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

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may take Lords amendment No. 3.

These amendments relate to the commencement date of the Act. In simple terms, Lords amendment No. 1 provides that clause 1 shall come into effect one month after the date upon which the Act is passed. Lords amendment No. 3 provides that the remainder of the Act shall come into force on

"such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument"

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for the way in which he has proposed acceptance of the amendments. At the conclusion of the passage of the Bill it may be appropriate to say how well my hon. Friend has handled the Bill. It is one of the few Bills on the Order Paper today—the last day when the House considers Private Members' Bills—that will probably complete all its stages. It is one of the few Bills to which we have had amendments sent from another place. The fact that we are considering the amendments today reflects on the wisdom of my hon. Friend in choosing such a sensible subject for a Private Member's Bill.

It is worth putting on record the fact that the Private Members' Bill season this year has been distorted because many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have embarked upon a course that is totally unsuitable for the Private Members' Bill procedure. The one thing that we have learnt during the course of this long Session is that if Members introduce a controversial Bill the chances of its reaching the statute book are extremely limited.

When one's name is drawn in the ballot at the beginning of the Private Member's Bill season, it is no good choosing subjects below the navel about which people feel strongly. It is better to be wise and shrewd, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, and take the advice—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are discussing the Licensing (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, not the Private Members' Bill procedure. The hon. Gentleman may be right, but we should stick to the Lords amendments.

I apologise for having strayed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thought that, at the end of the season, your tolerance might allow me to review the whole of the Private Members' Bill season.

I turn to the amendments which have come from another place. I was sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth gave them only a short introduction. We are in a serious position when discussing the amount of notice that must be given before a minor drinking licence—one that allows wine with a meal —can be changed. Am I right in thinking that on one month's notice it will be possible to change that licence?

The amendment relates to the changing of a limited licence, for a wine bar, for example, into a full public house licence. Under the Bill, that will no longer be an automatic right. Magistrates will have the power to refuse such an application if they think fit.

Can my hon. Friend explain to what "one month" refers? I am concerned about the time that one will have to object. I understand that one can object to the change of a licence only at the annual brewster sessions. I cannot tie up the one month's notice with the fact that the brewster sessions are held only once a year. A change of status of a licence affects property values in the area and concerns many people.

I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has given up his Friday to take part in the debate. That shows his considerable interest in the subject. This part of the Bill will not come into force until one month after the Act becomes law.

I am grateful for that explanation.

I have a genuine interest in the Bill, not only because I am a sponsor, but because I used to practise at the licensing Bar. I learnt my practice at the feet of perhaps the greatest licensing practitioner the Bar has known, Mr. James Burge, QC, and in the early stages of my Bar career I edited the "Current Law Statutes" on the Licensing Act 1961. I have a close interest in the minutiae of the Bill and I want to ensure that we are doing precisely the right thing and to elicit the reasons why we are doing it.

Should not my hon. Friend declare an interest? He represents the famous town of Burton and I know that previous hon. Members for Burton always took the greatest care, when they spoke on licensing matters, to declare a substantial interest in the products of that town. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend can represent Burton without having some interest in the brewery business.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that I represent the greatest brewing town in the country and that I have to declare that interest. I am not slow in coming forward whenever the interests of my constituency are involved, but I hardly had time to declare my interest. I was coming to it, though not on this amendment, because neither the brewers nor the substantial work force in my constituency, whether involved in the production of beer or associated activities, is much concerned with whether the legislation will come into force

"at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed".

They are more concerned with other aspects of the Bill which I shall refer to at the appropriate time.

9.45 am

My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has done the House, the country and the brewing industry a signal service in bringing forward the Bill, but it is not apparent at first sight that it did not already adequately cover the point of the Lords amendment. Clause 1(3) provides:

"This section"—

which amends the provisions for the upgrading of on-licences—

"shall not have effect in relation to any application made under the said section 37 before the commencement of this Act."

Clause 4(2) provides:

"This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is passed."

It therefore follows that everything in the Act will come into force

"at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is passed."

It is not immediately obvious why another place needed to amend the Bill to insert the words proposed in amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 3, to clause 4, says:

"Sections 2 and 3 of this Act shall not come into force until such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument."

It appears that in relation to the second matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth is legislating he has been prevailed upon by another place to give the Secretary of State as much time as he wants before bringing into force the second part of the statute.

I hope that my hon. Friend will explain why it is necessary to change the basis of the Bill's timing in that way. If there is a good reason for the Bill not being implemented within one month of its reaching the statute book, I shall want to know why that reason does not apply to both parts of the Bill and not only to the part dealing with appeals.

The timing of appeals is a matter of less concern to the licensing trade Applications for a licence or the extension or revocation of a licence which are business matters of great financial importance to the businesses concerned, are heard before a magistrate's court of licensing justices, normally on the application of a lawyer.

If the case goes the wrong way for an applicant, the lawyer will advise there and then on whether there is justification for appeal. There does not seem to be any apparent reason for a delay in the implementation of that part of the Bill which deals with appeals. There does not seem to be any reason why the secretary of State should have to make up his mind what date the Bill should come into force.

However, an application for an extension or upgrading of a wine bar licence must be considered with care over a period. I can understand that there might be a need for the Secretary of State to give more consideration and decide the appropriate time at which that matter should be brought before the House.

I think that my hon. Friend has it the wrong way round, although I might be wrong. He should be giving the Secretary of State power to bring in the first part of the Bill at such date as he thinks appropriate because that deals with the upgrading of on-licences. He should ensure that the second part of the Bill comes into operation within one month of comes into operation within one month of its being placed on the statute book.

I realise that my hon. Friend is skilled in these matters. He said that the appeal would be handled by a barrister. What will happen if an appeal is lodged when barristers are on holiday? What happens if the one-month period begins when the courts are not sitting?

My hon. Friend labours under the misapprehension that members of the Bar work for set periods in the year. In the halcyon days of the last century, and in the years before I was privileged to be welcomed into the arms of the great legal profession, that might have been true. However, it is many years since the Bar conducted its operations before the courts according to the rigid timetable which my hon. Friend was brought up to believe in.

The barrister of today never sleeps. He is always on hand and has to be on hand to give all types of legal advice and to make appearances in court. I do not wish to digress, but there have been occasions when I have appeared in court on Boxing Day and Easter Monday. I have been telephoned on Christmas Day, even on Labour Day. I have been at work on days which the less-hard-working members of society regard as holidays. They are working days for the Bar. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham(Mr. Hogg), who has helpfully joined us for this legal debate—look forward to when the House is not—

Order. The hon. Gentle man said that he would not digress but he is digressing a little. Will he return to the question of the period of one month after the Act is passed?

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was led astray by the dulcet tones of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough(Mr. Kimball), who was making a valid point. I spent too long answering him. The short answer is that member of the Bar are always on hand to provide a service, as are solicitors. The law never sleeps. If it does, we are in trouble

I have made my point. A fuller explanation would be welcome. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has got it the wrong way round. The delay should be occasioned on the other part of the Bill. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has a sensible, reasonable and wholly justifiable explanation for what is, on the face of it, an extraordinary procedure.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on bringing his Bill so far and handling it with skill. The Government are content that the Bill should come into operation in the way proposed by my hon. Friend. I thank him and Lady Phillips, who sponsored the Bill in another place. It is a useful measure and it has been well piloted through its stages. It will correct several anomalies in the licensing law.

It is right that an applicant for a full on-licence should be required to provide to the licensing justices satisfactory evidence of need. It is also right that the justices and magistrates should be able to take into account social and environmental factors in granting special hours certificates which permit late night drinking when it is ancillary to the provision of music, dancing and substantial refreshments. The provision will be welcomed by many, not least by magistrates, the police and people who live in the vicinity of such an establishment and whose sleep might be disturbed by noise.

The Lords amendments should be accepted. Lords amendment No. 1 enables the provisions of clause 1 to come into force earlier than the provisions in clauses 2 and 3, which it is proposed should come into force by a commencement order. The amendment is in line with what is becoming normal practice. It allows for a month between the passing of the Act and its coming into force so that people who must comply with the Act have an opportunity to obtain copies of it. It has become a familiar grievance that legislation is passed without the printers being able to keep up. It is common sense to give people a chance to buy and read the Act before it comes into force.

The provision is in the Bill, so why do we need the amendments?

The amendment introduces a period of one month to give people a chance to read the Act.

There is a problem in taking one amendment in advance of another. Amendment No. 3 provides that there shall be a delay in bringing in the second part of the Act until the Secretary of State provides that it shall be put into operation. That is because the appeal procedure intended in the second part requires the Crown court rules to be amended; and that will take time. That is why the second part of the Bill will come into operation later.

My hon. Friend has done the job which I was about to do. Since the Bill is his and he is sponsoring the amendments, what could be more appropriate than that he should explain them for me? My hon. Friend has accurately described the reasons for the amendment.

It would be useful to hear from the Minister, not so much confirmation that the sponsor of the Bill has got it right, but some indication, as was given in vague terms in the House of Lords, of the use that the Government propose to make of the latitude given in the Bill. Lord Belstead said in the House of Lords that it was the Government's intention to bring the provisions, subject to commencement order, into force as soon as possible, or words to that effect. It would be better for us to have some more precise indication of the date that the Government think that the commencement order might stipulate—or at least a rough indication.

I cannot give a precise indication, but since we accept that this is a desirable and wise piece of legislation our feeling is that, once the problem of the adjustment to the Crown court rules has been carried out, this is something we should get on with. We support the legislation. I should have thought that the right answer was to get on with it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reassurance. The point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is not a superfluous one. There have been too many statutes recently—I cite the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act—in which commencement dates have been given and assurances have been made, yet, by the time the legislation commenced, it had to be changed. It is important perpetually to remind Ministers that these obligations to bring in, as soon as possible, commencement dates, are obligations that ought not to distort the will of Parliament, as has happened in the matrimonial causes procedures.

I take my hon. Friend's point. I think I can rely on him as a tireless watchdog, who says that he never sleeps in these matters, to keep the Government up to the mark. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth will also do so. These are sensible amendments and I commend them to the House.

I should like to support the amendment and to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). It is valuable that the amendment provides for a delay of one month before the statute effectively comes into operation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Burton, I consider that it is extremely important, in the first place, that people who will be affected by statutes of this kind should have the opportunity to obtain a fully printed and up-to-date statute. One of the problems facing people is that statutes change as they pass through this House and the other place. As a result, they do not really know what are their statutory obligations.

It is important that before people are required to comply with a statute, they should have the opportunity of knowing exactly what their statutory obligations amount to. Associated with that is the opportunity to take legal advice. Until the Bill is finally passed and receives the Royal Assent, it is extremely difficult for people who might be affected by this statute to know upon what question they should obtain legal advice. It is highly desirable that there should be this period of one month within which they can acquire the necessary legal guidance.

