When our debate terminated at 2.30 pm last Friday I was in the process of rising to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on his initiative and good fortune in piloting the Bill thus far through the House. It was apparent from the detailed and exhaustive discussions last Friday that the Bill met with a good deal of support from hon. Members, and I have no wish to delay the satisfactory and happy completion of its passage through the House.

In many respects the Bill fills a great need. During our discussions last Friday on Report and previously in Committee reference was made to the situation in the countryside generally and in rural and sparsely populated areas where many cinemas have had to close for one reason or another. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and other hon. Members touched on the reasons which lay behind that. If such cinemas have not been either demolished or made into supermarkets or bingo halls or put to some other use, I hope that the Bill will encourage some of those much-needed cinema facilities to reopen in sparsely populated areas.

Many cinemas in my area have closed, not so much because of the lack of popularity as because they have been unable to charge a satisfactory price to enable them to continue to operate successfully. I have no doubt that several of the causes of their being put out of business are dealt with by the Bill and that when it is enacted it will be easier for public cinemas in sparsely populated areas to continue to operate at a reasonable profit.

It has been said that the Bill is a step into the video age. A number of changes were touched on in Committee and last Friday on Report. New licensing procedures were discussed. They will now be carried out by the Home Office as opposed to the Customs and Excise. It was made clear that that change is generally welcomed. It will lead to greater efficiency and greater humanity and will be for the general benefit. However, when on the rare occasion the issue of a licence by the Home Office is refused, will that be final or will an unsuccessful applicant have a chance to submit a fresh application in the not-too-distant future or at least to be informed of the reason for the licence not being issued?

Last Friday, a number of hon. Members pointed out that it would be a good idea possibly to delegate to local authorities the Home Office duty of issuing licences. We quite understand that, if we are to get a nationwide pattern of performance, it will not be very satisfactory to have variations in the treatment of licence applications by different local authorities. In spite of that, however, and appreciating that we must have similar action throughout the country on measures of this nature, I hope that the advice of local authorities at least will be sought and that it will be listened to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham tabled a number of amendments for discussion last Friday dealing with the level of penalties, and we debated whether they were sufficient in the light of the large profits likely to arise from the activities that they sought to curb. Although the level of penalties laid down in the Bill appears to be adequate, it has occurred to me that there might be something to be said for laying down a minimum penalty as well as a maximum penalty. I appreciate that it is a practice which Parliament has not normally thought it fit to follow.

I remind my hon. Friend that there is a minimum penalty for losing a driver's licence in certain circumstances.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful advice. He reminds me that the loss of a driver's licence can incur a minimum penalty. But I pointed out last week when we discussed the penalties for other offences that normally the maximum is very high and there is no minimum. In respect of certain penalties the average imposed by the courts has been 7, 8 or 9 per cent. of the maxima laid down by Parliament. One way of explaining Parliament's thinking would be to lay down some form of minimum with which the courts had to comply.

I am glad to know that the Bill deals with home videos, apparatus and equipment. The pirating of video tapes is a £160 million a year business, of which more than £100 million is entirely illicit. That is a very large sum, and I believe that the Bill will go some small way towards making it more difficult for the pirates to get away with it. At the moment they have to fear a maximum penalty of only £50 which is laid down in one of the copyright Acts.

I am especially grateful to the Minister of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham for undertaking to consider before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses whether we should change its title. My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend both said that they would welcome helpful suggestions. I can assure them that a number of us are giving the matter active consideration. The present title seems to be almost Victorian. It is hopelessly out of date.

Bioscope.

It is totally inappropriate to the jargon of today. Before the Bill reaches the statute book, there is a great deal to be said for choosing a more modern title.

Despite our thorough consideration of the Bill, many questions remain unanswered. One of them relates to video lounges.

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that on Third Reading hon. Members may discuss only what is in the Bill.

I was about to ask whether it was clear from the Bill what was the position of a video lounge in a pub or a club. It does not appear to be covered in the Bill, but it may be, and that is why I raise it now. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham has said in the past that it is covered in the Bill, but I have searched through the Bill and, at the risk of getting out of order again, I must say that I cannot see any reference to it. I raise the matter because it is one about which the House would like some clarification.

