumulated arrears of payment only in a court. That is unnecessary, and the court is open to the press and the public so that her predicament can be emblazoned abroad.

Far from assisting a child to have and to know his father, the law, with deliberation, conspires to break or attentuate the relationship. The father, who may have lived with the mother for years, has no way of establishing his paternity without the consent of the mother—whatever the consequences may be for the child. Nor is the consent of the father required in adoption proceedings.

It follows that a father's consent is certainly not needed to the marriage of his child during its minority. Legally, the father of an illegitimate child is a non-person. He has no inherent rights to guardianship, custody or access, even when a paternity order has been made against him.

While the concerned natural father has little opportunity of assuming his responsibilities, the bad father has ample opportunity for denial. The court has no power to protect a periodic payment for the child by making the father provide security, such as a charge upon his house.

This is a provision which those of us who have been involved in family law professionally have found is very useful in connection with legitimate children, but it is sad that it is denied to the illegitimate. No new order can be made to compel a father to help an illegitimate daughter who wishes to go to university, though he could be compelled to do so in the case of a legitimate child. Further, when the illegitimate child reaches the age of 18 a court has no power—unlike in the case of a legitimate child—to issue any new order.

The legal disadvantages of the illegitimate continue throughout their lifetime. If the father has custody of the child and falls on hard times, no claim for help can be made upon the mother, however wealthy she may then be. If difficulties arise, perhaps because of warring parents, a legitimate child will inevitably become a ward of court, be placed under the care of a relative or next friend, whereas in the case of an illegitimate child no such order can be made.

No order can be made to require either or both parents to pay for the child's maintenance and education. If a grandfather, aunt, uncle or half-brother dies intestate, an illegitimate child, unlike a legitimate child, can have no share of the estate, no matter how close the relationship between the illegitimate child and the relative with whom he or she might have lived for many years.

A child may have been fathered by a man who enjoyed a life interest in what is termed an "entailed estate", a life interest which the original donor had declared should pass by succession to that father's heirs. Even though an adopted child would be able to benefit on the father's death, the illegitimate child is completely and utterly disinherited.

In law, because the claim to United Kingdom citizenship depends upon the father's citizenship, and because in law "father" means only the father of a legitimate child, a child born outside Britain to an unmarried British mother in, say, Switzerland, may have statelessness added to his burden of bastardy.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) will be directing his attention, if he intervenes, to one clause. Although I share some of his dislike for inherited titles, as long as we have them—and I am not suggesting that they should be perpetuated—illegitimates should be treated in the same way as legitimates, even though the other place may not be very enthusiastic about such an idea. Perhaps this aspect of the law reveals the hypocrisy of our attitude to legitimacy. I think that it is more richly illustrated in the laws relating to titles than in any other aspect of our law, although it affects only a very small minority.

Although it is notorious that many families of ancient lineage sprang from the caprices of wayward kings, and have the bar sinister emblazoned on their arms, no legitimate child may inherit a title—even a title founded by an illegitimate bastard such as William the Conqueror, who indeed was well known as "William the Bastard". Titles are jealously guarded. Not even the child of a union that is subsequently regularised can succeed to any title. A child cannot be legitimised by the subsequent marriage of its parents to the extent of making the right to an inherited title valid.

I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will not mind my mentioning that we have had distinguished Speakers who have had the bar sinister emblazoned on their coat of arms. Indeed, when we are welcomed into Mr. Speaker's House, as we sometimes are, we note that at least one distinguished Speaker is shown in the arms in the Speaker's House to have a bar sinister. Therefore, nobody is exempt from the possibility that illegitimacy can somewhere or other impinge upon him or her through their families or connections.

I regret, therefore, that although the Law Courts in the Strand may have been persuaded by legislators that in all matters affecting children the paramount consideration should be the long-term welfare of the child, these persuasions have yet to succeed in another court or in Buckingham Palace.

Let me state clearly that my hon. Friend the Member for Pollock and I, in bringing this Bill before the House, are deliberately seeking to undermine all the principles upon which our present illegitimacy laws stand. The House must understand that this is a most radical measure. We are challenging the affirmation that the sin of the parents must be visited upon the children, that the preservation of property rights is more important than the welfare of the child, and that the institution of marriage must be buttressed by outlawing children born out of wedlock. All these things the Bill, is clearly and unequivocally challenging in its first clause.

We are challenging these principles because they are totally out of alignment with what public opinion would want. The community at large undoubtedly accepts that the principles upon which our illegitimacy laws now stand are outmoded, outdated, and, indeed, in many respects evil.

Clause 1 states the principle, and the subsequent clauses are little more than illustrative, trying to overcome the disadvantages which the House has patiently listened to me seeking to categorise. The list of disadvantages that I have delineated is certainly not exhaustive. As I do not wish to detain the House, I have mentioned only those disadvantages which are most explicit.

Clause 2 tries to deal with some of the problems of succession. Clause 4 tries to deal with the problems of maintenance, to which I have made some reference. Clause 5 deals with the problem of citizenship, which I have also mentioned.

These problems are in no way resolved for the illegitimate by the recent helpful statement on this question by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That statement certainly helped legitimate children born outside the United Kingdom but was not extended to those born illegitimately outside the United Kingdom.

Clause 6 seeks to deal with the question of titles in a radical manner. Clause 7 is an attempt—though no doubt a clumsy one—to deal with the technical problems that family lawyers would understand could arise with the proposed abolition of the status of illegitimacy, since at present the existence of a marriage raises the presumption of a child's legitimacy.

Clause 7 seeks to prevent the marriage presumption, which is a valuable one, from being subverted by our abolition of the status of illegitimacy, so seeking to preserve the benefit of the marriage presumption in the form of a presumption of paternity.

I am keenly aware of the defects and blemishes of the Bill. All Back Benchers will understand that problem. The Bill must of necessity be rough-hewn, as it tries to deal with such an enormously complex issue.

Perhaps anticipating what may be said by my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department, I begin by describing some of the complexities that must be wrestled with once one begins to deal with the problem of illegitimacy in the radical way that I hope the House will believe to be necessary. I shall illustrate the problems by talking about the child conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the mother with sperm provided by a third-party donor.

As the law stands, such a child is illegitimate. It is immaterial that the mother's husband has consented to the insemination. The child's status in law is the same as that of the child conceived in adultery at which the husband had connived.

For legal purposes, paternity is essentially a question of genetic fact, so that it is the donor who is the legal father of an AID child. Therefore, unless special provision, which the Bill does not contain, is made by law on the abolition of the status of illegitimacy, the donor rather than the mother's husband would be the man who had the parental rights and duties in respect of the child. Therefore, the question arises whether the law should be framed so that in proper cases it gives effect to the social reality that the child is the offspring of the husband and wife rather than the genetic truth that he is the offspring of the wife and the donor.

The present law imposes severe hardships upon a husband and wife, who, finding that they have fertility problems, have acquired their child as a consequence of AID. At present the wilful making of a false statement to the registrar in order to procure the making of an erroneous entry in the register is an offence under the Perjury Act. Therefore, if the mother knows that the child has been conceived as the result of artificial insemination, she should not state that her husband is the father, with the consequence that the part of the register relating to the father would be left blank.

In practice, however, of course the mother and husband would rightly want the husband's name to appear in the register as the father. The fact of their marriage, together with the confidentiality of the artificial insemination operation, offers an irresistible temptation to a married couple not to disclose the operation. It is unrealistic to suppose that people will not almost always yield to this temptation.

Therefore, if such a Bill as this were passed it would be necessary to work out a policy, embodied within a clause or clauses, to ensure that, where a married woman has received AID treatment with her husband's consent, the husband rather than the donor should for all legal purposes be regarded as the father of the child conceived as a result.

I have deliberately brought to the attention of the House such a problem, which I think can be quickly grasped, in order to emphasise the enormous complexity of the issues when one makes a bold assault, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok is making, upon the whole present base of our illegitimacy laws. There are innumerable issues of such a kind, all of which I am sure our experienced Parliamentary Secretary will be able to adumbrate.

All these facts and issues could be catalogued in an attempt to kill the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary's approach could be that the Bill is too rough-hewn and raises so many issues of such complexity that it is inappropriate that it should proceed at all. I trust that neither he nor any other hon. Member will express that view.

I do not say this out of political opportunism, although everyone will do well to remember in an election year that, if the figures are as they appear to be, it is likely that each of us is today speaking on behalf of 2,000 or 3,000 of his own constituents. I do not believe that political opportunism would enter into consideration of such an issue. However, one must point out how significant the problem is. It would be sad if any action were taken by my hon. Friend on behalf of the Government to create a situation in which it could be said that this House was out of sympathy with a move radically to reform onerous and harsh illegitimacy laws.

Happily, the whole issue if illegitimacy is under review by the Law Commissioners. It has been under review for a long time. I grant that the Law Commissioners have many burdens, but perhaps they have been too slow in coming to the issue, and some might suggest that they have been too tardy in coming to a conclusion. I am aware that they have speeded up their inquiries. The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok has brought the Bill before the House has accelerated the Law Commissioners' consideration of the matter.

All of us would want to make certain that the Law Commissioners, the body set up by the Lord Chancellor to review our laws, came to their conclusions speedily so that a highly sophisticated Bill could be available. Although it is improbable, I do not believe that it is impossible that that could be done even within the lifetime of this Parliament.

The sponsors of the Bill believe that the House should have an opportunity to give the Bill a Second Reading. I hope that all hon. Members will support that view, because, although we have tinkered on many occasions with the laws relating to illegitimacy, seeking each time to take away some of the disadvantages that the illegitimate have suffered, it has indeed been only a process of tinkering. I have been associated with some of those measures. Many of us felt that we should do something rather than nothing. Even though what we were doing was small, it was some contribution to relieving the difficulties.

The time has come for the Law Commissioners to be helped in their discussions. They need to be helped by our making clear that, although we recognise the complexities of the tasks, which the Parliamentary Secretary can be relied on to indicate, the House gives a clear and unequivocal direction affirming the principle in clause 1. If such a message went out from the House, the Law Commissioners would understand when considering the various options that hon. Members want not a timorous report but a genuinely radical report.

I hope that in the comments which my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will make he will not say merely that this is a very worthy aim and that the Bill is no good. I hope that the Government will not take up an attitude which will inhibit the House from giving this Bill a Second Reading. If they do, it will be regarded as unforgivable by millions of our people who will not accept the sweet words that may come but will accept that the Bill will have been killed, as they see it.

I can hardly believe that a Government such as ours will do any such thing. This is a moment when Labour Members especially will be thinking of their forebears who founded our party. They will be thinking, perhaps, not of the founding fathers but of the founding bastards. They will be thinking of Keir Hardie. It is very appropriate that an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency should introduce a Bill relating to illegitimacy. It is an attempt at least to pay off a debt to the great founding Scots bastard, Keir Hardie. There are many others. We have the example of Ernie Bevin. No trade unionist knowing his contribution to the creation of the trade union movement can doubt that he was one of the architects of our movement. He, too, was illegitimate.