People do not concentrate their minds on legislation unless and until they see that they will be affected by it. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for people to say that the matter will be looked after by the noble Lords or dealt with on Report. They do not concentrate their minds until they realise that the matter is law. The one-month period contemplated by this amendment enables people who are likely to be affected by the scope of the statute to put their representations in written form, to communicate with their Members of Parliament and, if desirable, to communicate with my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his colleagues. That is a valuable safeguard because this House is always ready to look again at possible defects. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is also ready to look at possible defects in a statute. I give the warmest possible endorsement to the amendment. I hope that it will be accepted by the House without any criticism.

I want to say only a word about the Lords amendment. It is rather strange in the sense that, in the past, we have often said that where a process such as an application for a justices' on-licence, or any such application, begins, one got through before the gate was closed and the statute, which is already the law, shall not apply to any of the subsequent stages of that process, because it can be a fairly extended process. From some experience of it, I can say that the process can also be agreeable and amusing—

Or remunerative.

My hon. Friend makes a quite unworthy comment. There is no part of my legal practice that I have enjoyed more than licensing work. It has a certain bucolic atmosphere lacking from other aspects of it.

The process can continue for some time. One can appeal to the Crown court and so on. Even if we retain the words

"the commencement of this Act"

we are still in a sense exempting people from the new provisions for quite a long time.

My first reaction on reading the Lords amendment was "Is this not odd? Is this to be done for all sorts of things in future?" Will it not lead to a situation when one does not say that anything started before the Act comes into force shall be exempt from the new provisions but anything started before one month after the Act comes into force shall be exempted from the new provisions? This could be a precedent quoted on future occasions. I am not aware of any exact parallel hitherto.

This is not a very important matter, but it is an interesting proposal. I think, on balance, that it is justified in this legislation. We are dealing with a change in the law which will not get around all that quickly. There is an organisation of licensed victuallers that always resists any new application for a justices' licence. When one's client succeeds, as he always does, he joins the body and becomes one of the objectors next time. It is a most agreeable process, part of the bucolic atmosphere to which I referred. There is a trade organisation and knowledge of these impending changes gets around. There is nevertheless something to be said for the gap of one month. It ensures that anyone who did not know has a one-month better chance of knowing before putting in his application. It is a good amendment. I shall support it.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may take Lords amendment No. 4.

Lords amendment No. 2 provides a right of appeal where, under the Bill, the justices decide against an applicant for a late night drinking special hours certificate. Under the Bill, provision is made for magistrates no longer to have automatically to grant a special hours certificate for late night drinking until the same time as covered by a music and dancing licence. It was felt by representatives of those with such establishments as require these certificates that justice might not always be done by the initial court which hears the application and that there should be a right of appeal.

I have great faith in British justice. While I cannot help reflecting that half the time the learned gentlemen at the Bar appear to be wrong, I am sure that the justices are not often wrong. Certainly they are not wrong half the time. It is, however, a fair point that there should be a right of appeal against a decision. I was, therefore, prepared to accept an amendment setting out such a right. From the point of view of procedure, it was easier for that to be done in the Lords, and I should like to pay tribute, as has the Minister, to the help given by Baroness Phillips in steering the Bill through the other place. Their Lordships accepted the argument for a right of appeal, and Lords amendment No. 2 has that effect.

Lords amendment No. 4 is a consequential amendment which slightly alters the title of the Bill.

This Bill has had a chequered career through two Parliaments. There have been many stages to it but very few speeches on it. This is certainly the first time that I have opened my mouth on the subject, and I do so only to make one or two points.

First, I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on his perseverance in pushing the measure through and on the great clarity with which he has explained it to the House on this and previous occasions.

This Lords amendment was described by one noble Baroness as being technical. Of the four amendments with which we are dealing, it is the one which is least accurately described as technical. It is a substantial amendment, creating a right of appeal which did not exist before. Because in the past I have often been irritated when looking back at the manner in which this or that Bill has passed through Parliament, and not being able to find the basis upon which an amendment has been passed or the assumptions about it which were in the minds of hon. Members at the time, I believe that it would be right either for the sponsor of the Bill, or perhaps preferably for the Minister, to tell us how the right of appeal which is added to the Bill by the amendment relates to the right of appeal which normally exists in licensing matters.

I think, although I am not at all sure that I am right, that in respect of these new discretions in the hands of magistrates, this gives an exactly comparable right of appeal to the Crown court which presently exists for the discretion which magistrates have on other points. If I am right, let us have it said during the course of someone's speech so that if points arise on the issue in future we know the basic upon which the House has decided to pass the Bill.

This is a thoroughly sensible improvement. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has said, it is certainly not a technical amendment.

I should also like to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on the measure that he has introduced and on the excellent way in which he has handled the matter from start to finish. I should also like to take the opportunity of thanking Baroness Phillips for her contribution in the House of Lords.

My astonishment is as to how we ever let the Bill get as far as it did without noticing that apparently it deprived people who are concerned with matters dealt with in the Bill, in that it did not give them a proper opportunity to appeal, short of an appeal on a point of law to the Divisional Court.

With the benefit of hindsight, one can always blame oneself. One never likes to blame others. I took part in the earlier proceedings on the Bill. So preoccupied was I with the general principles that were set out in it, that I completely failed to notice on Second Reading that we were depriving those concerned with the operation of the legislation of a valid right of appeal.

10.15 am

Of course, an injustice would have been thought to have been done where an addition to the processes of the licensing law, which was a restrictive one, is introduced which does not provide for an appeal to another tribunal, as is provided by other matters contained in the Bill.

Of course, the position before the Bill was introduced was that the justices had to grant the upgraded licence, provided that the music and dancing licence and the suitability of premises applied. Those matters were not arguable. It lay at the discretion of justices to upgrade. That was the evil of the situation as identified, not only by my hon. Friend but by licensing practitioners and writers, notably Mr. Martin, who I am proud to say was educated at the same superb establishment as I was, the Brighton, Hove and Sussex grammar school. That is yet another connection that I have with this legislation which enables me to speak. I am only sad that that wonderful grammar school in Brighton became—

Order. I do not think that we can have that.

I have no wish to digress, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My sadness shall be buttoned up inside me for another more appropriate occasion.

The point made by Mr. Martin and other writers, which I observed when I read all the established writings and the authorities, and made my limited contribution to the understanding of the licensing law, was that that matter has been put right. Its object is to restrict, but we should not restrict without giving a right of appeal.

I am somewhat troubled by Mr. Martin. I am afraid that I do not know very much about Mr. Martin, nor the nature of the work that he has published. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us something about that man, together with his works.

Order. I do not think that Mr. Martin has a great deal to do with appeals in respect of special hours certificates. Perhaps we should listen to the views of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).

I am conscious of the fact that I mentioned the eminent and learned gentleman's name without saying anything about him. If I did so, that would add to the strength of purpose of the Bill. But probably the leading authority in this sphere thought it appropriate that this legislation ought to be introduced.

Would that be the Mr. Martin who is the secretary of the Lord's Day Observance Society?

Not that I am aware of. This is Mr. J. N. Martin, OBE, who is a solicitor and was formerly the Clerk to the Justices for the petty sessional divisions of Beccles, Blything and Lowestoft. He has devoted his life to the licensing practice and the informing of practitioners. He is, of course, well known to those practising at the licensing Bar as the editor of "Paterson", which is the leading authority. I am sorry for forgetting that my hon. Friend the Member for Granthan (Mr. Hogg) has moved on from the licensing practice to wider and—I hope—more remunerative areas, and has forgotten the name of the editor of the book.

I welcome the Bill, and I pay tribute to those who have introduced it. I have explained why this amendment is necessary, but I do not think—I say this with considerable trepidation and some hesitation—that the way in which it is to be integrated into the law is as tidy as it should be. I understand that the clause, which gives the right of appeal to a Crown court on questions of fact, is to become a part of section 81 of the Licensing Act 1964, which is a consolidation Act. That is untidy, and it is unnecessarily verbose. Section 21 of the Act deals with appeals. A lawyer advis- ing a client or a layman seeking to find out his rights will obviously look at the definitive Act—the Licensing Act 1964 —under the section on appeals. Therefore, he would expect to find the contents of this amendment in section 21 of the Act. But it will not be there. It will be included in section 81. Although I concede that anyone who looks at the statute for that purpose will naturally look at section 81, this is untidy, and we should not churn out ill-digested legislation—as Lord Renton reminded us in the report on legislation.

If this amendment had been an amendment to section 21 of the Act, it would have been simpler and shorter. Section 21, which specifically deals with appeals, states:

"Subject to subsection (2) of this section, any person aggrieved by any of the following decisions of licensing justices, that is to say—

(a) a decision granting or refusing to grant a new justices' licence or an ordinary removal of a justices' licence;

(b) a decision refusing the renewal, transfer or special removal of a justices' licence;

(c) a refusal to declare a provisional grant final or to affirm a provisional grant or to give consent, on the application of the holder of a provisional licence, to a modification of plans;

(d) the making of an order under section 19 of this Act;

(e) the refusal of a consent required under section 20 of this Act; or

(f) any decision as to the conditions of a justices' on-licence;

may appeal to quarter sessions against that decision."

The amendment uses over 100 words. If the amendment had been more appropriately included under section 21, a paragraph (g) could have been included stating "Any decision covering revocation of a licence under section 21 of the Act", and a paragraph (h) stating: "Any decision as to the conditions of special hours certificates under section 21 of the Act". That would have been far simpler.

As a non-lawyer, I am in some difficulty over this matter. The amendment states that:

"Only the chief officer of police may appeal against a decision."

Section 21(1)(a) to (f) does not deal with the position of the chief officer of police. Can my hon. Friend give some guidance

Order. We are dealing with this Bill, and not with the 1964 Act. The hon. Gentleman must not be tempted to digress too much from the amendment.

I take your indication, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is relevant I am merely making the specific technical point that instead of using over 100 words which are appended to the wrong section, 30 words might have been used concisely, and added to the appropriate section of the Act. It is a simple point. I do not wish to detain the House by dilating upon it further, but I ask the Minister to consider my suggestion.

I also welcome these amendments, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I am a little astonished at the complication that has been necessary to introduce a right of appeal.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) invited the Minister to explain the background and circumstances. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has now found out what the amendment is about, and no doubt in due course we shall be given an explanation. This is a remarkably cumbrous way round. Perhaps it was felt in another place that this was the only way of proceeding, because the principal Act could not be amended in the way that my hon. Friend suggested, which would be shorter and more convenient. In principle, I welcome the amendment. It was a remarkable omission that a right of appeal was not incorporated in the Bill, although I do not criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for that. A right of appeal is necessary in these cases.

10.30 am

Occasionally one gets some odd licensing benches. They are always interesting, but sometimes odd. I remember one place, very near Teignmouth for which my hon. Friend is not the Member, where the licensing justices, holding strong evangelical views, had not granted a licence or an extension since the First World War. But this was one particularly strong case and they wrestled with the devil for about two hours before granting the licence. One knows that on a number of occasions idiosyncratic results emanate from licensing justices. Therefore, we must be able to go to the Crown court to know that there is scrutiny of them.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that not only are licensing justices sometimes idiosyncratic but that they are often selected from politically elected councillors? That being so, some areas have a political attitude to the control of licensing. For example, Conservative predominated areas have always tended to think that there should be no restraints, or a limited number of restraints, on the opportunities for licences to be granted and, as it were, that the applicants or licensees should fight it out amongst themselves for business. If they are not successful, they will go out of business. The successful licensees will make a greater contribution to the community than would otherwise perhaps have been made.