I can assure my hon. Friend that in my judgment he is in order in raising the matter because it is covered by the Bill.

The Bill deals with all manifestations of moving pictures exhibited for gain. My hon. Friend has in mind the showing of a video film in a pub or a club. The question for consideration is whether any charges are made and, if so—even if they are purported to be for other services or for drinks—it will be up to the courts to decide whether the total enterprise, including the video display, is for gain. The passing of money will be a prima facie suggestion that it is for gain, and it will be up to those charged with an offence to rebut that evidence.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has set my mind at rest on two counts: first, that I was in order after all, and, secondly, that video lounges in pubs or clubs are covered by the Bill.

I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will tell us the Home Office's thinking in respect of the regular alteration or updating of the level of penalties. Certain measures in the past have been subject to the updating of the maximum penalties in criminal justice Acts. Bearing in mind the tremendous profits which can be made from video displays, to say nothing of the change in the value of money, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can advise the House whether the maximum penalties provided for in the Bill are to be constant or whether they will be subject to periodic review.

With those few remarks, again I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd). I want also to pay tribute to all those right hon. and hon. Members who play a part in our Friday sittings. The Bill is a good example of excellent use of the good fortune that an hon. Member has in coming high in the Ballot for Private Member's Bills. It has shown a way forward for the Government in many of the areas associated with pornography or obscenity, in that it takes an indirect but clear approach to the problems that can arise in cinemas and video lounges.

I said on Report that one of the advantages of having tight regulations for licensing, which I see as the essence of the Bill, is that it is clear that an establishment either has a licence or it has not. That avoids many of the problems in taking cases to court for the display of obscene or pornographic material. I have slight doubts about whether my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is confined to moving pictures. I do not know whether there is much of a problem with still photographs that might be displayed in a carousel through a slide projector. However, that is a minor point that should not upset the passage of the Bill.

Last week, I referred to the problem of cinema clubs—perhaps "clubs" should be in inverted commas—appearing in ordinary residential or suburban parts of the country. I accept that that applies equally in more rural areas. Naturally, my direct concern is for my constituency. I hesitate to see Parliament leave the law in such a confused state that these establishments could spread in the high streets and byroads of a constituency such as mine, which is almost exclusively residential and a good family area. It is the job of Parliament to make sure that those areas are protected, as well as trying to extend protection into parts of the central areas of cities where these establishments have prospered.

It is said that many people go to these lewd displays because they fulfil a need. I say that they provide a temptation that should not be there. I have travelled around the world, and in my opinion the cities where there is effective control of such establishments are no worse than the cities that have lost control. I see no reason why, if there is an overwhelming demand, people cannot elect to their local councils, the licensing authorities, people who fulfil the wishes of the voters. If voters want many licensed establishments showing the kind of material that I believe we can well do without, however attractive it may be, it is open to the electorate to follow that course. However, I hesitate to welcome Parliament continuing to allow unlicensed establishments that are clearly safety traps for the unwary, and which pass through a loophole in the law that allows them to display material that would not have been allowed 20 years ago.

My hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough talked about cinemas. I am in favour of opportunities for cinemas to provide family entertainment. If we can get rid of the opportunity for some of these establishments to be converted into money-spinners for what might loosely be called adult entertainment, parents will be more likely to go out with their children for a shared experience to see an entertaining film. We should encourage, for example, more films like "Chariots of Fire", instead of many of the films that are frequently advertised in the evening press. Often, except perhaps at half-term and the first week of the summer holidays, it is almost impossible to find a film to which one can take a child under the age of 14.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Only a few years ago in my constituency every Saturday morning a chain of cinemas used to show movies suitable for children. Often on a wet February or March morning, when the children were at a loose end, the cinemas were packed. It was an excellent practice, because the cinemas showed wholesome and suitable films. The practice has ended now, because cinemas have disappeared.