Why is not an English hon. Member allowed to scotch this sort of effort?

I have not followed my hon. and learned Friend's interruption, I am afraid.

My hon. Friend will later.

There was another remarkable Scotsman who shaped our movement. I refer, of course, to Ramsay MacDonald. He, too, was illegitimate.

Let Government supporters remember that perhaps we have a special duty to make certain that we repay our debt. Despite the extraordinary difficulties or disadvantages which weighed upon them because of their illegitimacy, these men wanted to have a more equal society. They felt as children that they were outsiders, and that may have been part of the dynamic behind their drive to create a more equal society.

This is the international year of the child. The United Nations has made it so. This is the year in which the House and the Government can show that they intend to make their own contribution. I believe that there are no illegitimate children. There are only illegitimate parents. It is time that this House affirmed that and ensured that in the very near future all people, including bastards, were equal under the law.

I do not intend to make a long speech, but I wish to endorse the quite powerful arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). He has offered the House very good reasons why the principles which are served by this Bill should be accepted and, it is to be hoped, enacted in the near future.

My purpose in rising is first to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) for the Bill. He has done this House and society a great service in giving the House the opportunity to debate this subject. We are greatly indebted to him. It may be that the Bill will require substantial amendment and refinement. But that does not mean that the principles which my hon. Friend is seeking to serve in this Bill are to be disqualified, and I hope that they will not be by this Administration.

The Bill will be extremely useful. In the last few years we have seen a transformation of the law relating to children. We have the Children Act, and I served on the Committee which considered that legislation in 1975. We have the Adoption Act of 1976. This further step is a very logical one.

I am a trifle anxious about clause 6, which concerns itself with titles. I do not take as flamboyant an attitude to these matters as some of my hon. Friends do, but I am concerned that this provision could seek the perpetuation of those titles in our society which were not awarded originally for any worthy worthwhile activity. I am also concerned because it could be that, if the Bill were enacted in its present form, the illegitimate child would have an advantage over the adopted child. I have two adopted children, although I have no expectations of ever securing a title which I should want to pass to them. But it ought not to be the case that the adopted child of a titled person should be disqualified from inheriting that title if an illegitimate child of that same person were allowed to inherit it. I hope that that anomaly, which it would be if the Bill remained as it is drafted, will be removed if only to ensure that the titled person concerned will not at some time be subjected to the inordinate temptation to spurn conventional morality.

I hope that we can secure the change which will remove the statutory disadvantage which an illegitimate person faces in society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool reminded us, there are many other disadvantages in society which such children face. The child of the single parent is gravely disadvantaged in comparison with the child who is brought up in normal family circumstances. Often there is economic as well as social deprivation. If we can remove some of the disadvantage which is placed on the child by statutory terminology, we shall serve society well and serve children especially.

We as a Parliament have approved the Children Act and the Adoption Act. Having done that, we should seek to ensure that the intentions served by the commendable initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok are properly effected as soon as possible.

Lest anyone be under any misapprehension about where I stand on this matter, perhaps, in view of the fact that my wife died about 10 years ago, I ought now to recount a very painful and personal experience.

When I was courting her, I was a serving soldier and she was a serving nurse. In our duties at that time we were some hundreds of miles apart. At the full flood of our courtship she wrote me a letter telling me what she was. She thought that I might wind up our relationship. I wrote back by return of post to allay her anxieties, and subsequently I married her. But despite that, of course, she bore that to the end of her days. Anything that we can do in this House to prevent that happening the better.

I agree with the basic aims and principles of the Bill. I agree with my bon Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) that no child is illegitimate. They are all God's creation. As I say, if we can do anything legislatively or otherwise to put that into law, I shall be the first to accept it. The heartache, the embarrassment and even the fear caused by this vile discrimination over the years is outmoded, repulsive and an affront to every decent citizen of Britain.

It is true that in recent years a lot of disabilities flowing from the label of illegitimacy or bastardy have been removed. My own Government have a record for which they need not apologise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool said, the Law Commission is currently examining not only this aspect of the law but all aspects of family law. I am sure we would all agree with my hon. Friend that the law is highly complex, controversial and emotive. He knows that internationally, too, the legal status of children as a whole is being dealt with through the Council of Europe convention on the legal status on children born out of wedlock.

Having read some of the provisional conclusions of the Law Commission, I am driven to conclude, however reluctantly, that these problems are too complex to be dealt with by a Private Member's Bill—certainly not at this stage of the life of this Parliament. The Bill, with the best of intentions, has little prospect of becoming law before the general election, even assuming that it got a Second Reading today and went to Committee. The problem is infinitely complex and controversial, far more so than the sponsors of the Bill would seem to suggest.

Speaking as a Scottish Member, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) on introducing the Bill. It is good to ventilate these problems in the House to show that they are not forgotten and that we appreciate the depth of feeling associated with them. Not the least objection to the Bill, however, is that it presumes to deal with the law in these matters in Scotland as well as in England. My hon. Friend knows that the law in Scotland on these and related matters is different from that in England, in many ways fundamentally different. I am not expressing an opinion, but there may well be a separate legislative Assembly in Edinburgh within the foreseeable future. That Assembly would undoubtedly have the power and would want to exercise that power to deal with these problems in ways that would suit the Scots, Scotland and Scottish law.

The Scottish Law Commission is not studying illegitimacy as a subject in itself. It is examining all aspects of family law and succession. I have seen one of its early reports. It is also working on problems associated with the crime of incest, which has a bearing on the sexual relations between parents and illegitimate children. The Bill, if it applies to Scotland, seems untimely, if not unwise, for the reasons I have outlined.

Perhaps as the result of the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White), the fact is that in the discussions—I do not believe I am giving away any confidence—and the further inquiries being made by the Law Commission for England and Wales, the Scottish Law Commission is being brought in specifically on the issue of illegitimacy. I mention this because my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) should know that, far from the Scottish Law Commissioners not becoming involved, they are becoming enmeshed in the discussions.

I am aware of these matters. For that reason, it is imperative that we should wait and see whether there is to be a Scottish Assembly. Its Members, representing Scotland and dealing with Scottish law, will want to deal with these matters according to Scottish custom and tradition. That is all I am saying. It ill becomes this House or this Parliament, at this juncture of Parliament, to seek the legislate on behalf of Scotland.

I should like to refer to one or two matters in so far as they relate to Scotland. The common law concept of an illegitimate child in Scotland was a debt incumbent on both parents which each was obliged to meet according to his or her means. That doctrine in Scotland has been greatly modified by statute over the years. The main disabilities suffered by illegitimate children in Scotland have also been eliminated, but legal disabilities still remain which would not necessarily be removed by the passing of this Bill.

There are some distinctive Scottish aspects of law which might not be dealt with in a United Kingdom Bill in Scotland. I want to put three points on record as an introduction. A mother, although unmarried, can bring proceedings for maintenance of an illegitimate child at any time until that child reaches the age of 16. The second point is that both father and mother are liable to maintain that illegitimate child, according to their means. With a legitimate child, on the other hand, the primary duty is on the father. As a result, it is possible in theory for the father of an illegitimate child in Scotland to obtain maintenance from the mother. The third point I want to emphasise is that the consent to marriage is not a requirement of Scottish law. There are other objections to which I want to refer relating to specific points in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool went through the Bill in a fairly cursory manner. That is expected in a Second Reading speech. But there are strong arguments against the provision in clause 7 (2) that the presumption that a married couple are the parents of a child born to them may be rebutted if another man simply signs a statement that he is the father and submits that statement to the registrar. That seems to me an indefensible proposition. It is not made clear how the signer of that letter is to satisfy the registrar that he is the father. He simply signs a letter saying that he is. I mention that to show how loosely and carelessly the Bill is drafted.

Clause 2(2) would have a particular effect in Scotland, if not in England and Wales, which I should like to outline. At present no Scottish court has the power to order the taking of a blood test to establish parentage. To introduce this in the context of a Bill to deal with illegitimacy would inevitably create an anomaly in relation to the law governing parentage in general. In that law, illegitimacy is not the main issue—for example, in proceedings for maintenance or divorce or even in criminal proceedings for rape.

Clause 2(2) leaves it unclear what weight the court would be expected to attach to blood test evidence. Clause 2(1) provides that the rules of court in cases involving the establishment of a child's parentage

" shall be…similar in all respects to those applicable in matrimonial or consistorial proceedings."

Those words seem contradicted by subsection (2), which introduces a new procedure inconsistent with the present rules.

I mention those specific instances of drafting to show that the Committee stage of a Bill such as this would be likely to be prolonged and controversial. That is no reason of itself why the Bill should not be given a Second Reading, but I am profoundly concerned about the impression being given by the sponsors of the Bill that this is a simple matter of writing down "No child shall now be regarded as illegitimate, irrespective of what any other law says." I am afraid—I say this regretfully—that it is not as simple as that.

Some subjects can be properly handled by Private Members' legislation. The Licensing (Amendment) Bill which we have just considered was one such. But these sensitive, emotive and complex problems—I hope that I have made it clear that I profoundly agree with the intentions of the sponsors: no one would question for a moment their sincerity or motives—are better dealt with in a comprehensive Government Bill, leaning heavily on the advice, guidance and recommendations of the two Law Commissions which are now dealing with these matters, one in England and one in Scotland.

I hope that the reports of those Commissions will not be long delayed. If the Bill has done anything to expedite their completion, it will have served a useful purpose. I hope that whatever party comes to power after the next election will deal with this matter as a matter of urgency and will introduce a comprehensive Bill. I am assuming that the Scottish aspect will be dealt with if and when there is an Assembly.

Meanwhile, the whole field is so covered with mines that it had better be dealt with by the appropriate bodies, the respective Governments—whether by one in Westminster or by one in Westminster and one in Edinburgh. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something of the progress that the Law Commissions are making and when he thinks that their conclusions will be forthcoming.

This is a vital subject. The welfare of children should concern us all. Yet, apart from the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), on the Opposition Front Bench, not a member of any of the Opposition parties is present. Despite the difficulties of a Friday—of getting to constituencies and so on—it is supremely important to have expressions of opinion from all quarters of the House on a vital subject such as this.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) has seized the initiative, as one would expect, to present a Bill with the laudable object of removing the legal disabilities of children born out of wedlock. I am sure that everyone will applaud that object—including hon. Members opposite, if they had been here.

I am afraid that I missed many of the important observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), but I did hear the last part of his speech when he talked about the Labour Party and Keir Hardie and the importance of giving the Bill a Second Reading. I must join issue with him. It is doubtful, to say the least, whether a subject of this kind can be adequately dealt with in a Private Member's Bill. I know that in such Bills one seeks to cure difficulties and to overcome problems, even if only in the interim. But it is important to be practical, however much we may talk about our ideals and desires in the Labour Party to help people by reference to Keir Hardie and our predecessors.

A Bill to abolish the status of illegitimacy must give rise to all sorts of consequential issues. This Bill, despite its merits, cannot do so. Family law, particularly as it relates to illegitimacy, is complex. The Law Commission is now reviewing the law of illegitimacy. I am told that the studies are well advanced. A working paper has been prepared which I gather will be published in the next few weeks. That obviously must be the basis for considerable public discussion.