In other areas, there is a tendency to restrict and to control which is almost Socialist in its concept; that is, that there shall be just three licensees and anybody else who applies will not get in because that would take business away from any other licensee and the competitive instinct is removed. Therefore, it is not only idiosyncratic. In licensing policy and its application there is often a political policy-making slant. Because licensing is a legal matter, which should not in any sense be political, it is appropriate that appeals should be made to the Crown court which is in no sense political.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not being the hon. Member for Burton, I am not so well informed on these matters as my hon. Friend. What he said had a great deal of truth in it. However, I do not think that it is so much the political affiliations of the magistrates which produce the idiosyncrasies as their religious affinities. At least, that is what I have found. It is much harder to get a licence from a Calvinist bench than from a high Anglican bench. I speak as one of Calvinist background who has urged the House that people of that persuasion should not be compelled to wear seat belts because they believe in predestination. It may be that some of these convoluted theological arguments find their way into the apparently mundane subject of licensing although, I have always found it an interesting one.

There is a certain unpredictability about licensing benches. Therefore, one must be able to go to the Crown Court. When I say "one", I mean not only the applicant but the objectors, too, because they are affected. I suppose that a good deal of neighbourhood change could be affected by the extensions that we are considering—noise, people and so on. Therefore, it is important that both sides should have recourse to the Crown Court in a matter which never fails to excite a great deal of local interest.

Both before the magistrates court and Crown court, the witnesses are local people who usually feel quite strongly about these matters. When people on both sides give this kind of evidence—it is more an expression of opinion than evidence in the strict sense—and find the decision by the local bench odd, they do not feel that they have had justice. Therefore, they must be able to go—I say this without disrespect—to a proper court for a rehearing.

I once had the agreeable experience of finding that my tutor from Oxford of 30 years ago was a witness pressing for increased facilities for the consumption of alcholic liquor in the neighbourhood. I hope that agreeable tradition of Oxford is not changed by the influx of women which I have noticed with regret.

It gives me great pleasure to support Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 which are hinged on Lords amendment No. 2, although we are not positively discussing No. 2, I am sure that this will be an improvement in the law. I hope that one day we shall meet on one of these agreeable Fridays to tidy up the prolixity to which we seem to be committed today by the stage of proceedings at which the amendment is made. It will look absurd to have a section 81B in the Licensing Act conferring this isolated right of appeal on both sides in this long form.

I could say a good deal more about this matter, but I see that my hon. Friends are anxious to speak. Therefore, I shall not stand between them and their comments on the amendment.

rose—

Perhaps I may restrain my hon. Friend's eagerness for a moment. One point which struck me as odd was the restriction to the chief officer of police in appealing against the grant. The subsection then goes on to say:

"and a person"—

presumably it must be a chief officer of police because he is the only person who can—

"may appeal against a decision not to impose a condition…only if he has appeared before the licensing justices or magistrates' Court and made representations that the condition be imposed."

That seems odd if it applies only to refusal to impose a condition, not to the revocation of a certificate. I hope that the Minister of State will explain that extreme refinement. First, the person must be a chief officer of police, and, secondly, he can appeal only against refusal to impose a condition. Is one to infer from that he can appeal on a revocation matter even though the police were not present and represented in the magistrates' court? Is that the position? It is a little odd.

I look forward to a full explanation of this whole matter from the Minister. We are obviously going to get it, because my hon. Friend has been running back and forth between the Box and the Front Bench. I know that he is now fully briefed on all the implications, and no doubt my hon. Friends will refine the question.

I had not intended to intervene, but, having listened to the words of my hon. and learned Friends, I feel that certain aspects of what I thought was a simple and wholly unexceptionable Bill should be commented upon.

For those who are witnessing our proceedings or may later read them, will the hon. Gentleman say whether Conservative Members are filibustering against the Youth and Community Bill of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) or one of the other Bills that we may come to later in the day?

Order. I have listened carefully to the debate, and it is important that hon. Gentlemen should stick to the amendments on this Bill. We have a lot more business in front of us.

I shall follow your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) suggested that on occasions licensing benches were rather odd bodies.

But always interesting.

My experience is limited but practical, and I have found that they are very representative of local opinion.

Local opinion is often odd, although always interesting.

We may owe our presence here to the fact that the oddity of our constituents is closely allied to our own quirks. Therefore, we should not be too critical.

Representative though they are of local opinion, licensing benches embody the perpetuation of local opinion. Others who have a different opinion may not have a chance when appearing before licensing benches to get a new point of view accepted. It is important that there should be a right of appeal. The generality of decisions may be welcome and wise, but there are occasions when the exceptional view should be taken into account and given a right of appeal, which would bring an outside mind to judgment on the matter.

Certain appearances before the local bench have been almost automatic in the past. It may be that that should continue. However, there can be sudden changes in the representatives on the bench, in the police force or in the practice. It may seem unreasonable to those concerned that, although there has been no change in their circumstances, such changes should dramatically affect their living. It is only right that justice should be seen to be done by there being the right of appeal.

In view of my hon. Friend's comments, I felt that the position of local licensing benches, given the tremendous amount of valuable work that they do, should be put into perspective. Even though that excellence has been proved, there are occasions when the right of appeal is appropriate.

I support the amendment, and in particular the provisions for appeal.

I have the misfortune to differ in part from the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). He described applications before licensing justices as being of a judicial character. That is the theory, but in practice such hearings are more of an administrative character. Whether that should be so is largely irrelevant to the argument. To appear before justices is mainly to participate in an administrative function. That fact is important to the question of an appeal. Many justices sitting on licensing benches do not consider an application for such licences in a wholly judicial way. Indeed, I am not even sure that they should do so. They take into account broad questions of local policy, together with the views of the local community, as is right. However, it is not wholly judicial. The judicial process involves examining a question on its narrow merits, and forming an opinion on that narrow question.

If I am right in saying that what the licensing justices are essentially doing is carrying through an administrative process, one sees at once that the absence of an appellate procedure can cause considerable hardship to those affected by that decision. Frequently licensing justices refuse to grant a licence not because the applicant is in some way unsuitable but because in their opinion there is a sufficient number of licence holders in the immediate area.

The House will wish to understand the financial repercussions that can befall somebody whose licence is revoked or may be subject to repressive conditions. We are not talking about only a few hundred pounds. In many cases it is thousands of ponds. It is unsatisfactory that such a decision can be taken on administrative grounds and not be the subject of an appeal.

It is not for me on this occasion to digress on the wider implications of the problem. However, administrative decisions are too frequently taken without the ability to appeal. This is a useful precedent to which I hope the House will have regard in the future, when considering wider issues involving administrative law.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, if there are any changes in these conditions, and the landlord is a tenant and it is not a managed house, the brewery will still want the same rent from the landlord before there is a chance to change his lease? Publicans can be seriously affected by changes.

That is a valuable intervention. Not only could the landlord be affected, but also the tenant. There could be a change in the conditions that would make the business wholly uneconomic. The burden will fall not on the landlord but on the tenant, who will be contractually bound to pay the rent provided for under the tenancy agreement, although his income may be substantially reduced because of the conditions imposed by the licensing justices. My hon. Friend's comment emphasises the importance of the appellate procedure.

However, the argument for the appellate procedure goes much further. I have dwelt on the nature of applications before licensing justices and stressed that it is essentially of an administrative character. The amount of time devoted to such administrative decisions varies considerably from bench to bench and area to area. But frequently the amount of time devoted to the process is naturally very small. The courts are overburdened, they have many applications, and as a matter of fact licensing justices often hold the licensing sessions at the beginning of a full morning's business, and, therefore, are under considerable pressure to cut short the hearing. This is an important point because it means that the justices frequently—and no blame to them—do not have sufficient time to probe all the relevant considerations.

The existence of an appellate procedure provided by this clause introduced from the other place gives a court—in this case, the Crown court—an ability to consider the application in considerable detail in so far as it applies to a revocation of a grant.

Moving from the general to the particular, I should like to say something briefly about the second subsection in the new clause. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) asked an important question about the application of the new subsection. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will give a full description of what this subsection purports to do. My understanding of what it purports to do is that it gives to the chief officer of police, and only to him, the right to appeal against a decision not to revoke the certificate and a right to appeal against the decision not to impose a condition mentioned in paragraph (c). The chief officer of police has a right to appeal against a refusal to act in the specified ways, but no other person whatsoever has such a right. I understand that that is the effect of subsection (2).

The subsection goes on to say that in respect of decisions

"not to impose a condition under section 81A(1),"

any person may have a right of appeal provided that that person participated in the lower court and made representations. I understand that to be the effect of subsection (2).

I regard that as being a wholly sensible approach to this problem, for two reasons. First, I think that it is right that there should be some finality in proceedings of this kind. If we were to allow any person who might deem himself to be affected by a refusal to grant a condition or to revoke a licence, there would be a multiplicity of appeals and thus no finality. It is in the interests of justice broadly that there should always be finality on matters of this kind. Therefore, I welcome and support the restricted right of appeal.

There is the other point that, in so far as the second part of the new subsection is concerned, we should not have a situation in which people should be taken by surprise.

Hear, hear.

Therefore, I agree with the proposal contained in the second part of the new subsection that a person should be able to appeal unless that person appeared before the licensing justices and made his representations. The reason is that the person likely to be affected by the appeal must have at least some knowledge of the case which he has to meet and, therefore, is not taken by surprise. Therefore, I entirely support the proposal contained in subsection (2) of the amendment.

Turning to subsection (3), I should like some clarification from my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He may have some hesitation about giving that clarification but I hope, none the less, that he will do so, because I think that the House would like to know exactly the interrelationship between the provisions contained in subsection (2) and those contained in subsection (3). As my hon. Friend the Minister is hesitant, perhaps I could indicate to him what I think it means.

Subsection (3) does not touch on the right of appeal at all, but when an appeal has been mounted by an appellant it enables other persons who have views— such as interested Members of Parliament—to toddle along and make their representations to the appellate court. But that right, as I understand it—the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—is limited by an important restriction, namely, that they should have appeared before the licensing justices already and made those views apparent.

I am sure that the Minister of State will treat this as an important matter. It is essential that the House should appreciate the interrelationship between these two quite significant subsections. Therefore, I hope that he will take advice, if he needs advice, and tell the House about it.