I accept what my hon. Friend says. Although I am probably one of the younger Members of the House, I remember that when I was about 10 on Saturday mornings I used to go only 100 yards to the local cinema, and for 6d I was entertained for two or three hours by a diet of adventurous and cliff-hanging films, which made me want to go back. I was in safe surroundings, which were fairly local. No doubt it provided a welcome break for my parents, and no doubt they said "We are very glad that young Peter has the opportunity to go out with other people of his own age." It was wholesome entertainment. We need to promote the positive, as well as trying to put a rein on objectionable material and opportunities.

I mentioned the need for clarity about whether an establishment has a licence. For that we are grateful to my hon. Friend for finding a way through the morass that has faced Parliament, although I recognise that, outside the Bill, at some stage more attention will need to be paid to the Williams committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough raised the matter of minimum penalties. I am glad that the Bill establishes maximum penalties at a high level. In my view, it would have been difficult to put in minimum penalties, because there could be prosecutions on technicalities. Although there should not be too many prosecutions on pure technicalities, one should allow the courts to impose small penalties for minor offences. If, for example, a fire exit sign was missing and had been missing for some time, it is perfectly reasonable for there to be a prosecution and for a minimum penalty to be imposed in such circumstances.

However, that is almost in parenthesis. It is important to recognise that Parliament lays down high maximum penalties for offences of the kind described in the Bill because of the financial encouragement to operators to repeat the offence. With low penalties they could view it as a low operating tax. One of the reasons why we need to explain why penaalties appear to be higher in this kind of neo-property matter than in certain criminal offences against the person is the financial inducement to the offender to repeat the offence. With certain exceptions, people committing criminal offences against the individual are rarely likely to repeat them purely for financial reasons. The exceptions, of course, are bank robbers and people who rob sub-post offices.

I conclude by returning to a subject that I raised on Report. The opportunities for corruption that are available to licensing operators and to the police exist when there is a lack of clarity about the procedures and a lack of predictability in the judgments of the courts. One of the reasons for the spread of sex cinemas in the centres of cities has been the difficulty of prosecution. Every time a conviction fails, it encourages those who are supposed to be monitoring the operation of these establishments and the material that they provide to look the other way. Once that kind of doubt arises, some of the corruption that has existed in the past will happen again. I very much doubt whether many of the establishments that exist in the centre of London should be operating under existing legislation. Once we have the licensing provisions, it will become clear that they are not authorised and no amount of corruption will deal with the central issue of whether or not they have a licence.

I echo the gratitude of many families around the country to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham for promoting this Bill. It is the kind of issue on which the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister have helped to raise the status of Parliament, by showing that, even at a time when there are great issues of party controversy and a national crisis, Parliament still has time to plug away at blocking loopholes that have led many unscrupulous and unworthy people to prey on society and create the kind of conditions that make family life more difficult. I greatly welcome the Bill, and I hope that it has a speedy passage through the other place.

Like my hon. Friends, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on his prescience in promoting this modest but important measure to plug a loophole in our cinematographic licensing laws.

I suspect that today we shall be discussing not only this Bill but the Firearms Bill. Therefore, at the outset, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has facilitated the progress of both Bills in the House. He has frequently been unfairly accused of not progressing legislation to deal with problems of violence, sadism, pornography and the many other disagreeeable aspects which in my judgment have arisen in part as a fall-out from the so-called permissive society of the 1960s. The truth is the opposite. No Home Secretary has shown more dilligence or a greater desire to advance legislation designed to deal with the moral corruption of our society than my right hon. Friend. It is therefore proper that tribute be paid to him and that the many false accusations made against him should once and for all be dispersed

As I said, the Bill plugs a loophole. The Act which it effectively amends originally excluded from the licensing requirements film exhibitions given in private dwellings—film exhibitions to which the public were not admitted or were admitted without payment—and film exhibitions given by organisations certificated as non-profit-making by the Customs and Excise. In short, Parliament originally confined the licensing arrangements to commercial cinemas and excluded genuine private film societies and charitable, educational, church, political and sporting organisations which might wish from time to time to show films as part of their general programme of activities. I think that that is a fair description of the state of the law that faced my hon. Friend when he introduced his Bill.

Those exceptions, designed to avoid unnecessary restrictions, have in fact created a loophole which has increasingly been exploited by cinemas which, in effect, are open to the public, but which masquerade as private clubs to escape the limitations and obligations of a licence in so far as it would apply if they were commercial cinemas.