It is common ground that the status of illegitimacy should be abolished and that any legal disabilities suffered not only by the illegitimate child but by the father of such a child should be removed. I understand that such recommendations are likely to be made by the Law Commission. In that way, the objects which the promoters of the Bill heartily desire will be achieved.

It may be asked why we should delay, but we have waited years for legislation of this kind and it is surely better to await the consequences of the Law Commission report, which will be the product of the most detailed study, than to risk going ahead with a Bill which, I hope to show, is defective in certain respects.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool will surely acknowledge that the Government have done a great deal to improve the position of illegitimate children. Under the Family Law Reform Act 1969, for instance, illegitimate children inherit on their father's intestacy. There is also the Council of Europe convention on the status of such children, which was signed in 1975 and which will be ratified shortly. The fact that the Government are behind the Law Commission review which is taking place during the tenure of this Government is an indication of where the Government's sympathies lie.

I turn to the provisions in the Bill. Clause 1 is declaratory. It states:

" Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, whether contained in any statutory order or rule of law, a child born out of wedlock shall have and enjoy rights, privileges and duties identical in all respects to those of other children."

The title of that clause is "Abolition of illegitimacy." Will the clause have the effect that its title suggests? Will it deal with all cases? I doubt it. I am certain that in some cases it will not. It is true that clause 4 might remove the disability to acquire United Kingdom citizenship. But nothing is said in the Bill about the requirement of a putative father to establish paternity.

To establish paternity so that citizenship can be established automatically for a child born abroad, safeguards are needed. Without such safeguards there might be abuse. Immigration rackets might develop. I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok considers that matter. It is important.

One must remember that at present the illegitimate child can acquire United Kingdom citizenship through its mother. Clause 7(2) contains a rebuttal of the presumption that a man married to a woman at the date of conception, or, when the mother has been unmarried, until the date of the birth of the child, is the father of the child. Thus, the unsupported evidence of one man would deprive the child of his legitimacy. That is a serious matter, particularly when a child is born as a result of artificial insemination.

Let us examine clause 2(2). It gives power to a court to order blood tests to be taken to assist in determining parentage and provides that such tests should be used as evidence. This applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. But there is no provision for the person upon whom the test is made to give his consent. Already there is some provision in this respect in the Family Reform Act 1969.

There are a number of legal disabilities in England and Wales which are not dealt with in the Bill and which, despite the general wording of clause 1, would cause great difficulties. I take as an example affiliation proceedings. They are subject to special procedural rules. How are they to be dealt with? Can an illegitimate child inherit on the intestacy of a grandparent, a brother, a sister or a more remote relative? Can he succeed in the case of an entailed estate? What about the rights of guardianship, custody and access, even where an affiliation order is made against the parent? What about the father's agreement to adoption or to marriage?

I mention these matters not out of a desire merely to argue and to raise difficulties. It can be said that some of these points can be dealt with in Committee. I accept that. But there are so many difficulties that, in my view, it sets at nought the general statement in clause 1—" Abolition of illegitimacy." I mention these matters to illustrate, however sympathetic one is and however much one desires to join wholeheartedly in the objects of the Bill, the vital necessity for detailed examination of the problems in all their aspects.

This matter cannot be dealt with satisfactorily in a short Private Member's Bill, however meritorious that Bill may be. In spite of the impassioned words of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool and his general remarks, surely he must recognise that we should be practical. Surely it is wiser, as I have urged and on grounds which I have described in detail, to await the report of the Law Commission.

I understand that amendments will be required to at least a dozen enactments. I understand that that is the view that the Law Commission will put forward. If that is so, how can this short Bill manage to deal with these matters? I understand that the report of the Law Commission will contain more than 50 recommendations. If the Law Commission, after the most detailed study of the matter, produces a paper on which there can be public discussion, and if those 50 recommendations are to be considered, how can my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok possibly suggest that this Bill can deal with the law as it stands and achieve the object that we all want contained in the title to clause 1?

If my hon. and learned Friend had done me the courtesy of listening to my speech rather than absenting himself, he would have known that I emphasised that I am inviting the House to affirm the principle contained in the first clause so that we can help the Law Commissioners in their various options. I have made plain that it is a question not only of words and sympathy but that the House wants the total abolition of the status of illegitimacy.

I apologise for not having been in the Chamber when my hon. Friend delivered words to that effect. But there is a great deal of difference between giving a Second Reading to a Bill, sending it to a Committee and having it examined in detail, and the expression of opinion which shows that the House is wholly in favour of the Law Commission's objective of attempting to abolish illegitimacy.

Surely it is better that the public, the Law Commission and everybody else should know that no one in the House dissents from the view that we should do everything that we can to abolish illegitimacy. We shall not achieve that through a Bill which is defective in many ways and which does not deal adequately and in detail with the situation. That should be left to a working party report. Then, on the basis of public discussion, the Government should promote a Bill which sets out and adopts in detail the recommendations of that working party.

I put forward that view in the hope that my hon. Friend will accept it as a sincere and genuine attempt to deal with this problem. I congratulate him on one point—on providing the House with an opportunity to discuss this matter and to show what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool wanted, which was that the House is in total agreement with the desire to abolish illegitimacy. I suggest to him, with respect, that, in the light of what I have said, he should withdraw the Bill.

The growing number of illegitimate persons in this country suffer from one great disability. It is all the greater because it is not their fault. There is nothing they can do to remedy this handicap. There has been a universal expression of desire to see that they are not thereby disadvantaged more than circumstances compel. At one stage I thought, although I now think that I was wrong, that I detected in the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) a desire that they should have the benefit of what I think is called reverse discrimination. But having listened to his entire speech I think that I was wrong.

The classic case for reverse discrimination comes in the great monologue of Edmund in "King Lear" when he is contrasting his position as illegitimate with the advantages of legitimacy possessed by his rather priggish half-brother Edgar. He said

" Why brand they us

With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?

Who, in the lusty stealth of nature, take

More composition and fierce quality,

Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,

Go to the creating a whole tribe of fops,

Got 'tween asleep and wake?—Well, then,

Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land ".

That is perhaps the classic case of reverse discrimination, but I do not think that the hon. Member went so far as to say that the illegitimate were in any way superior to the legitimate. The disadvantages and, indeed, the horrors that illegitimate persons used to suffer, and still do to a great extent, reached a pitch in the treatment of Ramsay MacDonald in the First World War. Anybody who has read Mr. Marquand's book on the life of Ramsay MacDonald which showed how he was attacked between 1916 and 1918 in the national press for being illegitimate must be ashamed at the conduct of that campaign.

The trouble is that we can all say things like that, but, as the last two hon. Members who have spoken have pointed out, it is extremely difficult to remedy the problem for this reason. So long as succession, whether to property, to position, or to nationality, depends upon the blood, then the uncertainty surrounding the provenance of so many illegitimate children makes it extremely difficult to treat them in the same way as the legitimate.

Of course, there is often uncertainty surrounding the provenance of the legitimate, and perhaps the struggles of the Duke of Monmouth and the battle of Sedgemoor illustrate that. But where there is illegitimacy the uncertainties are liable to provoke litigation and worse in large measure if all we are going to do is, as I fear is sought to be done by clause 1, simply to say that illegitimate equals legitimate, and that is all one needs to know. That will not achieve the degree of certainy which succession by blood requires.

The hon. Member for Pontypool added yet a further difficulty, a difficulty from which past ages never suffered and one which adds a new and frightening dimension to this problem. It is artificial insemination by third paries. The hon. Member's solution for that did not much appeal to me. He said that one should, as it were, produce a fiction, that one should say that the blood was the blood of the husband when it obviously was not. I do not know whether that would be acceptable. So long as blood matters in our law, and I do not think that it ought to matter as much as it does, it seems that one must be consistent about this. The hon. Member's solution strikes me as inconsistent.

The uncertainties relating to illegitimacy—about who is the father and so on—were illustrated in the Act referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman)—the Family Law Reform Act 1969. It sought to give illegitimate children and the parents of illegitimate children the same rights as would be had if they were legitimate. It ran into very difficult times. Eventually a special provision had to be made that on the death of an illegitimate child who died intestate it was necessary to have a statutory presumption that he had not been survived by his father unless the contrary were positively proved. This presumption does not apply to legitimate children, but it was necessary to have that presumption because no estate of an illegitimate child would ever be wound up if inquiries had to be made of the far-reaching nature of those that so often have to be made about paternity. These would be so very difficult in the case of an illegitimate child who may himself have been of advanced years. Therefore, the special provision had to be put in if the estate of an illegitimate person who died intestate was not to be permanently held up from distribution.

That is one example where this House has already recognised that one simply cannot say that legitimate equals illegitimate. There are many others. I am sure that the Law Commissions for Scotland and for England will deal with this. My attitude, if I may speak for my hon. Friends, is that although we shall in no way obstruct the progress of this Bill—and unlike the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington I do not think that the bringing forward of this Bill is in the least reprehensible, because it is a perfectly legitimate propaganda exercise—

I did not suggest that it was reprehensible to bring the Bill forward. I merely said that this was an area for which a Private Member's Bill was not advisable.

I apologise. Perhaps I said the same thing in rather more violent language. I do not take that view. This is a perfectly legitimate area for a Private Member's Bill, and, furthermore, it is legitimate to put it forward in the form of what one might call a manifesto rather than a Bill, which is what has been done. This is a legitimate use of the vehicle, and I shall certainly not oppose its Second Reading. But I think that the promoters know, as we all know, that it will not get on to the statute book. It is an expression of collective will, and is none the worse for that.

I am one of the sponsors of the Bill. I believe that it is entirely right that the stigma should be removed from those who are born out of wedlock. The Bill begins with the statement

" to Remove the legal disabilities of children born out of wedlock."

That is important for the people of this country.

I am the father of a happy family of four children, and have happily enjoyed married life for the past 11 years. It is intolerable that because a person has been conceived out of the nuptial bed he should be stigmatised as illegitimate or a bastard.

With permission, I shall read a letter to The Times dated 25 February 1918 by Mrs. Irving, the daughter-in-law of Sir Henry Irving, the great actor:

" Sir, Mr. Galsworthy, in his article in today's Times on ' The Nation's Young Lives,' strongly advocates the adoption of widows' or mothers' pensions, and the proper protection and care of unmarried girl mothers and their illegitimate children. His words are opportune. No amount of Welfare Centres can do anything radical to help the children of widows or those born out of wedlock, until the State has awakened to its grave responsibility for their welfare."

The State should even today awaken to its great responsibility for the welfare of those born out of wedlock. It continues:

" I have, within the last two days, been present at a meeting of a committee of women Poor Law Guardians in one of our great provincial cities."

By Jove, we have changed since then.