There is also the question of costs. Subsection (4) contains an important provision dealing with costs. I have long held the view that magistrates' courts and licensing justices are not sufficiently alert to their powers to award costs to successful litigants. I do not wish to digress and, therefore, the point I make is very brief. It is very important that, whenever the licensing justices or magistrates have a power to award costs, they should exercise that power so as to prevent successful litigants from having to fund the litigation or the complaints which are determined in their favour. The higher courts, in particular the High Court and the county courts, have long held the rule that costs follow the event. I wish that the licensing justices and the magistrates' courts would, as a matter of practice, adopt the same approach.

That is the general proposition. Subsection (4) deals with an important situation which would not previously be covered. It is this. It is very easy for an application to be made before the licensing justices which gives rise to some form of decision, and that decision gives rise to an appeal. So one has an appeal to the Crown court, but, for reasons best known to the appellant, the appeal is not proceeded with. The respondent to the appeal is, in such circumstances, in rather a difficult position, because once the appeal has been launched he must prepare his case in order to meet the appeal.

Frequently in cases of this kind—and, as I have already emphasised, substantial sums of money are involved—the respondent to an appeal has to take expensive advice. I am not here referring to advice from people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. I have in mind advice from surveyors, estate agents, accountants, and so on—all of whom charge substantial sums, probably correctly, for preparing the respondent's case. But then one has the embarrassing situation of the appellant not proceeding with his appeal, and, therefore, there is no matter before the Crown court which can give rise to an order for costs in favour of the respondent.

So what this subsection does is to provide against that situation, namely, when the appeal has not been proceeded with but the respondent has incurred substantial costs, the respondent can go back to the justices' court and require an order for costs. That seems to be an important safeguard and it has the additional advantage of making frivolous appeals somewhat less likely.

Hear, hear.

Therefore, having considered this proposed new section with some care, having reviewed all its subsections, and having asked certain questions of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I think that I can, with a degree of confidence, recommend it to the House.

It is with some trepidation that I speak on this new clause. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)— who is also my political neighbour—for his lucid and erudite explanation. It is significant that two Members who represent the same county are involved in the consideration of this legislation. It shows how strongly Lincolnshire feels about today's Order Paper and this measure.

Although the electors in Grantham and Gainsborough feel strongly about the issue, I should hate to create the impression that we in Lincolnshire are a bucolic lot. We are not. We are worried about an increase in drinking outlets, not about their closure. At the end of March, a whole Friday was devoted to considering the eight P's of the countryside—the parson, the postmistress and so on. Among those people was the publican. Publicans are important because they keep local communities going. We in Lincolnshire suffer because we do not have the eight P's in the villages. However, I do not wish to create the impression that we seek an increase in the number of drinking outlets.

The other place has, as I understand it, but I am not a lawyer, prevented a grave injustice. My hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) are all trained in the law. As a layman, I was impressed when I heard them make clear that a grave injustice would have been committed if the Bill had not been amended.

Earlier, I misled the House because I did not have the benefit of the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. As a layman, I said that the licensing court sat only at the brewster sessions. I think that I said that one had only one opportunity of appealing to the licensing court. I wish to put the record straight. I understand that the licensing justices sit four times a year. The fact that an appeal can be made to the Crown court is an advantage as the Crown court is always available and is non-political. However, I shall not stray on to that subject as it has been covered well by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.

All hon. Members will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) as he has carried on the famous traditions of this House. He is willing to accept an important amendment that will prevent a major injustice.

The Government believe that it is only just that there should be a right of appeal to the Crown court against decisions made by the licensing justices and the magistrates in relation to restricting the operation and revocation of special hours certificates. Such decisions will affect not only the livelihood of the operators but also the environmental comfort of the community. The Government also think it right that all interested parties should enjoy the right of appeal. We find the amendment quite acceptable.

Several points have been raised during a spirited debate. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) asked whether the provision brings the right of appeal into line with other rights of appeal in discretionary decisions in this area. I confirm that it does.

My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) spoke at greater length. His interpretation of the amendments has been of the accuracy that we would expect of a lawyer of his calibre. Concern was shown about who could appeal. As has emerged from the debate, this is a slightly complicated issue. In order to answer that point, one must look at the original Bill as well as at Lords amendment No. 2. In clause 3 there is a new section 81A under which there is a general power for licensing justices—or, for members' clubs, magistrates—to impose conditions. Anyone may appear in the proceedings if the original tribunal will hear him. If so, he can appeal.

Under section 81A(2), 81(2) and 81(4) of the principal Act—which allows the chief officer to apply for revocation—only he can apply for a condition once a certificate has been granted. Only he can appeal in that situation. I think that that confirms my hon. Friend's interpretations. I congratulate him on his erudition and diligence. The Lords amendments are helpful and sensible, and we certainly support them.

With the leave of the House, may I say that the appeal procedure was not in the original Bill, because this valid argument had not been raised. In the past there has been no right of appeal against a revocation of a special hours certificate. When it was suggested that such a right of appeal should exist against the imposition of conditions it seemed right to consider whether there should also be an appeal against the original power of revocation. The amendment will provide a right of appeal against the imposition of conditions and also give the right of appeal against revocation. The situation has therefore been improved immeasurably. It has been said that those concerned with legislation should know what it means.

That applies to revocation but not to the conditions attached to the justices' licence. Section 21 of the Licensing Act 1964 provides a right of appeal against decisions on the conditions.

That is absolutely correct. It is important that those outside the House of Commons should know what laws are being passed. We wish to know the views of outsiders when we debate Bills. I do not wish to filibuster, but I should like to mention en passant the Tyne and Wear [Lords] Bill. It proposed to make masters of ships liable for the bills incurred by the owner of ships entering the port of Sunderland. It was only because that provision was spotted that the clause was withdrawn. Master mariners would not have spotted that point. More thought should be given to measures before they become law.

Several hon. Members have raised the question of complexity. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) said that this was a simple Bill. I am not an expert on licensing law, but I have spent about three years on the Bill and I quickly found out that licensing was extremely complex. We are being forced to refer to many different measures on licensing law. I believe that we need a consolidation measure. I therefore hope that the Government will present such a measure.

I made a point about complexity on Second Reading. The Erroll committee was set up to consider the complexities of licensing legislation, and it reported in 1970. Does not my hon. Friend feel that it is inexcusable that nothing has been done about it? Does he not share my view that it is time that the Government applied their mind to the total reform of licensing law? They should consider the well-intended and sensible suggestions for simplifying the procedures that the Erroll committee put forward. Will he join me in asking my hon. Friend the Minister to say some- thing about his intention to implement at least some parts of those recommendations?

Order. This is not a Third Reading debate. The Minister has already spoken once. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) is speaking for a second time by leave of the House and he should not be tempted into discussing the whole of the licensing law.

I will be guided by your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My hon, Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) expounded in the most erudite way the complexities of the Bill and the amendments. He referred to the loss that would be suffered by a person who had a special hours certificate if there were conditions imposed. We are talking about enormous sums of money. At some of these establishments there are 4,000 people present at the same time. If a place such as that is to have its certificate withdrawn or conditions for shorter hours imposed it will suffer enormous losses.

The need to deal with the late night nuisance in urban areas has been foremost in my mind during discussions on this part of the Bill. I take the point that even in Lincolnshire from time to time there have been troubles, even if there are not as many pubs there as there used to be. All over the country there has been excessive trouble at night caused by late-night drinking. This is not due to the well-run establishment; it is caused by the fly-by-night operators. This Bill will help to deal with that problem, not least because for the first time it brings in the condition that magistrates may have regard to disturbances outside the premises and not just inside. That will be a great help to magistrates in improving the position.

Finally, there has been a genuine feeling of concern expressed in this debate by all the hon. Members that this measure is necessary. I pay tribute to those who have supported me, not just now, but throughout the proceedings, not least Mr. Martin the editor of "Paterson's Licensing Acts".

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

With this we may take the following amendments:

The new clause is clear in setting out what we wish to achieve—that is, that an authority may establish a youth advisory committee to advise on the provision and development by the authority of services for young people in its area and on the co-ordination of those services with any similar services provided in that area by voluntary organisations. Secondly, the clause alludes to schedule 1 which

"shall have effect as respects the members and procedure of youth advisory committees."

The new clause is consistent with the attitude of the Government on Second Reading and in Committee. I should explain to the House, because it is important that everyone understands fully, that the new clause is intended to replace the Bill's present clause 1.

This is a complicated matter. I find it difficult to follow. May I ask my hon. Friend to speak more slowly.

I apologise if I was perhaps going on a little, because I am mindful of the fact that we have to try to debate many amendments in the couple of hours remaining. The new clause is intended to replace the Bill's present clause 1, though we acknowledge that it should not necessarily come first in order in the Bill. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) will understand the reasons. A more logical place might be following clause 4. I look forward to the comments of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. It is important that the House and all those associated with the youth movements and local education authorities understand that this provision must be permissive. Its prime purposes are clear—to replace an obligation with a power, and to redefine the function of the committee, with which the clause is con- cerned, so as to ensure that it cannot conflict with the statutory functions of the local education authorities. I think that hon. Members know the difficulty which the Government face in that regard, when we look at the statutory obligations of the Education Act 1944.

The Minister said that the new clause will replace an obligation with a power. Does not that power exist in present legislation?

That power exists in an interpretation which some local authorities have made already. However, the hon. Gentleman knows very well that in Committee we were extremely concerned about the correspondence from, and attitudes adopted by, local authorities with regard to the existing provisions and what is contained in my hon. Friend's worthy Bill. However, we are concerned to ensure that it cannot conflict with the statutory functions of the local authorities. As he comes from Scotland, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) knows of the difference which exists between the two countries.

A secondary objective is to remove a provision with regard to the composition of these committees, the clarity of which suffers from over-compression. I am proposing an amendment to schedule 1 to clarify what I take to be the intention of the Bill in that regard.

Before leaving his first objection, can my hon. Friend say anything at this stage—it would be helpful if he could—about what, if any, estimate he has made of the additonal financial burden which will be placed on local authorities by the obligation contained in the new clause? What would be the financial burden if all local authorities which do not already have such committees were to exercise the power that is proposed in the new clause?

And manpower.

And manpower.

That is a difficult point to define. As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know, under the terms of the 1944 Act certain local authorities already operate the kind of structure which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford is suggesting in his Bill. I think that he wants to place an obligation on them. I am mindful of the fact that many local authorities, as well as hon. Members on both sides of the House, have written to my right hon. and learned Friend, myself and other Ministers in the Department expressing their deep anxiety about what the likely cost effect would be, as well as their concern about the difficulties which could be imposed upon local authorities, given the direction of the Government to reduce manpower in local authorities.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have tabled amendment No. 95, which is in effect a commencement order. Therefore, it is impossible to assess any cost, which, indeed, may be negligible, because the Bill may not come into operation for a number of years.

I think that this is a question of current cost. I know that my hon. Friend, who feels deeply about these things, would wish us to ensure that the Bill is debated thoroughly and approached conscientiously, given the importance of the subject. We have found it difficult to measure the precise cost for local authorities were it to go ahead. I know that that is hypothetical, but, if it were to go ahead, there would be some increase in expense and manpower.