" They were engaged, no doubt unconsciously, in a game which for want of a better name, I must call girl-baiting, I saw a young expectant mother cruelly handled, and tortured with bitter words and threats; an ordeal which she will have had to endure at the hands of four different sets of officials by the time her baby is three weeks old. These guardians told her, in my presence, that they hoped she would suffer severely for her wrongdoing, that they considered that her own mother who had treated her kindly, had been too lenient, and that her sin was so great that she ought to be ashamed to be a cost to self-respecting ratepayers. They added that the man who was responsible for her condition was very good to have acknowledged his paternity, but expressed belief, nay, rather the hope, that he would take an early opportunity of getting out of his obligation. Meanwhile, a pale, trembling girl, within a month of her confinement, stood, like a hunted animal, in the presence of such judges.

We pray constantly in our churches for ' all women labouring of child, sick persons, and young children, the fatherless, the widows, and all that are desolate and oppressed', and yet we continue this oppression of the desolate. Yours faithfully ".

I trust that we are not doing that today. Therefore, I commened the Bill to the House.

It is difficult for me to follow the literary and dramatic renditions of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) and of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). Their speeches were interesting, well presented and pertinent to the debate. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) on introducing this measure. I also praise the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who set out eloquently and fairly the disabilities of those born through no fault of their own out of wedlock. I also compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on his most moving speech. He has always shown tremendous concern for social reform and has contributed as much as anybody and more than most to achieving measures of social reform. His cautionary remarks about the Bill must be taken seriously. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), who is most respected for his legal knowledge, also pointed out many of the legal shortcomings and consequences if the Bill were passed today.

I should like to express at once the Government's broad sympathy with the aims and objects of the Bill. That is not a mere expression of words but a genuine and deep-felt sympathy with the sincerity and motives of those who have promoted the Bill. Although in recent years many of the antiquated and unreasonable disabilities imposed by the law on illegitimate children have been removed, some disabilities remain. I am not talking of social disabilities, as regrettably no Bill can solve those.

It is the Government's view, borne out by measures that we have introduced, and also the view of any reasonable and impartial person, that any of the remaining disabilities that can no longer be completely justified—and there are few that can—should in principle be abolished. There is in this country a growing distaste for all forms of arbitrary discrimination. Discrimination against an individual based on the circumstances of his birth is in most people's view not only outmoded but abhorrent, unjustified and totally unfair.

The sympathy of the Government is not merely a matter of unemotional and sympathetic statement. It is a matter of fact. There are many examples on the statute book of the removal of disabilities. There are also current initiatives by the Government both domestically and internationally. Hon. Member after hon. Member has referred to the Law Commission. The Law Commission is undertaking a comprehensive examination of family law. It is including in this an equally comprehensive review of illegitimacy. The Commission set up a working party in October 1976 to consider the law on affiliation proceedings. I am happy to say that that has led to the preparation of the draft working paper to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington referred. It is hoped to publish that within the next few weeks. That paper will comprise a deep, searching examination and analysis of the whole subject of illegitimacy and will put forward many provisional proposals.

In accordance with the Law Commission's usual and correct practice, that paper will be widely circulated and will be followed, when sufficient time has elapsed for the expression of views, by a report, incorporating, it is hoped, a draft Bill. The Law Commission's initiative has the full support of the Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool knows that very soon the Law Commission is to hold a seminar at All Souls college. Indeed, I think that he has been invited to attend and take part in that seminar. Therefore, he will know that the Law Commission is treating this matter seriously and urgently and that it is anxious to have the maximum consultation and discussions on the impact of its proposals.

As my hon. Friends may know—indeed, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington referred to this matter—the United Kingdom has signed the Council of Europe convention on the legal status of children born out of wedlock. Its object is to establish that the legal status of children so born should be assimilated with the legal status of those born in wedlock and to provide a stepping stone for harmonising the laws of member States on this question.

I hope that it will be clear from what I have said that the Government are at one with my hon. Friends the Members for Pollok and for Pontypool in wanting to bring to and end the surviving inequalities, injustices and unfairnesses in this area. I hope that they will also accept that the Government's record in this sphere is good and honourable.

The disabilities, disadvantages and personality difficulties caused by illegitimacy have been outlined by several speakers in the debate. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen referred to them. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to dwell on them. Equally, it would be a disservice to the House if I or anyone else were to give the impression that, however passionately we may want to get rid of the disabilities brought about by illegitimacy, one simple statement of that fact in a Bill could bring it about. It cannot. If we are to abolish all the legal distinctions between children born in wedlock and those born out of wedlock, a far more comprehensive measure than the Bill before us will have to be introduced. The Bill will need massive changes to achieve anything like the objectives which the promoters hope for it.

I think that it is my duty to indicate some of the general difficulties and objections inherent in the Bill. I shall illustrate some of those objections by reference to particular instances.

It is true that illegitimacy is an extremely difficult and complex area of the law. That is not just my view or the Government's view. That is the view of any lawyer who has examined the problem, and it is certainly the view of the Law Commission. That view will be made abundantly clear when the Law Commission's working paper is published.

The position of illegitimate children and their parents is material and impinges on other Acts which are already on the statute book. That is a hard fact, but it is true, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington was right to point out. If we were to pass this measure, we should have to examine closely and minutely many other pieces of legislation already on the statute book to see what changes were required in those Acts. The Law Commission is supremely well qualified to undertake that work. As the House knows, the Law Commission has the assistance of legal experts, sociologists and, perhaps most important of all, people who have first-hand experience of the difficulties, unpleasantness and embarrassment to which illegitimacy gives rise. In other words, the widest possible consultations and discussions will have to take place before the full consequences of a measure attempting to deal with the inconsistencies and anomalies brought about by illegitimacy can be put on to the statute book.

Another objection is that, although I have said and repeat that the Government support the principle of the Bill, there are elements of controversy in almost every aspect of the lay on illegitimacy. We need to consider most carefully all the consequences of abolishing the present distinction and to decide whether the principle of abolition should brook of no exceptions at all or whether there may be some circumstances in which abolition would produce an unjust result—a result which the promoters of the Bill and the House would not wish to bring about. That is very much a matter for discussion not only in the House but outside.

We need to know far more about the state of public opinion on what I might call the contentious or controversial aspects. We need to consult public opinion in order to help mould the legislation. We often pass Bills which we are told, when they reach the statute book, do not have the force of public opinion behind them. On that ground, the Law Commission's initiative is bound to be helpful fruitful and of great value.

The third objection that I have to put to the House is perhaps of a more technical nature, but it is, none the less, of great importance. It is plain that if we start with the proposition that the distinction between legitimacy and illegitimacy should be abolished, the law will need to be amended—and pretty dramatically. By that I mean not only specific provisions relating solely to illegitimate children but also, and equally important—I think that the sponsors must also understand this—provisions relating to legitimate children. In other words, the changes would have to deal not only with the disabilities of illegitimate children—the disabilities which have been outlined in speech after speech, and which all of us in the House agree ought to disappear—but also with the privileges—I use that word very loosely, but perhaps it is the only word which properly describes what I am trying to say—of the legitimate.

But it goes further even than that. One cannot deal with the position of children in isolation from the position of their parents. Changes in the law, if changes were to be made, would have to take account of the rights and duties of the fathers and mothers as well as merely seeking to change the position of children. This is not only a complex matter but also, obviously, a controversial matter. When one is attempting to change the status of parents in a situation in which there is probably a strained, difficult and sensitive relationship between them anyway, the complexities can be immense, and they should not be underestimated by the House.

These, in general terms, are the objections which I seek to put to the House on behalf of the Government to too hasty legislation on this highly difficult subject. But I must give some particular examples to illustrate what I mean. Perhaps I may refer to the present position of the father of an illegitimate child. He has no automatic right of guardianship, of custody or of access. His agreement to the adoption of the child is not required. His consent to the marriage of the child where the child is under the age of 18 is not required. He cannot be registered as the father without the mother's consent. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool pointed out many such disabilities.

If the child is to be treated exactly as if he had been born in wedlock, which is a proposition which the Bill aims to achieve, it might follow that the father should have certain rights which he does not now possess—rights of custody, rights to give consent, and so on. Indeed, I took it that that is exactly what my hon. principle has far-reaching consequences principle has far reaching consequences. It certainly has consequences for the mother. The mother may not be at all happy that a father who was, perhaps, not in any way kind or compassionate to her would have rights of this sort. Admittedly, she would be able to ask for the court's intervention on her behalf, but one of the objects of the Bill is to prevent women from being put in that embarrassing position. Therefore, this sort of consequence of a massive change in the rights of the parents of illegitimate children has to be considered, and the Bill does nothing to make clear what those rights will be.

In his erosion of the Bill, I trust that my hon. and learned Friend is not resiling from the central principle that the legitimate and the illegitimate child should have the same rights. I am distressed by what he has just been saying. A mother in a guardianship dispute at present with a legitimate child may be very distressed about it, but the court protects her. Is my hon. and learned Friend in any way coming back from the position that the paramount consideration in all these matters, well decided by the courts and, indeed, by the House in recent Acts, is the long-term welfare of the child? In order to make his point, why does he illustrate a position in which already, with legitimate children, all these problems arise? He is really attempting to justify discrimination in some way by saying that an unmarried mother could be put into difficulties which already a married mother is put into when it comes to questions of guardianship, for example, which he is citing.

My hon. Friend is really being very unfair in suggesting that I am in any way trying to erode the Bill, or that I am less passionately concerned to get rid of the discriminations from which illegitimate children suffer than he is. He does not have a monopoly of concern in this matter and I am sure that other hon. Members feel as strongly about it as he does. However, I would be failing the House if I did not inform it of what the consequences of the Bill would be. Those happen to be the consequences. My hon. Friend cannot deny that they happen to be the consequences. He cannot deny that it happens to be a matter that could produce a controversial result. The House ought to know that, and these matters ought to be properly debated and the public ought to be given an opportunity to comment. That is all that I am saying.

Let me illustrate my point about some other possible areas of controversy. Clause 1 would have the effect, amongst others, of giving a child born out of wedlock the same rights on the intestacy of a relative as a child born in wedlock. That may well be right. Personally, I think that it is right. But it might possibly be thought to be contrary to the wishes of distant relatives, such as grandparents, uncles and aunts, that on their intestacy an illegitimate child should benefit. Again, it is vital that the Law Commission should know the state of opinion on a matter of this kind.

I come to another example and turn to the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool interrupted me. How far should the law go in giving the father of an illegitimate child the same rights as the father of a legitimate child? It may or may not be right that they should have joint custody with the mother, rights of access or rights of consent. I am sure that many mothers would say that such fathers should not be given such generous treatment. My hon. Friend is not being honest with the House in attempting to suggest that these are problems which are easy to solve.

Is the Minister saying that the views of grandparents about grandchildren who are born out of wedlock are important? Is the hereditary principle important to him?

No, it is not of the slightest importance to me and I am strongly opposed to the hereditary principle. However, it would be ridiculous to suggest that there are not grandparents who might be concerned. This is a far-reaching proposition and I have a duty to put it to the House. I cannot pretend that it does not exist.