I have received a number of letters from colleagues and local authorities expressing concern about what that might be. That concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is not confined to the counties throughout England and Wales. There is a letter from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities which, alas, is now controlled by the Labour Party. It has written a general decree, dated 26 June, and I should like to quote from paragraph 4, because it is germane to this problem. It states:

"The requirements of joint committees (clause 1) and youth councils (clause 5) serviced by the LEA (clause 6) will entail manpower and financial costs."

However, I cannot state what the precise cost will be, because it will vary from area to area. The AMA goes on to say:

"The aggregate total across the country is hard to estimate because some LEAs have one or both such bodies already".

That is an interesting point.

There is one thing which puzzles me about the new clause, and perhaps my hon. Friend can clarify it. Does it have any purpose other than to ensure that the establishment of the youth advisory committees and the expenditure related thereto is intro vires the power of the county councils and the education authorities?

The new clause is permissive. On Second Reading and in Committee, we have tried to meet the important point which my hon. Friend has enshrined in his Bill, but it must be permissive for the time being.

It covers their expenditure.

That is right. However, perhaps I can complete my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). The letter from the AMA adds that:

"others have completely different arrangements which nevertheless suit local circumstances. One large LEA which already have youth committees which could form the basis of joint councils believe that they will incur for this item no costs above their present £115,000; but youth councils would be an innovation, at an additional annual cost of some £111,000."

That is not a Department of Education and Science or a Department of the Environment assessment. It is an AMA assessment. It goes on to state:

"An LEA in South Yorkshire estimate that their existing committees, somewhat adapted would cost between £1,000 and £4,500 annually; though the sums are modest,"—

I make that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, because he raised it in Committee and we debated it fully—

"the range is considerable, as it is difficult to assess the extent of these bodies' self-generated activity."

It continues:

"An outer London borough,"—

which is the sort of constituency that I represent, as do you Mr. Deputy Speaker—

"somewhat smaller in size, give comparable figures for an existing committee and council which would not need adaptation under the proposed Act—£1,000 for four meetings of a joint committee and eight 2-hour meetings each of a youth council and its executive".

Many committees have said that they have already made their budget preparations for 1980–81. I have received a letter from the county of Lincolnshire expressing concern and containing a specific request that this clause in the Bill be reviewed. I have also received a number of other letters, but I shall not bore the House by reading them. However, they are important.

The drafting of clause 1 exemplifies very well the difficulties presented by the Bill. I made that clear on Second Reading and in Committee. We are presented with a number of problems, hence the new clause. The intentions of the clause are quite clearly to encourage the development and better co-ordination of services for young people, whether provided by local authorities or voluntary organisations; to promote collaboration between the statutory and voluntary sectors; and to give young people a say in the services provided for them. Those intentions are admirable, and they have an important part to play in the life of the United Kingdom. That goes without saying. However, we cannot impose this in an obligatory way upon local authorities at the present time.

I am certain that my hon. Friend accepts the important objective that a code of good practice is essential. I hope that local authorities will be mindful of what is said in today's debate, as well as what has gone on before. My hon. Friend is a member of a party which has a certain philosophy, and I am sure that he acknowledges the problems that we have discussed and which present themselves to us.

The clause as drafted goes well beyond encouragement. It obliges local authorities to set up a machinery of a prescribed pattern—that is what causes anxiety among hon. Members on both sides—and functions, whatever arrangements they may themselves have developed for consulting and working together with voluntary organisations and young people. Taken together with clause 6, it would require those authorities to meet the full costs of servicing and supporting such machinery.

In this respect, the clause—and the Bill—is in major conflict with the Government's policies, specifically towards the responsibilities of local govern- ment and expenditure by local government. When we discuss later amendments I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will enlarge upon some of these matters. They are in major conflict, and I want everyone who has taken a major interest in the Bill to understand the position. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, who has done a tremendous amount of work in identifying the needs of young people, will understand the problems in that area.

The point was made on Second Reading and again in Committee, but I make clear to the House the Government's attitude to the Bill. Not only in this clause, but throughout, its effect is to impose specific obligations, where at present authorities act under general powers, in accordance with their judgment of priorities. Our policy is to widen, not reduce, the existing area of local authority discretion. Its effect is to increase local authority expenditure. There can be no doubt about that. We may argue that it will cost only £1,000 for some areas. In other areas the cost will be even higher. That is difficult to define. It is certainly an integral and essential part of our economic strategy to restrain such expenditure. The Bill's supporters may argue that services for young people should be protected against the full effect of such restraints. My reply to that argument is that if our economic measures fail because of lack of determination, young people will be in need of more protection than any youth service can afford. Here, there is a direct overlap with other Departments, and it is important that the House should understand that.

To return to clause 1, I repeat that the Government cannot accept that a duty should be placed on every education authority to establish a joint committee with the function of co-ordinating the provision of services. Education authorities are already obliged by statute to establish an education committee and to consider its reports before acting in the exercise of their educational functions. The joint committee envisaged by the Bill could not fulfil its function of coordinating services without encroaching on the prerogative of the education committee. I may add that voluntary bodies are independent organisations, and usually attach great importance to their independence. They may reject the idea that their activities should be "coordinated" by a committee on which their representatives would be in a minority. I suggest that those national organisations which have supported the Bill should think carefully about this, and perhaps consider whether they have been speaking authoritatively for the host of bodies which function at the local level.

Finally, I must, of course, take note of the amendment that my hon. Friend has put down to clause 1—to add a new subsection (3). If I can make sense of it at all, its effect is to exempt from the application of the rest of the clause any education authority which has had the good fortune to make arrangements before the enactment of the Bill which comply with the provisions of the clause. In other words, if it already complies with it, it need not take steps to do so. I am not altogether certain that I understand the point of that, and no doubt my hon. Friend will explain it when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it was my hon. Friend's intention to go any way towards meeting the Government's criticisms of the Bill, I am sorry to have to tell him that I do not see eye to eye with him on that.

I commend new clause 1 to the House. It is important. It has permissive powers, but that is consistent with the argument that we have put forward.

The attitude of the Government has been one of wanting to kill the Bill but not wanting to do the job themselves. They have aroused expectations among some of their supporters that they will kill the Bill. An example of that is a letter from the under-secretary of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—when that body was controlled by the Conservatives. It read:

"I also have to record, I am afraid, that we were misled by the DES's confident expectation that this babe would have been strangled nearer birth. There is some chance that the Department will get a little way with a series of amendments neutralising what are at present set out as duties, but there is a risk that too much of that will set off a reaction among the Members of Parliament, who will press ahead with the terms as set out in the published Bill."

The day before Committee proceedings started, the Government put forward amendments to delete 12 or 13 clauses of the Bill. I was the only hon. Member on the Committee who supported those clauses. Having tried to kill the Bill by slashing, the Government are now trying to kill it by at least 81 cuts. There is no doubt that the Bill will not go through this afternoon because the Government have ensured lengthy discussions on the preceding Bills—

The hon. Gentleman was not present when the two previous Bills were discussed. If he had been present, he would have realised that amendments from another place constituted a grave injustice to his constituents. The Scottish Bill, in which many hon. Members were genuinely interested, was extremely important. I spent a considerable time in Scotland, and I wanted to know the position of an English proprietor under that Bill. The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair in his allegations about the previous Bills.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that he was genuinely interested in the previous Bills. Having waited since 9.30 am for this Bill to begin, and having seen what happened in Committee, I still believe that the Government and their legislation advisers have been giving advice on what should happen to this Bill.

The Bill was Conservative policy. It was the pride and joy of the Young Conservatives, and it has had much support from them.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede that Conservative Members are slightly better able to judge the views of Young Conservatives than Labour Members. I assure him that the opinions of Young Conservatives are extensively divided on these matters—as on many other matters—and it is desirable that they should be so.

I am sorry to show any divisiveness with my colleague, but I have toured the entire country and I have been closely in touch with Scottish and English Young Conservatives. They are totally behind me. What division there may be is minuscule.

I do not pretend to be an expert on what happens among Young Conservatives. I went by the opinions of the ex-presidents of the Young Conservatives who are present in the House now. My only link with the Young Conservatives is that I was asked to address them when I was a parliamentary candidate. I was only 32 years old at the time, and I was the youngest person present.

The clause is necessary in order to make it obligatory on councils and education authorities to provide the machinery for setting up a decent youth service. The Under-Secretary said that it was the good fortune of those authorities which were already providing one. But it is not simply good fortune. It is good management and planning. The slower authorities should have followed the pacemakers—cities such as Manchester—in providing services such as this a long time ago.

I urge that it is necessary—

rose

I urge that it is necessary for an obligation to be placed on councils to provide a youth service and the necessary machinery to carry it out.

I am the proposer, jointly with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), of amendment No. 2 which emphasises the importance of the point made by the Minister about the need to make these proposals permissive not mandatory.

I declare an interest, though not financial. I speak as a vice-president of the Federation of Conservative Students. Its members are by and large, but not exclusively, older than Young Conservatives. Being students and actively engaged in education, they may be expected to have applied their minds more closely to the problems created by this measure than some of the younger supporters of the chairman of the Young Conservatives.

No group could have worked harder in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) than the Young Conservatives. The Young Conservative and Unionist organisation is an utterly praiseworthy, hard-working and eminently desirable body. Those of my hon. Friends who oppose this measure and I have nothing but the highest regard for the Young Conservatives movement, which is the largest youth movement in the country and probably in the Western world. None of us would be here on these Benches unless we had the active support and hard work of the Young Conservatives. I hope that what we might be moved to say in our resistance to this measure will not be taken as a slight upon the Young Conservatives, still less upon my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, who has worked with such dedication for it.

The aims of the Bill are wholly good and would merit support from all hon. Members, because our young people are the flower of the nation. Yet in many cities, towns and villages they have nowhere to go in their spare time. They have nothing to do with their leisure. They are too often, alas, unemployed and confused. The philosophy of the Bill is to improve that situation, to harness the energy and enthusiasm of young people and to encourage the flower of our youth to grow and blossom. They are wonderful aspirations and anybody who aspires to these ends must be well-meaning. Therefore, it is with regret that we feel it necessary to oppose the Bill.

The reason for our opposition is that it is one thing to identify the problem, it is another to wish for the fulfilment of a dream, but it is quite another to introduce a Bill which would be unworkable, would not achieve the desired ends and would, if passed, achieve ends that certainly would not be desired by anyone, least of all the Young Conservatives.

The clearest example is to be found in the unworkability of clause 1 which new clause 1 seeks to delete and to replace with something more workable.

There are several reasons why clause 1 should be removed. The first is that it takes money to set up what is laid down in clause 1. But where is the money to come from? Is it to come from the local authorities or the Government?

If the local authorities are to find the money to set up the bureaucracy inherent in clause 1, where will it come from? Is it to come from an increase in the rates or from a reduction in services? Will it come from reducing the provision which local authorities, already stretched, are having to make on schools? Will it come out of their housing provision? Will it come out of their social services provision? We must be realistic. At this time in our economy there is no scope for increased expenditure by local authorities on any area of their operations if they are to keep within cash limits and to stop the growth of expenditure. The only way in which savings can be made is to cut back on expenditure somewhere else. All those things, except certainly a cutback on the amount spent on administration in local government, are more desirable subjects for expenditure than the subject matter of the Bill, however praiseworthy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that vandalism is costing this country £100 million a year? Therefore, would not local authorities make considerable savings if they spent more rather than less on youth provision? Is not his suggestion a false economy?

Unfortunately, my hon. Friend could not prove that to set up a bureaucratic organisation for the coordination of young people's welfare would lead to a diminution of vandalism. I have more constructive solutions for the reduction of vandalism than that. Perhaps at some time my hon. Friend may care to read my speeches about the measures that we could take which could be proved to be more likely to succeed in the reduction of vandalism than the setting up of a bureaucratic organisation. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has done any work on this matter. Is there less vandalism in areas where there is adequate provision for youth councils?

Yes.

Then perhaps in due course he will be able to give us some facts and figures. My experience of youth activities in urban areas is that it by no means always follows that where there is a youth organisation there is a diminution of vandalism.

I can say that is so in Middlesbrough, for example, which is densely populated. In areas where there are facilities for youth there is less vandalism.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I did not seek to suggest that it was never so. My point is that there are more direct ways than the setting up of this bureaucratic organisation for controlling or reducing vandalism. The evidence is by no means all one way. The hope that at some time, as a result of better organisation through a bureaucratic set-up, vandalism will be reduced is not, I am afraid, a substantial enough reason for spending money on these provisions now. We are not against organisations for the improvement of youth welfare. We are against the specific bureaucratisation which is inherent in the Bill.

The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) made an important point. If I heard him aright—I apologise if I did not—I understood him to say that it was his experience in his area that vandalism was considerably reduced where there was provision for youth. I would agree with that proposition. However, we are talking about provision for committees. The two are not necessarily the same thing.

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.

If the money does not come from local authorities, it will have to come from the Government. The Government have made no provision for such finances, and we cannot reasonably expect them to. We must maintain a sense of reality. It is ridiculous to expect the Government to provide the money in the present financial climate.

To appoint one local government officer as a co-ordinator would involve a salary of about £8,500 a year, plus indexation of his pension, and that does not take account of the provision of a typist or an office. The cost would be several thousand pounds at a time when local authorities are having to look carefully at their expenditure.

I represent in Staffordshire one of the best counties for the provision of youth welfare, and I speak with the backing of the Association of County Councils. On 27 June 1980 the education officer of the Association of County Councils wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle), stating:

"I think it is fair to say that all LEAs in membership of the Association who have expressed a view on the issue have emphasised their concern about the proposals which are likely to lead to increased expenditure and to restrict and inhibit local freedom of choice."

In a letter to me, Staffordshire county council states:

"We in Staffordshire have a long history of support for our Youth and Community Service, of which we are very proud, but we think this is a thoroughly bad Bill…

The Association believes it is quite wrong to impose additional duties upon Local Authorities at this time and to create a climate of expectation when resources are not available to meet these expectations."

My hon. Friend quoted a salary of £8,500 for a co-ordinator. Does he agree that the normal calculation in industry is to double the salary of each individual to cover overheads and back-up facilities? Nearly every education authority has borne the brunt of local government economies, and there are marked reductions in services. That applies not least to the schools service in my county. It would be irresponsible to produce a measure that would add to the present rate burden. I have received many letters from old people who feel that they are paying higher rates than they can afford. A further burden would increase their difficulties. We must also consider that the country is facing a period of expenditure restraint.

My hon. Friend's point makes good sense, and no one would disagree. I am often asked by elderly people why there are not more concessions for fares, television sets, telephone charges and so on. We should not even consider spending money to set up a bureaucracy when that may deprive those people of such concessions as they now enjoy.

County councils feel strongly that the expenditure involved has not been sufficiently considered. I know that the Minister has already sought to come to grips with the argument.

I cannot quite see why Staffordshire is so worried if it has such a wonderful system. It has a committee of this kind. It spends a lot of money on it, so it will certainly not worry Staffordshire, any more than it will worry Manchester, if the Bill goes through. Is it because Staffordshire has a good youth service in Stoke-on-Trent and that the odds are that that area will lose some of its youth service.

I promise that I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's question When I come to the appropriate part of my speech.

The arguments of the sponsors in reply to the points that I have been advancing about costs are these. First, they say that the Bill will not cost very much. I notice that they say this because there was a noise in the Strangers Gallery when I said that it would be expensive, so obviously there are many young people who think that these costs are not very substantial. The argument is that the cost will not be substantial because it will only bring those local educational authorities that are falling behind up to the standard of the best.

The expense, such as it is, however much one concedes that there is expense—and if one does not concede that, there is no purpose in the Bill—must still come from somewhere. My points about the cost are not answered by someone saying merely that it will not cost very much. Some country councils probaly do not have a very good standard, and those are the councils where it may cost more.

The second reasons why I say that the argument of low cost is not a good one is that someone must make the judgment as to whether a county council is living up to its responsibilities and is conforming so that it can take advantage of the clause But who makes the judgment as to whether any particular county council is living up to the minimum requirements of the Bill?

The Secretary of State for the Environment.

Is it the Government? But where is that in the Bill or the new clause? Where is there any requirement that the Government should set themselves up as the arbiter in any area of whether a local authority is living up to the requirements in the Bill?

Goodness me, we are trying as hard as we can to leave as many powers in the hands of local authorities as is reasonable in all the circumstances, and, for goodness sake, to get the Government off the backs of local authorities. Here we are making a provision which, if it is vetted by the Government, will have Government bureaucrats breathing down the necks of local officials to see whether they are making provision up to the standard.

I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford wishes to intervene. I am sorry, because I do not wish him to keep getting up and down with that bad leg but—

I wonder whether I might be so presumptuous as to intervene again. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill and the Education (No. 2) Bill make quite a sally into local authorities' powers? Would it not be consistent, therefore, in view of the interference with local authorities' essential purposes, to have it here too?

Opposition Members who feel so strongly about the Education (No. 2) Bill have been making the central point. I see the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), an Opposition spokesman, deploring the fact that it appears to be contrary to Conservative Party policy that there should be any interference in local government in either education or housing. So the fact that there is a wrong done from that point of view would not make it right to copy the wrong in this Bill. I do not accept that it is a wrong. Distinctions can be drawn concerning the housing and education legislation. However, I do not wish to discuss them now lest I be accused of talking too long.

The Government give no such powers, and take no such powers. There is no reason why the Government should draw a distinction between those local authorities that do, and those that do not, come up to the necessary minimum provision. Therefore, only local government can judge whether it comes up to the Bill's provisions. If the Bill did not exist, which local authority would say that its provisions were inadequate? The fact is that if local authorities wish to spend money on the new provision, they will do so. If they do not want to, they will not. If they do not do so, and if local authorities are to judge whether the provisions required by the Bill are fulfilled, they are unlikely to judge in favour of the bureaucratisation that this Bill requires. Unless those in favour of the Bill respond to this criticism it must be accepted that there is no point in the provision.

There is a third criticism of my proposition that it is too costly. The hon. Mem- ber for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) said that if a county such as Staffordshire already produced adequate requirements, the question of cost would not apply. I wish to refer to a brochure on the youth and community service, produced by the Staffordshire education committee. I should be happy to place the brochure in the Library so that all hon Members can consider it. It states:

"This provision affords a lively, imaginative and personal service which improves the quality of life of the people of Staffordshire. Effectively it is a partnership between the Statutory and Voluntary provision within the County which aims to help people of all ages achieve their full potential."

Part of the brochure discusses democracy at work. It speaks of the concept of adults and young people being involved in the service and participating in the decision-making process, which is central to the philosophy of the youth and community service. It sets out the following bodies: county council, education committee, youth community and careers subcommittee, county youth and community officer, deputy county youth and community officer, area advisory officers, county training officer, county youth council, county training advisory committee, adult and management committees, area youth councils, area leaders' councils, adults, leaders, wardens, centres, clubs, organisations and members' committees.

That is just what Staffordshire does voluntarily. There are pages of examples of the work that is done in adult education, community work, the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme, arts and crafts, competition and sporting opportunities, leadership courses for outdoor activities, the adult literacy scheme, the Manpower Services Commission, community service, and overseas links. A tremendous organisation already exists.

It has been asked why the Bill will cost this county anything. Most of the work is done by volunteers. The work that volunteers do costs little. They get petrol money, but most of the money spent belongs to volunteers who are dedicated to the job. How do volunteers react when a paid official is brought in? Suddenly, volunteers find that somebody is trying to justify a job, and is breathing down their necks. The official tells the volunteers to do this or that. He says "No, we cannot" or "Yes, we must". Given a new regime, and given that volunteers are obliged to do—without payment—what a local government official tells them to do, they not unnaturally often decide to do something else. It has actually happened in Staffordshire. The moment that the responsibility for meals-on-wheels passed from the Royal Women's Voluntary Service to the control of a county council official, that meals-on-wheels service seems to have become less efficient and less welcome. We are now beginning to get complaints. Much of the reason is no doubt that volunteers are less happy working under the guidance of bureaucrats than they were when they were left more or less to their own devices.

This is a matter of psychology. Those of us who work closely with volunteers know perfectly well that there is a very delicate balance. There is a point at which volunteers, who are overburdening themselves as a result of their generosity and service to the community, will say "This far I will go, and no further." Therefore, it is almost inevitable that in many of these areas where there is adequate volunteer provision now, there will be a depletion of volunteer representation under this measure, and with it more expense because the contribution that the driver, for example, makes in his spare time will have to be done by somebody who is being paid.

The hon. Member listed from his brochure a large number of full-time officials who are paid by Staffordshire county council and its committees. Staffordshire county council has the bureaucracy, and if the hon. Member is suggesting that volunteers will not work because the Government say that Staffordshire county council shall have that bureaucracy, he is talking nonsense. Volunteers are always demanding the help of full-time officials and they are trying to build up local government full-time services in order to help them. A full time service can use more volunteers.

I simply do not agree with the hon. Member. But, as I do not wish to prolong the argument for the purpose of delaying the Bill, I shall move to another point.

These provisions require this bureaucratic organisation for a county, so one envisages the creation of at least one paid local government official who must organise that county according to the requirements of the Bill. Amendment No. 3 will not cover adequately the situation in a county such as Staffordshire. Suppose such a man is appointed in Stafford. Where will the organisation be in Burton, Lichfield, Tamworth or Stoke? It will not be possible to have one man organising all those towns. Sooner or later it is as inevitable as that night follows day that there will be a call for more assistance. It is more than one can expect on man to cover—all the hundreds of square miles of the county—to service all these different towns.