I should like to give some other examples of the effect upon the general law. Married parents can make agreements concerning their parental rights which are enforceable if they are for the children's benefit. However, unmarried parents cannot make such agreements. Therefore, there is a need to consider whether enforceable agreements about parental rights should be retained, bearing in mind the residual jurisdiction of the court to decide what is for a child's benefit. There may be a case for amending the general law. That would be another amendment to the general law and not the law relating to illegitimacy.

In law, the domicile of the illegitimate child is with the mother, whereas the domicile of a legitimate child is with the father. If one adopted a general principle, the domicile of a child born out of wedlock should be with the father. However, it is arguable that, since the father of an illegitimate child very often has little to do with that child, because of the nature of the relationship, the child's domicile should remain with the mother. Therefore, the equalisation of the position of legitimate and illegitimate children would be best achieved by providing that in all cases the domicile should remain with the mother—and again that would mean amending the general law.

I shall not express an opinion about the desirability of either of those courses, but I put the matter before the House because I feel that it should be given close consideration. It reaches far into all aspects of law and should be given weight by the Law Commission. Obviously, the Law Commission would wish to hold consultations about the matter.

I turn to some of the provisions of the Bill. My objection to the Bill is that, far from its being too wide, it is too narrow in its scope. The long title speaks only of removing "the legal disabilities" and does not mention "connected purposes"—the usual all-embracing formula for widening the scope of a Bill. It does not mention other changes in the law that affect the family.

If the Bill were to receive a Second Reading, the House would be endorsing the mistaken principle that the law should be changed only in respect of the rights of illegitimate children. That endorsement could tend to limit what all hon. Members wish for—the movement towards wider-ranging reforms.

I shall not discuss clause 1 in detail, but neither that clause nor any other amends the Acts that affect illegitimacy. The Government do not believe that to be a safe or convenient way to legislate. It would mean that, whenever one is faced with an Act about the rights or duties of children, one would have to consider whether it had become obsolete. That would be a massive task. It is not easy to plough through Act after Act in Committee in order to decide the consequences.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that children are children and that nothing else matters? Is not that the important thing? Whether or not they are illegitimate all that matters is that they are children and that they are all born of parents.

I agree with absolutely everything that the hon. Gentleman said, but, unfortunately, Acts happen to be on the statute book. There happen to be a whole range of other measures. It is no good the hon. Gentleman raising his head and nodding. I did not put them there. Previous Parliaments have put them there, and they impinge upon matrimonial law in its widest sense. They would have to be dealt with. That is a fact. I cannot help it.

Clause 2 concerns procedure and evidence, which has been dealt with by several hon. Members. The only point I ought to make is that subsection (2) makes a major innovation by providing for compulsory blood tests, or by enabling the court to order blood tests, for the purpose of establishing parentage. Many people would find this a controversial measure. It would be something entirely new. I would be very hesitant indeed about legislating for compulsion of this kind, however important it may be to establish the facts of paternity. It may well be that that is what the House wishes, but it should not pretend that this is not a controversial, far-reaching measure which would have to be thought about very carefully before it was enacted.

Clause 4 deals with the maintenance of children born out of wedlock. I want to say a few words about this. The clause provides that, where a question of maintenance of or by an illegitimate child arises, no law shall apply which is different from that which applies in respect of any other child. I take it that this clause is intended to abolish the special provisions relating to applications for maintenance for an illegitimate child that are contained in the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957. These include the fact that under the 1957 Act an applicant must be "a single woman", either at the time when the child was born or when she makes her application. Under that Act her evidence must be corroborated, and her application must normally be made within three years of the child's birth.

In addition, affiliation proceedings can only be brought in a magistrates' court and the court's powers are limited to the making of an order for weekly maintenance, which cannot extend beyond the age of 16 in the first instance, although it can be continued for a further two years.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool pointed out, both in his speech today and in his interesting article in The Guardian, these provisions clearly place an illegitimate child at a disadvantage. The Government recently introduced a number of improvements in the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978. The Act which my right hon. Friend hopes to bring into force later this year will allow the courts to order the payment of a lump sum not exceeding £500 in affiliation and other family proceedings in magistrates' courts. It will also allow the courts to order the payments to be made direct to the child, which may have a tax advantage, and will allow a maintenance order made in affiliation proceedings to extend to the age of 17 or, in special circumstances, to any age that the court thinks fit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool said that no fresh order for maintenance could be made in respect of an illegitimate child after he has reached the age of 18. That is correct, but the Bill will not change that position. Such an order can be made only in matrimonial proceedings, and clause 4 will not allow an illegitimate child to benefit from such proceedings because the mother will not be married to the father. I know what my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok wishes to do, but the Bill will not achieve his aim.

The Government deliberately refrained from going any further in the 1978 Act because they did not wish to anticipate the results of the Law Commission's review of the law relating to illegitimacy. The difficulties in doing that are well illustrated by the Bill. I do not want to criticise clause 4 further, but much more substantial provisions would be needed in order to achieve the objectives of the Bill.

Clause 5 enters the minefield of nationality law. Its broad aim is to provide that a father should be able to transmit his citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies to his illegitimate child born abroad, in the same way as he can to his legitimate child. The nationality law is complex and is based throughout on the relationship between a father and his legitimate child and there would probably be other consequences that would need to be studied carefully.

The hon. Member for Louth takes a great interest in immigration problems and he ought to realise what could be the consequences of clause 5.

I note the problem, but I believe that any child of an Englishman should be allowed to come to this country while those who are not children of Englishmen should not have an automatic right of entry. Whether the sons or daughters are illegitimate is irrelevant.

Under the law as it stands, illegitimate children born in this country automatically become citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies at birth. The ability to transmit citizenship to children born abroad is confined to men and their legitimate children. Clause 5 would allow a father—not a mother—to pass on citizenship to an illegitimate child born abroad. That has far-reaching consequences that ought not to be dismissed lightly.

Is the Minister saying that in endeavouring to deal with the problems of illegitimate children we shall suddenly be confronted with hordes of illegitimate children coming into this country from abroad?

I recognise the need for a ministerial speech, but the comments of my hon. and learned Friend would be more appropriate in Committee and I deplore his suggestion that we are creating an additional problem on immigration. Such a suggestion does not become him.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool should feel that way. However, if I did not point out some of the consequences I should be criticised for not doing so. My hon. Friend is quite unfair to make that point. I did not say that this Bill created an immigration problem, nor was I talking about hordes of people coming into this country. It is an unfair, unjust and mean point to make, and it is an exaggeration. I do not accept what my hon. Friend said at all. In his desire to get the Bill on to the statute book, he should not try to misinterpret the views or the words of someone who is merely trying to put to the House what the consequences are.

The problem of illegitimate children born abroad has mainly been a problem for mothers who, quite naturally, would like to pass on their citizenship to their children. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 7 February that a woman born in the United Kingdom would normally be able to have her child made a British citizen. That includes, incidentally, her illegitimate child, and not, as my hon. Friend said, merely her legitimate child. It gives her the right to have a child registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies. This has to a large extent dealt with the problem. I hope that that also firmly establishes that what my hon. Friend said in his intervention was totally wrong and in very bad taste.

The Government totally approve the spirit of the Bill and the motives of the sponsors, who have made such sensible points in its favour. I do not dispute what they are trying to do, but the scope of the Bill is too narrow. It does not cover a whole range of questions affecting parents, and also affecting illegitimate children as well as legitimate children. It would require a massive carpentry job—to use an inelegant phrase—if the Bill went to Committee.

My hon. Friend knows very well—it has been said over and over again—that the Law Commission is about to produce a most comprehensive report on this matter. In fact, I think my hon. Friend has seen the report—I do not think that is a secret. He knows how far-reaching those proposals will be and he cannot deny that many of the consequences that would flow from this Bill, if it were passed today, would be far-reaching over a whole range of other aspects of the law.

I am as concerned as my hon. Friend that all the disabilities that affect illegitimate children, all the embarrassments that they have to go through, all the consequences that many of them still have to suffer, should vanish, preferably at a stroke and certainly as soon as possible. I only wish that this Bill would achieve that, but the reality is that it would not. I wish that I were in a position to recommend the Bill to the House. I cannot, however, do so, much as I praise the motives of the sponsors, as much as I am in favour of their intentions and as much as I want to see the disabilities of illegitimacy disappear for ever from this land. However, I do not think that this Bill will achieve that.

I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central that the best thing we can do is to wait for the Royal Commission's report. We can then have proper consultations and, I hope, a Government Bill which will be far more nearly all-embracing than the Bill before us, to do away once and for all with all the unpleasantness of illegitimacy and the inconsistencies that it has caused over the years.

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

I seek through the Bill to protect the most vulnerable sector of our society—those who suffer from deafness and at the same time have to cope with the problems of old age. Within that sector, perhaps even more vulnerable are those who cope with both those conditions but who, in spite of a lifetime of work in the community, have very few savings.

Deafness is the only disability in respect of which slick advertising and smart salesmanship are the main elements used to secure commercial profit. Nobody ever seeks to make a profit out of selling white sticks to blind people. Nobody ever seeks to advertise and make a profit from limbs for sale for people who are disabled, people who do not have an arm or a leg.

In my view, deafness is probably one of the most harassing complaints from which a person can suffer. Apart from the hearing disability, in work and everyday activities deafness cuts off a person from human contact, neighbourliness, community and human relationships. I once had the privilege of meeting one of the most famous deaf people, the late Helen Keller, who happened to be both blind and deaf. She told me that, of the two disabilities, the one which she found the most difficult to cope with was her deafness. She felt contained within a wall and unable to meet the human personalities of the people surrounding her. I seek in this Bill to give some protection to this sector of the community.

In essence, my Bill is exactly the same as that which came forward for its Third Reading at the end of last Session after completing all its stages elsewhere in the House. In that connection, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), who led for the Opposition in the Standing Committee, for his help in amending my original Bill and in reaching a compromise solution which at the time was acceptable to both sides. The Committee stage of the Bill encountered a great deal of opposition. It was only after representations had been heard by the Committee, especially from the organisations representing deaf people, that in the end the measure was commended by the Opposition to Report and Third Reading in this Chamber as one which they wished well and to which they hoped to be able to give a fair wind.

I came out of the Committee stage with a sense of euphoria, having accepted the plaudits of the hon. Members for Pudsey and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). In the vernacular of the East End, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where I was born, you could have knocked me down with a feather when the Bill was blocked on Report. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) deliberately wrecked the Bill, and I still find it a little amazing. I am not one of those politicians who think that the Opposition have no sense of compassion or understanding for the sick, the disabled and the elderly. But that made it even more difficult to stomach when what I considered to be a Bill designed to help that section of the community, after securing a good deal of support from the Opposition, did not receive its Third Reading for procedural reasons.