We all know what it is like. In Burton on Trent we used to have a good town clerk. Then he became the chief executive and had a deputy. It was not long before it was necessary to have a public relations officer to explain what these two were doing. Then, it was not very long—but fortunately my district council was too sensible to fall for this—before a plan emerged from out of the inner recesses of the East Staffordshire District council which claimed "It is unfair to load the public relations officer with all these burdens. He is doing wonderful work, but he needs a deputy." So bureaucracy proliferates. It feeds upon itself. When it is said "All we need is one man in Stafford to do the work", it will be seen clearly as nonsense by people in Burton, Lichfield, Tamworth and all the other towns in my county when they realise that they have not got the provision that is laid down in the Bill.

Cannot my hon. Friend draw a useful parallel between what he has said about a bureaucracy and the way that the scout movement is organised? Apart from the national headquarters, there are county commissioners with certain assistants. In each district there is a district commissioner, again with assistants. They find that they need all these people to cover all aspects of training. Surely that proves that any organisation as big and as national as the scout movement—a movement which serves youth throughout the world'—needs this kind of set-up so that it can run efficiently. We are going very far down the path where we shall parallel that organisation not with volunteers but with professional people. This will add to the burden of costs, and not only the costs to local authorities. The next thing that will happen is that a Whitehall department is set up. It has happened on every other occasion when we have tried to do anything like this. I hope that my lion. Friend will say that where we have volunteers doing what he has described in Stafford—and it is happening in Dorset and in Poole—we ought to learn the lesson that volunteers are very much more useful and get a better response from the grass roots than paid officials who are resented by so many volunteers over whom they are put in control.

I do not wish to prolong my speech. I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I shall not enlarge upon it. My point is simply that the cries that the cost will be minimal under the requirements of clause 1 are phoney. When was bureaucracy ever capable of producing anything at minimal cost? To suggest otherwise is the joke of the month.

As briefly as I can, I move on to deal with the other objections which have been brought to my attention by the authorities. This is not just me speaking. I am advised by those who have to handle these problems daily.

The Association of County Councils says:

"The Association's second major concern lies in the prescriptiveness of the proposals contained in the present Bill. Some County Councils have spent a considerable amount of time and effort in the years since local government reorganisation in developing and reshaping their services for youth. In many cases these developments have extended youth and community provision and in some cases have taken in the field of adult education also. Arrangements have been made for co-operative work and for consultation involving the community in the widest sense, and a great deal of attention has been paid to breaking down barriers between what were previously regarded as different sectors. These wider arrangements would not be appropriate in all areas but, where they are appropriate, they would be threatened by the special arrangements which the Bill would require authorities to introduce. The long standing and recently developed arrangements for co-operation would be jeopardised by the particular framework which the Bill suggests."

If that is the view of the Association of County Councils, what are we in this House doing considering a measure which goes directly contrary to that view, since it is patently one which is not party political but founded upon common sense.

That brings me to my third objection, and I refer again to what the Association of County Councils says about the infringement of local democracy which it sees threatening in the Bill. It says:

"Local democracy is about the freedom to decide what is needed locally and, as it stands the present Bill would impose a system which could lead to unnecesary, new, local youth bureaucracies. The Association strongly supports the underlying objectives but must oppose the attempt to ensure their achievement through a rigid prescription."

Then there is the letter from Northampton. It says:

"Northamptonshire are of the opinion that the successful co-operation between voluntary and statutory bodies depends upon the free association of local people arising out of their mutual recognition of their need to provide a service and that this is less likely where the parties are subject to a shotgun marriage of compulsion by statute."

Finally, the education committee of Staffordshire county council said:

"At a local level, we are very worried about the provisions which will make mandatory the setting up of statutory joint committees with voluntary organisations. The idea of such a committee is not new. It was urged on Local Authorities as long ago as Circular 1486 from the then Board of Education in 1939. In the early years of the Youth Service in Staffordshire we had such a committee, but it was abandoned by mutual consent because, for actually getting things done, it was much better to have liaison at local rather than at County level…To have to rework that structure in accordance with the mandatory precepts in the Bill is to us both an unnecessary bureaucratic exercise and a retrograde step."

To put the matter in proper balance, can my hon. Friend, who has gone into the matter with such care, give the House any indication of any awareness that he may have of any local authority, local authority organisation, or representative body, which has supported the Bill as presently drafted? I am unaware of any such support, but it is important that if there is such support the House should be aware of it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the obvious point which, I hope, will be dealt with by the sponsor of the Bill. The burden is upon his shoulders to show what support he has for this measure from those who will have to administer it in the present climate.

Clause 1 is a disaster because it is opposed by county councils—especially the Staffordshire county council and its education committee—because there is no money to pay for its inevitable cost, and because it is bad psychology to say to county councils "You must restrain your expenditure"—as we are having to do every day in the current economic climate—and then to say "By the way, we want you to spend more money on this measure ". It is a disaster because it will damage the existing set-ups in counties such as Staffordshire. It is bad because it is contrary to the Government's policy to let local authorities have as wide discretion as possible for the good of Britain.

The sadness of the matter is that the aims of the Bill are so good, and the ideals that moved the introduction of it by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford are so praiseworthy. The question is "How do we save it?" The answer has been given by my hon. Friend the Minister in the introduction of new clause 1. It does not go as far as that expected by the hon. Member for Gorton but it goes as far as is reasonable, bearing in mind the complaints of the county councils, the question of costs and the other matters to which I have referred.

Will my hon. Friend, on behalf of himself and his colleagues who are protesting against the Bill, accept my Bill as drafted if it incorporates all the Government amendments?

Speaking for myself, I would accept it provided that clause 5 were deleted. That clause deals with youth councils, and I hope that we shall come to that matter at a later stage. That apart, I can see nothing wrong with the Bill. My objections to the Bill are the "may" and "shall" in the current economic climate, which is the context in which I have been speaking. The provision of youth councils is a matter to which I shall return when we debate clause 5—and the evil that would attend those councils if they got into the wrong hands.

I have studied the amendments carefully, and those of my hon. Friend conflict with those tabled by the Government.

That only goes to show that we who are alert to these matters and who table amendments do not necessarily pay the closest of attention to what comes out of Whitehall. There is no reason why we should. Our amendments are responsive to the reactions that we have been getting from our local authorities.

If Labour Members want something for which they will get my support, they should support new clause 1 which incorporates the permissive "may" instead of the mandatory "shall" and sets up a new youth advisory committee.

Finally, may I say that I cannot remember any matter that has created stronger opposition from local councils. It is particularly astonishing, because local authorities like bureaucracy, yet here is an item of bureaucracy that would help to expand the empires of some local government officers, and they do not want it. May I read from a letter which Mr. James Lightdown, the chairman of the Staffordshire education authority wrote to me—

May I emphasise that the inference drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) does not apply to me? I have not had an opportunity to discuss the terms of the Bill or any of the amendments with my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I wish to ensure, as far as I can, that if the Bill proceeds it does so in a way that will not add to the cost burden of local authorities, from which I have had the strongest representations.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend who speaks for the Dorset county council, which is one of many that feel strongly. My right hon. Friend's intervention strengthens my point.

The chairman of the Staffordshire education authority wrote to me:

"I cannot stress too strongly the depth of feeling which obtains on this issue and very much hope we can look to you for urgent help in this matter."

They can, they have and I hope that I have been able in this small way to assist them.

The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said in answer to an intervention from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) that he had some constructive remedies for dealing with vandalism to replace the suggestions of the hon Member for Bedford.

The only suggestion that I have ever heard from hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Burton for dealing with young people who need the sort of facilities suggested in the Bill is that they should have a short, sharp shock and that we should punish youngsters who are being deprived by Conservative Members of jobs and leisure opportunities and who are getting into difficulties because of the Government's policies. In the context of debates on the Bill, the only people who deserve a short, sharp shock are the Government and Conservative Members who have treated the hon. Member for Bedford in a shabby and despicable manner.

The Government said on Second Reading that the Bill would receive their support. There was nothing equivocal about that; no reservations were expressed. The cost factors were as relevant in November as they are now.

I am sorry to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman referred to my speech on Second Reading and it is important to set the record straight. We do not want more of the type of exaggeration in which the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) indulged when he tried to convince the House that Manchester has a progressive local authority. One has only to examine its finances to see what the hon. Gentleman means by "progressive".

On Second Reading I said:

"The Government do not oppose the Bill in principle. Indeed, we very much support its objectives which, in general, offer an excellent model of good practice…

There are, however, a number of important aspects of the Bill which run counter to Government policy, notably over relationships with local authorities and over public expenditure."—[Official Report, 9 November 1979; Vol 973, c. 834.]

I hope that that puts the record straight.

It adds to what I said about the Bill having Government support. If Government Members do not want to take my word for it, since they might assume that I would be critical of the Government—and there are many good reasons for being critical of the Government—they should look at page after page of the Standing Committee reports. My hon. Friends were not critical of the Government, but Government Members were. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is not with us today, said:

"The Under-Secretary's attitude is obstructive, destructive, unhelpful and unto-operative."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 March 1980; c. 64.]

One cannot be more critical than that.

A number of the debates in Committee were unsatisfactory to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), principally because it was ensured that Scotland remained covered by the Bill. He made clear that that was not acceptable. For a brief time he and I were in unison in Committee.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government and Government Back Benchers were obstructive. I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), the Opposition Chief Whip and three other hon. Members tabled a blocking motion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) will deal with the Government amendment later. If Government Members, particularly the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), took the time to consider the issues and to read the Standing Committee reports they would see the tenor of the criticism.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No.

It is normal to give way when an hon. Member refers to another hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman has devoted much time to the discussion in Committee. He must understand that a Standing Committee is not the ultimate repository of authority in the House and that the Floor of the House is the ultimate judge. Opinions expressed in Committee might not be representative of the generality of opinion in the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us the benefit—since he is the only Opposition Member present from north of the Border—of his knowledge about the number of Scottish local authorities which are in favour of the Bill as it stands.

I intend to do that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was one of those who were glad to see him depart the political scene in Scotland and move south of the Border.

I accept that the Committee stage does not decide matters. There was a major discussion on Second Reading. I understood that the composition of the Committee was supposed to represent broadly the kind of expressions of opinion made on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. If one reads the reports of the Committee proceedings, one will see the concern.

I am also concerned that, with the honourable and notable exception of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best), some of the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Bedford who supported him in Committee seem to have deserted him today, perhaps frightened off by the Government Whips. I am also concerned that during the course of this debate there has been a deliberate filibustering effort by the hon. Member for Burton, and in the previous two debates there were irrelevant—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), has made the allegation that hon. Members on this side of the House have been indulging in a deliberate filibuster. Is it not the case that a deliberate filibuster is out of order? Since you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your predecessor in the Chair did not rule out of order any of my remarks or those of my hon. Friends, is it not desirable that the hon. Gentleman should be required to withdraw that remark this is clearly in itself out of order.

Order. I think that that sort of observation has been heard in the House before.