The organisation concerned with people disabled by deafness were quick to rally to my support. I quote from a letter addressed to the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), whom I am pleased to see in his place, from the umbrella organisation, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. The right hon. Gentleman knows that under the previous Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the voluntary organisations concerned to help deaf people were gathered together in a national conference annually to meet the Secretary of State under the umbrella of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. After my Bill was sunk at the end of the last Session, the director wrote to the right hon. Gentleman saying:

" It is unfortunate that conflict has arisen over the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968 (Amendment) Bill. We do hope that there can soon be measures to regulate unscrupulous hearing aid advertisements. There are still too many misleading and exaggerated claims of what hearing aids will do and hearing impaired people represent a very vulnerable group."

I had not expected that the hon. Gentleman's Bill would be reached during the course of this afternoon. Does he recognise that in a subsequent letter to me Mr. Sydenham also expressed the view that, if it were possible, it would be better for these things to be dealt with by agreement rather than by legislation? He expressed that view in the context of the efforts being made by the industry to develop not only a code of practice but machinery to enforce it as possibly one way of achieving the hon. Gentleman's objective.

The right hon. Gentleman anticipates a further part of my submission to the House with which I hope to deal more extensively. The RNID also showed me a copy of that letter and I have been in contact with Mr. Sydenham and the chairman on these matters fairly constantly since that time. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, there have been moves, under the impetus of what happened last year, to do something along these lines.

It has been underlined that the purpose of this Bill remains necessary and relevant. Whatever way one seeks to achieve this purpose, there is no denying the need for something to be done. We have to consider whether my submission to the House is the best method. I shall seek to show that it is. After the campaigning that occurred last year, and having introduced the original 1968 Act—the only Act to which I have had the honour to put my name—I should not like to feel that I was taken for a ride in believing that what the industry and the hearing aid dispensers wanted was to enhance their professional status and to become professional in the same category as opticians and others rather than seeking to be placed on the same level as vacuum cleaner salesman.

It was in that belief that I managed to secure the original Act and get it on to the statute book. I do not believe that advertising of hearing aids necessarily enhances professional status. That is why this Bill seeks to deal with the problem. One of the objections to this kind of legislation, dealing with a quasi-professional and quasi-commercial concern, produced by Governments of all parties, is that it perhaps gives a coat of whitewash to practices that are hardly professional. It was because I was convinced of the integrity and the good will of the commercial sector providing hearing aids for those who suffer from deafness that I was happy to persuade the Government not to object to giving that professional status.

This Bill is an enabling Bill which does not ban advertising and contains nothing which has any immediate impact on the commercial practices of the hearing aid industry.

Advertisements need to be dealt with, because one of the most harmful things is to raise the hope of someone struggling with deafness who is in the depths of despair. The advertisement might say that, if only a deaf person spent £200, all would be well. I speak from experience. As the House knows, I am a deaf person. If I take my hearing aids off, I do not hear a word. We have looked for a miracle. If we thought that acupuncture would do it, we would go to China tomorrow. After being used to mixing freely in society, exchanging views and opinions and arguing, we suddenly retire into loneliness and into ourselves merely because of the embarrassment of having to say "I beg your pardon? What did you say?"

The main clause of the Bill seeks to deal with the problem of efficient, smartalec and dubious advertising giving hope to elderly ladies and gentlemen. They live in anticipation of getting their hearing back, only to find that the apparatus can only amplify sound and that if they suffer from sensory neural deafness it is unlikely to do anything more than give a louder confusion to the existing sounds.

The reasons for accepting the main clause in the Bill are supported by the following words of the director of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf:

" The wide advertising of the Hearing Aid Industry, considerably in excess of anything that has been undertaken in charitable and other social spheres, has served as impressive propaganda in claiming what an aid will do. We suggest, then, that this is a significant factor when assessing the public's attitude to deafness."

That is an important point. Deafness is not yet socially acceptable. No one minds that I wear glasses, but many are reluctant to appear in public wearing a hearing aid. The attitude is that one is probably past it, over the hill.

Even worse, in the past, the deaf person has been a bit of a joke—the old gentleman with the ear trumpet. The social attitude towards deafness, which is the least regarded of all the disabilities, because it cannot be seen, is informed by the least sympathy and compassion.

The RNID is saying that the advertising is part of the background against which to build up that social climate of opinion. That is why it is important to do something about the advertising. The director goes on to say:

" The public has seen references to ' implant technology ' / ' out of focus ' / ' like having new ears ' / ' hearing booster ' / ' poppit improver ' / ' inside hearing module ' / ' you are not deaf but want to hear a bit better ' / ' help nature to help you hear well again '."

The RNID has a dossier about 1½ in thick containing three months' advertisements from which those quotes are taken. All of those advertisements, and others, have been and are used in advertisements for hearing aids.

Gimmickry must not be linked with handicap. Deafness, which imposes so many communications barriers, as well as being misunderstood, carries with it a stigma. For that reason, few sufferers will admit to their hearing loss. Nobody knows that better than the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford. He and I have colleagues who have a hearing loss in one ear but nobody knows about it. We do not tell. On both Front Benches some Ministers and Shadow Ministers have hearing impairments but do not wear hearing aids. At a particularly awkward Question Time, such aids might be of help.

The advertisements continue to suggest that deafness is something which one does not admit. The RNID states:

" We represent a highly vulnerable group, receptive to misleading and exaggerated claims of what an aid will be able to do…Various words and phrases do not contravene the Advertising Standards Authority code, but the RNID is deeply concerned that many thousands of handicapped people have had their hopes dashed and their life savings taken after aids have been promoted in ways which cannot, by any standards, be deemed strictly or totally ethical."

Are there other ways in which we can deal with this incipient tragedy for ordinary people? I turn first to the Trade Descriptions Act. The only reason why clause 5 of my original Bill was omitted was because it was thought that the Trade Descriptions Act adequately covered misleading or difficult advertisements.

My Act went on to the statute book in 1968. I was not in a hurry to meet this problem. I have given it plenty of time to see what developed. The trading standards officers with local authorities—who used to be called the weights and measures men—were most involved in that legislation.

A letter which I received from one such officer states:

" I discussed this with our Medical Officer of Health who referred me to a university lecturer in Dundee who thinks that many of the claims for this sort of equipment are spurious and some of the vendors' methods are dishonest but he states that civil actions have always failed because the manufacturers produce experts who ' blind the courts with science '. Only a prosecution witness who has carried out a full range of tests would be likely to succeed."

This is because many of the advertisements rest in the vague area between what is possible and that which goes over the border.

This demonsrates how attempts to deal with the situation through the Trade Descriptions Act have failed in the last five years.

Let us consider whether it is possible to deal with this matter through the Advertising Standards Association rather than through legislation. The ASA backed this Bill. When the Bill failed earlier, I received a strong personal letter from the chairman of the ASA, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, expressing his sympathy and regret. He said that he hoped that I would reintroduce the Bill in a new Session. That Bill is now before the House. He went further. He said that he would consider it an honour to have the responsibility of piloting the Bill through another place. If the chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority thinks that this Bill is necessary in order to do the job, that surely is an indication of the need for legislation.

This is a highly specialised area of technology. One can have experts contradicting each other as to whether advertising is misleading or not. Therefore, the Bill proposes to put the vetting of advertising into the hands of the Hearing Aid Council. The council consists of six people from the industry. Five repre- sentatives of those who are disabled through deafness sit upon the committee. They include, for instance, Dr. Stephens, of the Royal Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital, Mrs. Freddie Bloom, who has done so much for children's deafness, Professor Coles, of Southampton university, and a representative of the British Association of the Hard of Hearing. There is also a representative of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf.

The point about the Advertising Standards Authority being the sole arbiter of these problems is satisfactorily answered by the way in which it has been prepared to support the Bill.

I come to the third aspect, which is that under pressure of the legislation passed last year the Hearing Aid Industry Association has sought to put its own house in order. It has established an advertising committee which commenced operations on 14 December. The aim has been to establish a small independent committee of three members to whom advertisements may be submitted by those who desire to submit them. The committee will consist of a professional arbitrator who will act as chairman, of a hard of hearing person who wears a hearing aid and who happens to be a barrister, and of a person with great experience in advertising practice but not involved in advertising.

The procedure for dealing with hearing aids is contained in a six-page document which lays down certain codes. If the codes are not observed, the matter goes before the independent committee, which then has a chance of cleaning up the mess. The people who will receive the advice will be those who are doing the advertising, because the Hearing Aid Industry Association is in the main the representative body of the large advertisers in this industry. At the end of the day, whatever the advice they receive from their committee, they are judge and jury in their own cases.

The blocking of my Bill last year made a nonsense of the claims of Tory Members about the need to help small businesses. On advertising, small businesses are 100 per cent. behind my Bill. The large firms are opposed to it. They are the main and powerful interest in the Hearing Aid Industry Association, which is seeking to make its own decisions on that.

There has been a great change over the past 10 years. There are now seven large firms, Scrivens, Ultratone, Amplivox, Ingrams, Hidden Hearing, Ardente and, since 1 January, an amalgamation called Seatons/Moss. Between them they employ 60 per cent. of the dispensers of hearing aids. The remainder are the small one-man businesses, the man in the High Street who has a hearing aid centre and who has a personal relationship with his patients.

The Guild of Hearing Aid Dispensers was disappointed about my Bill last year, and its strong support consoled me. The only opposition came from the seven big firms, and they have the largest number of so-called trainees who do the doorstep selling. The small business has no need to advertise. One of these small men, hoping to see the success of the Bill, says:

" I am a self employed independent hearing aid dispenser with established premises as above for the past 18 years."

It is important that there should be such small businesses to which one can go when one's hearing aid does not work, instead of the salesman who comes to the doorstep. He continues:

" I have been of the opinion for some considerable time that all the advertising that should be necessary is one's name and address stating hearing aid dispenser."

That is the position of opticians under the Opticians Act 1958. He says:

" any dispenser being established for any length of time and conducting his business in an ethical way should not have to resort to advertising, my business has survived and will continue to do so through the recommendations and good service of my patients of the last 18 years, there has been and still is advertising which tends to give the public a misleading impression as to the merit or otherwise of certain hearing aids, the sooner this matter is dealt with the sooner we will be accepted as a professional body whose interest is more than just selling an instrument."

That is from Luxitone, which is quite a long way from my constituency in London.

The seven large companies are the big advertisers. Under the present advertising system there is a coupon that one can fill in to send for a free booklet. Within 24 hours a trainee is on the doorstep trying to sell a hearing aid. The cost of production of hearing aids is between £30 and £32. The top selling price is £220. So the profit is a great inducement to maximise one's salesmanship techniques. The two firms which spend most on advertising are Scrivens and Ingrams. I should be surprised if both those firms do not now spend well over £100,000 per year on newspaper advertising alone. The last figures that I saw are out of date. Naturally, it is difficult for someone in my position to get accurate figures.

What emerged clearly from the Price Commission report was that the high cost of aids rested on the amount of promotion and selling that has to be done to persuade people to wear these unacceptable things. I submit that the other ways of controlling this practice are totally inadequate.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection for the recent change in the code of practice of the Hearing Aid Council. That means that after 1 January 1981 the practice of being able unsolicited to knock on doors and go into a salesmanship act to persuade elderly people to buy hearing aids will cease. After 1 January 1981 it will be an offence to do that, unless there is a specific invitation to call.

I think that things are moving in the right direction, but this Bill is necessary if we are to get the kind of vetting which is needed in this area. It is not that there will be an immediate ban on anything. As I said at the outset, this is an enabling measure. If advertising is ethical and does not go over the bounds of raising false hopes, there will be no interference by the Hearing Aid Council. It is only on the borderline that intervention will take place.

One of the six people who will decide these cases works for Scrivens. If anyone knows about advertising, he should. I am happy that these people, who know something of the technicalities, shall sit in judgment on these advertisements. They know the naughty boys in their own industry. Of course, I pay tribute to the good boys in the industry. They have rendered a magnificent service, not least to hon. Members. I wear a hearing aid. I think that at least a dozen hon. Members have approached me at one time or another for advice. In consequence, I have directed them to one place or another where I know they will get ethical treatment.

I have dealt primarily within the Bill with the main purpose and bone of contention between myself and the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford but I have taken the opportunity to include other small matters which need tidying up.

First, the cash penalties and limits in the 1968 Act do not bear much relationship to cash values today. Therefore, I have suggested alterations in that respect.

Secondly, there was only one discipline—to be struck off the register. I have sought to alter and bring that down.

The last point concerns interpretation. It is unnecessary to add anything about Northern Ireland, because the Interpretation Act 1978 covers that aspect.

I commend the Bill to the House. Those who suffer from deafness get little recognition and understanding. That is all the more reason why we in Parliament should accept our responsibilities and provide recognition, understanding and protection.

The Government support the Bill because there is a gap in the law in this area. It is not for the House or the Government to try to regulate advertising. The Bill will give the Hearing Aid Council, upon which the industry and consumers are represented, the opportunity to make the kind of code which will be acceptable to the industry as a whole. I think that that is the best way of dealing with the matter. It has been extraordinarily successful—

Will the Minister give way?

It has been extraordinarily successful with the Advertising Standards Authority and it is the kind of procedure which should be adopted by the hearing aid industry. Therefore, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Object.

Object.

What day?

On the instructions of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 9 March.

Object.

What day?

On the instructions of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 4 May.

Object.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

I am glad to have this chance of drawing attention to the impact of rising fuel prices on the less-well-off. After the most severe winter for at least 16 years, the joys of spring will be tempered for many householders throughout the country by the arrival of shockingly high fuel bills. Indeed, my inquiries of citizens' advice bureaux and neighbourhood centres in London have shown that this process has already started.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy repeatedly tells us that the problem of fuel poverty—that is, people who are unable to afford adequate heat and light in their homes—is new. That may be so, but it will be horribly real to many thousands of families after this winter.

The explosion in fuel bills caused by the oil price increases since 1974 coincided with the Government's decision that fuel boards should in future charge full economic prices to their consumers. The result has been a disaster for many poorer families. For example, electricity prices more than doubled between December 1973 and June 1976. Although subsequent rises have been less dramatic, they have continued inexorably. The problem will certainly not get any easier. Indeed, it is now widely accepted that fuel costs will again double in real terms by the end of the century.

The impact is obviously hardest on the least-well-off, who spend a higher proportion of their income on fuel. Electricity prices are a particular burden on the poor. Thousands of council tenants, often pensioners and low-income families, are locked in to expensive and often exceedingly inefficient electric heating systems. They have no possibility of switching to gas or to solid fuel. From my constituency experience, I know that many pensioners, scared stiff by the thought of massive bills, simply disconnect their underfloor electric heating and try to manage with Calor gas or paraffin, with all the problems and risks that such heating can involve. I know, too, of pensioners living, eating and sleeping in just one room because that is all they can afford to keep warm.

In my constituency, I have seen far too many parents with young children who are quite unable to afford proper heating throughout their council flats. Bedrooms are left cold, with the inevitable spread of condensation. I have seen young children condemned to sleep in bedrooms thick with black fungus and mould growth and dripping with water. The official council response is always the same—the solution is to plug in electric fires and open the windows. That is, no doubt, technically correct, but to a poor family it is quite impossible. One might just as well tell them to keep warm by burning pound notes.

The Government's response to this real and pressing problem of fuel poverty has, I am afraid, been piecemeal and as yet inadequate. The size and scope of the hardship being suffered is not yet fully understood in the well-heated corridors of Whitehall. For example, the electricity discount scheme is welcome, but it goes nothing like far enough. I am glad to see that its extension to those on rent and rate rebates has increased the number claiming discount, but it gives no real help to those dependent on solid fuel—and that includes many pensioners—or to those dependent on gas for their heating systems. We also know that gas prices are likely to increase by another 10 per cent. this year.

I echo the judgment of the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Professor Donnison, who in December said of the electricity discount scheme:

" Receipt of housing benefits is a rough guide to income and hence need, and as an ad hoc scheme it cannot be regarded as any basis for continuing help with fuel bills ".

There is also the code of practice on disconnection, which has just been reissued in a revamped form. It is certainly a step in the right direction, but for many consumers it merely puts off the evil day when their supplies are cut off. At the end of the day, those who cannot pay their bills, or who do not qualify for assistance, are still disconnected, even if they have young children to care for. After 1 April even pensioners can be cut off. The code of practice does not, therefore, give the sort of universal protection that is often claimed for it.

Once people are cut off, far too little information is available about what happens to them. It is all very well for fuel boards to say comfortingly that most consumers are reconnected quickly. The available evidence shows that many are not. For example, the chairman of the Electricity Council tells me that 17,500 domestic consumers were without electricity, having been cut off, for periods of more than a month in 1977–78.

The chairman of British Gas reveals that 18,500 gas consumers were cut off for periods of more than two weeks during the seven months to 31 October 1978. The South-Eastern Electricity Board figures show that in March 1978 a total of 20 per cent. of domestic consumers who had been disconnected remained without supplies for a month or more. By September 1978, that figure had grown to 35 per cent. To deprive anyone of electricity for such a period is surely to deny him one of the essentials of civilised life as most of us know it.

I wish to refer to the help available to supplementary benefit recipients. The size of the problem of fuel poverty can be seen from the fact that in November 1977 more than 1·4 million exceptional circumstances additions were being paid to supplementary benefit claimants for heating at a cost of about £17 million. That compares with an estimated 1·25 million additions a year earlier.

It is surely ridiculous that extra payments for circumstances that are supposed to be exceptional should be given to about half of all supplementary benefit claimants. The number involved surely shows that we should stop relying on discretionary additions and move towards payments as of right to help people pay for the heat and light that they need.

Even with the heating additions, many families on supplementary benefit simply cannot pay their bills. In March 1978, 120,000 supplementary benefit claimants were being saved from disconnection only because part of their weekly payment was being deducted and paid directly to electricity or gas boards to cover current bills and something off their arrears. The average payment was £3·53 a week for electricity consumers and £2·83 a week for gas consumers. However, 21 per cent. of all those involved in direct deductions were suffering weekly deductions of £7 or more.

There have also been cases in which the sums required by the fuel boards have been considered too high even by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. In those cases, nothing can be done to prevent disconnection or to enable families to be reconnected.

The concentration on supplementary benefit cases is unfair to low-income families who do not receive supplementary benefits. About 64 per cent. of households in the lowest one-fifth of household incomes do not get supplementary benefits but may need help with their heating costs. For example, in 1976, about 300,000 households had a breadwinner with earnings below the supplementary benefit level and 900,000 people who are estimated to qualify for supplementary benefits do not claim them. Those are the people who are not getting the help that they may need with their heating bills.

Even within the supplementary benefit sector, the present arrangements work against young families. Two-thirds of supplementary benefit pensioners were receiving heating additions in 1977 and they received between them 80 per cent. of all the additions that were paid. Obviously pensioners are at risk when they cannot afford adequate heating, but so too are young children, and, indeed, the long-term effects on health may be even more serious for them.

The Government have introduced an insulation programme and have made available £80 million for this year and next year for the payment of grants in the public and private sectors, but the householder still has to meet a proportion of the cost. That means, in practice, that the poor, the handicapped and the elderly, often living in the draughtiest homes, are the least likely to benefit.

The Government have powers in the Homes Insulation Act to launch a more generous scheme aimed at the groups in most need, and I hope that they will do so well before next winter.

A number of other steps must be taken to reduce these problems. Fuel boards could do more by making "pay as you burn" schemes more widely available. Some poorer consumers would much prefer the compulsory budgeting of a prepaid meter to the sudden shock of a quarterly bill. Too many boards are much too negative in their attitude towards the installation of such meters.

Most of the other easy payment systems operated by fuel boards for consumers involve regular visits to showrooms. That is not always easy for the elderly and the disabled. Even for the young, it can involve travelling costs to showrooms, most of which are now based in major town centres.

Why cannot we introduce a national fuel savings stamp, which could be on sale through post offices, as a simple and easy way of encouraging consumers to save for their fuel bills? Why on earth has it taken so long for the electricity industry to carry out its tests on a system of self-cancelling token meters?

Whatever we do about easier payment schemes or codes of practice on disconnection, we must still face the central fact that too many people just cannot afford a proper standard of heat and power in their homes.

Professor Donnison suggested a scheme for fuel rebates to concentrate cash help on low-income households in the same way as for rent and rate rebates. That certainly has attractions, but it also has drawbacks. It would be yet another means-tested benefit with all the problems that we know so well of bureaucratic administration and form-filling which make our existing benefits such a jungle for those they are meant to help. Moreover, it would add yet another element to the poverty trap, which makes it almost impossible for poorer families to improve their position.

Something must be done. The problem will not go away. Indeed, all the signs are that it will become worse. One of the difficulties of finding an overall solution is the multiplicity of Government Departments involved—the Department of Energy, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection and the Department of the Environment—all of which have their own legitimate interests. These differences have helped to create our existing fragmented approach when what we need is an overall strategy to solve the problem of fuel poverty.

I should have thought that this was an excellent subject for study by the Central Policy Review Staff—the Government's Think Tank. I am particularly sorry to hear today that the Secretary of State for Energy has rejected that idea on the ground that there is already adequate co-ordination between the Government Departments involved. That is certainly open to argument. But even if it were true, it is depressingly clear that the present policies of the Government are inadequate to solve the problem.

In his foreword to the energy policy review produced in 1977, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy said that one of his objectives was to ensure that everyone could afford adequate heat and lighting. From all the evidence I have in my constituency, and from contacts all over the country, it is absolutely clear that that objective is not being achieved at present. If we are to achieve it, the whole problem of fuel policy must be given a much higher priority in Whitehall than it is currently given. I very much hope that in his reply my hon. Friend will be able to give some evidence that the Government now recognise the seriousness of this problem.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) on his excellent presentation and on the cogency of the facts which he has provided to the House. He has drawn attention to a very serious problem, and I hope that I can show him that the Government are very well aware of the nature of the problem and are taking action to deal with it, although I accept that at the end of the day the action that we are taking may still fall short of the very high standards which my hon. Friend wishes us to adopt.