Can I also say—

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was specifically referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I could dilate at length on the reasons why it could not be appropriately said that I had been filibustering on either the licensing Bill or this matter. Can it be clearly on the record, with all your authority, that if there had been a filibuster, you would have drawn attention to it?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who said that he could dilate at length, that he would not have had the opportunity.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has made clear, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) made the deliberate charge that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton had engaged in a deliberate filibuster. That is clearly wrong. It is clearly untrue. Otherwise the Chair would have ruled against my hon. Friend. Since the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor has deliberately told an untruth, should he not be directed to withdraw it? On what possible basis can he say that it was a filibuster?

Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is getting into rather deep water.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was one of those attacked by implication in what the hon. Gentleman said because I played a full part in the two previous debates. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would remind the hon. Gentleman that he was not present during the entirety of the two previous debates and, therefore, he is out of order.

Order. Nor was I, so I have no grounds on which I can make such observations.

It may be said that four spurious points of order in themselves constitute a filibuster. I was present during the debate on the Married Women's Policies of Assurance (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill when your predecessor called the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) to order on four occasions because he was wandering from the point.

What went on at that stage is not within the knowledge of the Chair and is not relevant here.

If I may now return to the Bill, I should like to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) who asked whether the purpose of the Government new clause was—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have asked no question of the hon. Gentleman. I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing me with my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the purpose of the new clause was to legitimatise expenditure which is currently being undertaken by local authorities in this area. That is clearly not the case, because in reply to my intervention the Minister indicated that existing legislation covers the aims of new clause 1. Therefore, the existing legislation is quite adequate to deal with the permissive powers given to any local authority to set up these kind of bodies. It is quite clear to me, therefore, that the Government's action in introducing this new clause—which is unnecessary, not required and only tabled effectively to delete the effective clause which the hon. Member for Bedford has included—is a fraud and a deception. The new clause is totally irrelevant.

I now turn to the question of the local authorities. Local authorities in Scotland, along with those in England and Wales, have said that they are concerned—I expressed that point in Committee—lest any new powers are laid upon them without the additional resources to make them effective. I appreciate their expression of concern. I share that concern as someone who served on a local authority for nine years.

There are two ways of proceeding. The first is to say "We shall not carry out these desirable things"—in my view, these necessary things—"to improve the position for young people". The other is to say "We think that these are desirable and necessary objectives and we shall make the resources available in order that they can be carried out". As for the official Opposition—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West will confirm it—our policy is that the resources should be made available.

I follow the point which the hon. Gentleman is making. However, where in the Bill as drafted are the resources to which he has referred provided? If they are not, what on earth is the point of his argument?

It is clear that some hon. Members have not read the reports of the Committee proceedings. This matter was dealt with at length in Committee. During our discussion on clause 9, I said that a Private Member's Bill must have such a clause included in it, and I pointed out the difficulties which would arise if it were not.

The Minister said that if the Government's economic policy was unsuccessful—the cutting of public expenditure, the cutting of school milk to children, the increases in school meals charges and all the other things from which we are suffering at present—the young people themselves would suffer, and that there would be no point in having a Youth and Community Bill if we did not have a strong economy to provide those services. If there was any evidence that the Government's economic policy was having even a modicum of success, that argument would hold some weight. However, in terms of unemployment, inflation and our present economic situation, it is clear that that is not the position.

I hope that the House will recognise that the hon. Member for Bedford has been treated in a shabby and disgusting way by the Government and by Conservative Back Benchers. I hope that we will deliver a short, sharp shock to the Government for that shabby and disgraceful treatment.

I hope that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) will forgive me if I do not range as wide as he did. I found the extent of the field he sought to cover surprising. The hon. Gentleman accused Conservative Members of filibustering, but he indulged in a wide-ranging review of Government employment policies, which ran so wide of the issue that we are discussing that if he had proceeded he would have swiftly run himself into dispute with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about resources in a moment, but first, as I was not a member of the Committee, I wish to pay tribute to the considerable time and effort that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has devoted to this matter. Whatever the outcome of today's discussions, his efforts will have been of great value to the House and to young people generally.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said that the Young Conservative movement, without exception, was entirely in support of the proposals in the Bill. Among the representations that I have received is a letter appealing for my support from the North-West Young Conservatives. However, it is important to put the record straight in this respect. There are divisions of opinion among the younger members of the Conservative Party, and it is right that there should be. There are different views on the desirability of this proposal among the members of the Federation of Conservative Students, for example, and inevitably there is a considerable overlap between the membership of the federation and the Young Conservatives.

Is my hon. Friend aware that at the last meeting of the national advisory committee of the Young Conservative movement—which includes representatives of the whole Young Conservative movement—a motion was passed unreservedly welcoming the Bill?

That is as may be. I do not dissent from the proposition that among other sections of Conservative youth, such as the Federation of Conservative Students, different views are expressed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and I represent North-Western constituencies. The North-West Young Conservatives are totally in favour of the Bill. I quote from a letter that was sent to me by the chairman of the North-West Young Conservatives:

"With these considerations in mind North-West Young Conservatives strongly urge you to support the Bill by attending the Friday session and casting your vote in favour of it."

I have already referred to that representation, a copy of which I also received. I was able to assure the North-West Young Conservatives that I would be present today to give the Bill the careful scrutiny that it deserves.

I turn to the two alternatives—the proposition in clause 1 that there should be a mandatory obligation on local authorities, and the proposition in the new clause that the power should be permissive.

I am not wildly enamoured of the new clause, for the reason advanced by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). It is clear from what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that the power to set up youth committees of the type envisaged in the Bill is already entrusted to local authorities. Therefore, we should have reservations about putting on to the statute book what might be called acts of supererogation.

For that reason, I am less than 100 per cent. enthusiastic about the new clause. But if I had to choose between the new clause and the clause in the Bill, I should most certainly prefer the new clause.

Like others of my hon. Friends, I do not think that we should impose additional specific obligations on local authorities at this time. I have no doubt about the excellent ambitions and purposes of the sponsors of the Bill. We can all endorse them without a moment's hesitation. But at the same time we must all bear in mind that one of the more important reasons why local authority current expenditure is out of control today and why our constituents face vast rate increases year by year is the endless addition of obligations which the House has required local authorities to fulfil. A large and embarrassing proportion of these additional obligations has sprung not from Government legislation but from Private Members' Bills. For that reason, we should always be cautious about adding to the primary obligations of local authorities. If that is true as a generality, I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that this moment of all moments is about the last to add to those obligations.

We have heard a lot about the attitudes of local authorities towards this proposal. So far as I have been able to ascertain all who are anxious to see the Bill put on the statute book in its present form have to date been unable to produce a single instance of a local authority which is in favour of the Bill as it stands.

I have written to all local education authorities and I have their answers here. I pluck one from that list. This letter from the city of Sheffield reads:

"Dear Mr. Best,

Thank you for your letter which I received on 23rd June about the Youth and Community Bill. Some local authorities may have been lukewarm, but not this one. Last month the Education Committee, now with the confirmation of the City Council, promoted a resolution urging the Government to ensure that the Youth and Community Bill becomes law during the current parliamentary session. The Committee asked that this resolution should be forwarded to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the South Yorkshire Members of Parliament and to other interested and relevant groups.

I hope you find this news encouraging."

I hope that my hon. Friend is not feeling particularly proud of his county council. If he wants further elucidation, I have the letter from that authority here as well.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has produced that example. I suspected that he had written to a lot of education authorities. I have a copy of the reply that he received from the Director of Education for Cheshire, which I shall read in a moment. I hope tha my hon. Friend will give the House the advantage of other positive replies that he has received. He chose to read the reply of the republic of South Yorkshire, as it is sometimes called. My local authority takes a different view.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will invite our hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) to read the reply that he has received from the Dorset county education authority, as I am sure that he wishes to strike a fair balance. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) indicated, Dorset is totally opposed to the provisions, not only because of the expense, but because they will create unnecessary bureaucracy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the South Yorkshire county council has apparently advanced proposals to employ 24 people to count the trees in its areas? Two years ago it employed 12 young people to count the lamp-posts! It might be more useful if it sent someone to count its bureaucrats and councillors. It would have been more helpful had South Yorkshire suggested how the proposals could be paid for.

It might also have suggested how many hundreds of additional bureaucrats it would employ, given the opportunity. We should not regard South Yorkshire as a model.

My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) quoted a positive letter from the Sheffield authority. I have spent some time in the past year in dialogue with Sheffield, which has some good educational codes of practice, Peter Horton, the chairman of the Sheffield education committee, is the chairman of the local education authorities committee this year and also a member of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I said earlier that the AMA was distinctly unhappy about clause 1. There is, therefore, confusion between the role that Sheffield is playing in writing to my hon. Friend and the role that it is playing on the AMA.

That confusion is illustrated in other dealings with local authorities, as I discovered in dealing with my local authority over the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill.

1.45 pm

My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) referred to the reply that he had received from the director of education for my authority. The director of education for Cheshire could not he accused by his worst enemies, if he had enemies, which I am sure that he has not, of being a paid-up member of what might be regarded as the more obscurantist wing of the Conservative Party. The contrary is true. In reply to my hon. Friend he stated:

"Thank you for your recent letter concerning this Bill. Under present conditions I am afraid I cannot work up a great deal of enthusiasm for the Bill. Until recently this Authority would probably have been able to take one or two small steps which presumably would have qualified it for the exemption which you mention"—

that is, the exemption made in the Bill for local authorities which were acting in a manner which has considered to be in conformity with its purpose—

"Government pressure for reductions in public expenditure, however, have compelled the discontinuation of the County Youth Advisory Committee and its associated eight District Youth Advisory Committees, staffing reductions having made it impossible to service them.

While I feel that the Bill has much to commend it I think it is singularly ill-timed and I cannot imagine that the members of my Authority would be prepared to support measures which would compel them, in these very difficult times, to reincur expenditure which they have so recently decided to save"

From my contacts with the leading elected members of Cheshire country council, I know that they very strongly endorse the view which has been expressed on their behalf by their director of education.

Once again I apologise to my hon. Friend for intrerrupting at such length. However, I am glad that he has brought that letter into evidence as he called it. To be fair, is not the clear inference from that letter that there is a country council that desperately wants to see measure such as those encompassed in the Bill brought into effect, and that the only reason why it cannot do that the only reason why it cannot do that is there is a cutback in public expenditure? If my hon. Friend looks closely at that letter and picks out one or two of the phrases which he was so careful to read a moment ago, he will see that it says:

"Until recently this authority would probably have been able to take one or two small steps"

and

"Government pressure for reductions in public expenditure, however, have compelled the discontinuation of the County Youth Advisory Committee."

Those are the sort of things that the Bill envisages as being beneficial to the youth service and the sort of things that Cheshire county council has had to give up. It is not that it disagrees with them fundamentally but simply that it cannot provide them on financial grounds.

I am not clear where my hon. Friend stands on the need for restraint in public expenditure, but I know where I stand. If we are to involve local authorities in fresh obligations at present, such as the Bill is designed to impose upon them, we make a farce of the whole concept of bringing public expenditure and, above all, local authority current expenditure, under proper control. I believe that we would be acting in the highest possible degree of irresponsibility towards our taxpayers and ratepayers if we went down that road.