If the House awarded prizes for difficult questions, my hon. Friend would certainly walk away with the jackpot. I doubt whether there is any area of Government where the conflicting demands of economic and social policy pose more difficult problems. I cannot bring forward a simple and straightforward solution to cope with the problems he has raised and, indeed, I do not think anyone could. What I think I can undertake to prove is that the Government have shown by their record that they are deeply concerned about the problems and have done their best to meet them.

The Government's policy on nationalised industry pricing was set out last year in the White Paper on the nationalised industries, and it naturally took account of economic forces. We live in a world where energy is scarce and expensive and we cannot isolate ourselves from that world. The Government believe that the prices charged by nationalised energy industries should reflect, for each fuel, the cost of supplying that fuel. This does not mean failing to recognise other factors, but it does involve taking into account limitations on the growth of public expenditure, the unfairness of indiscriminate subsidies favouring the rich as well as the poor consumer, and the importance of conserving energy. I do not believe that there is any alternative to this policy so long as we have a mixed economy, and it must certainly be the case that large-scale and continued price intervention in present circumstances would result in a misallocation of resources.

While I am on this pessimistic tack I ought not to leave out the prognosis. The Green Paper on energy policy published last year made it clear that the average level of energy prices must be expected to rise, perhaps doubling in real terms by the year 2000. On a more contemporary note, the National Coal Board has just announced its intention to increase domestic solid fuel prices by an average of 9 per cent. in November, while stressing that the outlook at present is particularly uncertain. As my hon. Friend indicated, British Gas issued a statement yesterday announcing its intention to submit an early application to the Price Commission for increases in gas prices to meet the financial target set by the Government—though the statement makes it clear that the increases will be designed to maintain the level of gas prices in real terms as had been recommended by the Government. The electricity industry's proposals have yet to be placed before the Price Commission, and the position on domestic heating oils is uncertain.

My hon. Friend may well feel that so far I have merely underlined his case and stressed its urgency. I want to deal directly with his point, but first I hope my hon. Friend will acknowledge that, in general, consumers' ability to meet their fuel bills has not declined over the past 10 years or so. Indeed, the cost of energy grew more slowly over that period than incomes, including pensions and suppltmentary benefits. The sharp price rises of the mid-1970s, which were necessitated by the previous Administration's arbitrary policies of price restraint, have not been repeated. More recently, fuel price rises have been broadly in line with the general level of inflation. The increase announced for 1979 should also do no more than maintain real price levels. Furthermore, over the longer term the effect on consumers will of course be offset by the growth of real incomes and by the more efficient use of energy.

What is, however, certainly the case is that the Government recognise the special problems of fuel and recognise the way in which the difficulties of the less-well-off, which my hon. Friend has highlighted, conflict with fuel pricing policy. Fuel, or rather the heating, cooking, and lighting it provides, is as essential as food but more difficult to budget for; not easy to control, particularly where there is illness or unsatisfactory housing; and may come in particularly expensive forms on account of the vagaries of supply or heating installation.

There is of course a world of difference between recognition of a problem and doing something about it. I say flatly that the Government can claim that they have done something about it under the headings of energy conservation, special help with energy costs, and social policy help.

I deal first with energy conservation. In the past 14 months two schemes have been introduced to assist with the thermal insulation of dwellings. Their primary objective is energy conservation, but they will benefit the less-well-off by reducing the amount of fuel needed to provide a given level of comfort.

The 10-year programme for insulating public sector housing which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced in December 1977 is well under way. Under the programme, over 2 million public sector dwellings will be brought up to a basic standard of thermal insulation, and this will have major social benefits. A total of £28·5 million was allocated for the scheme in the current year, and loan sanction of over £100 million is available to local authorities in the first four years.

In private sector housing, the homes insulation scheme was introduced in September 1978. It provides for payment of grants of two-thirds of the cost—subject to a maximum payment of £50—for providing basic insulation in houses with no existing roof insulation. Either the occupier or the landlord may apply for the grant. The initial response to the scheme has been very good, and barely two months after its launch it was necessary to make additional funds available to meet demand in the current year.

The scheme is operated on a first come, first served basis, but the local authorities that administer it have been requested to make every effort to bring the scheme to the attention of the elderly and the disadvantaged, and to assist them in applying for a grant. As for the public sector housing scheme, it is for the local authorities to decide on priorities, but they have been asked, within this general discretion, to give priority to the special needs of the elderly and the disabled.

The Homes Insulation Act includes a section enabling the Government to introduce a special scheme of help for the elderly, the handicapped, the disabled and those unable to afford their share under the original basic scheme. When will the Government produce a scheme using the powers in that section?

I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer now, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to his question, which is not directly for my Department.

I turn to the high running costs associated with some electric heating systems. Two years ago the Government set up a joint working party with the local authority associations, where problems of this sort could be considered. The working party has now issued two advice notes for housing authorities on electric heating, which my hon. Friend and I know is the most expensive form and the one which causes the most problems.

The first advice note explains the factors that should be taken account of when installing electric heating in new dwellings. Among other things, it stresses the need for high levels of insulation and suitable design and layout. The second gives advice on what action housing authorities can give to help reduce running costs to tenants in electrically heated dwellings and lists the main insulation and heating measures which can be applied.

Secondly, I come to special help with energy costs. The electricity discount scheme has been running for three years. It consists of a discount—25 per cent.—on electricity bills over £20 for those on supplementary benefit and family income supplement and, from this year, those receiving rent and rate rebates. The last two years' schemes have also included a flat-rate minimum payment of £5 for all those receiving supplementary benefit or family income supplement. We expect to spend £45 million on this.

Turning now to social policy help, the supplementary benefit scale rates, though not divided up into separate amounts for different commodities, cover all day-to-day living expenses, including heating. Last November, the long-term rate of supplementary benefit payable to pensioners and those under pension age, excluding the unemployed, in receipt of benefit for two years or more was up-rated in line with the rise in earnings, that being greater than the rise in prices, whilst the ordinary rate was increased by reference to the rise in prices. To the extent, therefore, that fuel prices are reflected in the retail price index, beneficiaries are being protected.

Additional heating may be needed, however, because the recipient or dependant suffers from poor health or restricted mobility or because the accommodation is damp or difficult to keep warm, and, in such circumstances, heating additions—which can provide up to £2·55 extra a week and more in very exceptional cases—are payable to supplementary beneficiaries. Taking into account last November's increase, the heating additions will have risen by well over 40 per cent. in two years. This increase allows for rises in fuel costs and leaves a margin for future price rises. The number of these additions has more than doubled in three years so that about 1½ million are now in payment, and all that can be done is being done to ensure that everyone who is eligible receives one.

Although the scale rates are regarded as covering fuel costs, the Supplementary Benefits Commission makes lump-sum payments towards fuel bills in exceptional circumstances, for instance, where prolonged severe weather or serious illness has led to greater consumption than normal, or where money set aside for fuel has been used for some other purpose which the Commission would have met, or where a new form of heating has been installed and the claimant has not learnt to use it economically. There will be a number of people throughout the country covered by those three categories.

Since February 1976, measures have been introduced to help people facing disconnection of their fuel supply. The Supplementary Benefits Commission and the fuel authorities agreed arrangements under which people likely to suffer hardship—the sick, the old, families with young children—would not be disconnected if part of their weekly benefit was paid direct to the fuel boards to cover current consumption and a small amount towards the arrears. Fuel supplies are being protected in this way in more than 100,000 cases.

My hon. Friend mentioned the code of practice and a possible review. A recent short-term review of the code led to the publication by the industries in January of a revised plain language version. This is recognised as a great improvement. It is being publicised and distributed widely by the industries. Extension of the code to families with children under the age of 11—previously it was under five—is helpful. I know that suggestions have been made for wider extensions of the code, for example, to the sick and disabled, but the review is not yet over. A longer-term study now being started is sponsored by the industries together with the Electricity and Gas Consumers Councils. It is being carried out by the Policy Studies Institute and will examine in depth this and other issues which could not be covered fully in the short-term review.

The main aim of the code is to help people avoid the hardship of disconnection. There has been some success in this, especially through the moratorium on disconnections to pensioners in the winter months. As my hon. Friend emphasised, disconnections still take place. But I have to emphasise in turn that they are not in themselves a measure of hardship. Some people who can pay leave it too late. I do not know how many, but there are a number. The latest figures show that electricity disconnections are maintaining the lower level of about 80,000 a year to which they fell in 1977 following the introduction of the code and the DHSS arrangement with the fuel industries for payment of fuel bills by direct deductions from supplementary benefit. The latest figures from British Gas for 1978–79 show disconnections reduced by more than 15 per cent. on the equivalent period in the preceding two years.

My hon. Friend asked for information about people disconnected over longer periods. The reasons for such long-term disconnections may vary, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the issue will be among those specifically examined in the longer-term study of the code of practice.

I turn now to the future and the role of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The Commission is also conscious of the difficulty of those whose income is only marginally above supplementary benefit level—a point made by my hon. Friend—and whom it cannot therefore help, particularly the low paid in full-time work. The team of officials reviewing the supplementary benefits scheme have also looked at the question of heating and have drawn attention to the wider problem of fuel costs for all people with lower incomes.

The Commission has drawn attention to these problems in its annual reports and put forward the idea of a comprehensive scheme to assist those on low incomes with their fuel costs. This involves some serious problems, particularly of resources and priorities, which it is impossible for any Government to ignore. It would be wrong to encourage the House to believe that they are problems capable of an easy solution.

My hon. Friend specifically mentioned meters. This is something on which I am keen. I believe that if the availability of prepayment metres could be more widespread, it would help to resolve a large number, but not all, of the problems about which we are talking. The industries undertake to provide these for people having payment difficulties where it is safe and practicable to do so. Judgment of these criteria must be for them. But the revised code draws particular attention to this option.

In addition, the Electricity Council has undertaken research into consumer reaction to the idea of token prepayment meters on which results are awaited. This idea has both advantages and some drawbacks for consumers. My hon. Friend talked about other means of paying for energy. Examples like the sale of energy stamps at post offices have been examined by the gas and electricity industries with the Post Office. Some problems have yet to be resolved, but the idea is still under consideration. All this is surely not a discreditable story. Nor is it fair to say that further and more radical ideas have gone unconsidered.

My hon. Friend referred to liaison between Government Departments. The problem of helping poorer consumers to meet their fuel needs has a number of different elements and the interests of many Government Departments are involved. The problem cannot be seen in isolation from the Government's other policies and activities, and any course of action taken or proposed must be considered in that context.

However, I can assure my hon. Friend that adequate machinery exists to ensure that the problem will be examined as a whole and close contact takes place between Departments at all levels both on an ad hoc and on a continuing basis. My own Department has close contact with the Department of Energy on this matter since we are two of the lead Departments.

There is no simple solution to the problems my hon. Friend has raised. I hope that I have persuaded him and the House that the Government have not been short on action and that there is no warrant for believing that the Government will fail to cope in future with the growth of the problem my hon. Friend has raised and fairly emphasised in his remarks.