The police have found it almost impossible to bring successful prosecutions, due to the loopholes that I have described. I am sure that the Bill will greatly assist the police, especially the Metropolitan Police, in their efforts to stamp out the vile practices now found in so many parts of Soho. Moreover, the penalties available under the previous legislation were far too light. As a result, even if clubs were prosecuted, they could virtually laugh at the law as the penalties that could be imposed on them were derisory by comparison with the profit to be made from these so-called private displays.

As my hon. Friend has recognised, earlier attempts were made to remedy the problem—for example, in 1973, when a Bill received a Second Reading but in practice got nowhere. Therefore, with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—I think that my hon. Friend will agree on that—my hon. Friend has returned most effectively to the charge.

I wish to make three points—one general, and two specific. In general, I believe that there is a connection between publicly exhibited pornography, sadism and violence and the growth of crime in our society. I appreciate that that proposition is not directly provable and that many sociologists argue that there is no positive evidence to prove that the crime rate increases as pornography, violence and sexual display are generated in our society. I can only say that the experience of many who have to deal with criminals is that from time to time such offenders are so titillated and stimulated by the display of sadism and sexual violence that they come out of a club or cinema in a state likely to lead them to commit further violence. The evidence is anecdotal rather than quantitative, but I have little doubt that the public display of sadism, cruelty and violence helps to generate crime.

As my hon. Friend said, the violence displayed at many of these cinemas is not necessarily sexual. He referred to some of the Kung Fu films shown in so-called martial arts clubs in our big cities. In my view, such films are plainly calculated to arouse sadistic pleasure by the lingering depiction of pain, mutilation and death.

More usually, of course, the violence is sexual. There is rape, and, as an added bonus, the multiple rape or so-called "gang bang" in which the women's resistance is generally portrayed as being transformed by the enforced rape to which she is subjected into abject, almost animal gratitude. I can think of nothing that more degrades women than that. In so far as the Bill will help to avoid that kind of depiction of cruelty, my hon. Friend is doing an important service.

On the two lesser points, I remain concerned that the process of certification of small village clubs in rural areas, which will rightly continue to seek licences to show harmless films to local people, may become burdensome and expensive. At an earlier stage of the Bill, I drew the Minister's attention to various small clubs in my constituency. As rural transport has virtually disappeared, in many small village halls the over-sixties club, the Boy Scouts, the British Legion, and the myriad local voluntary groups, whose efforts we so much prize, put on small film shows for the benefit of local people. They are, of course, clubs or charitable organisations for the purpose of the Bill, but in future they will require proper certificates issued by the Home Office rather than by the Customs and Excise in order lawfully to continue such showings.

That is the essence of the regulations that the Bill will introduce, but I do not complain about that.

However, there is a problem of bureaucracy. The secretary of the British Legion club in a small village in the heart of Suffolk will have to apply to something called the Home Office. The secretary will need to know exactly what that means. Unlike most Government Departments, the Home Office does not have regional or local branch offices. The Customs and Excise does have such offices. Therefore, when the secretary of a club has a video cassette made up with which to show a little film in, for example, Norton, in the heart of Suffolk, or in one of the rural villages, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your constituency, he will have to write to the Home Office in Whitehall.

The secretary will say that he is seeking certification to show a film or to enable his club to be licensed for the next few years so that it can show all films that are not—for the purposes of the Bill—objectionable. What will happen? I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will take us through the stages to acquire a certificate. The Home Office—whatever that means—will presumably appoint an assistant secretary or a senior executive officer to be in charge of receiving and processing applications and of deciding whether a club should have a licence. That officer will need some criteria. He will need a bit of paper with some rules—presumably endorsed by a Minister—by which to judge whether it is appropriate to issue a certificate.

That is a perfectly conventional process of government and I make no complaint. However, if small clubs all over the country are to be told that they must do that, they should also be told how to go about it. As the House knows, there has been an explosion in the use of video cassette films. I welcome that. In many of the rural areas buses have disappeared and it is good that the over-sixties, the British Legion, and so on, should be able to see harmless, entertaining and exciting films in their villages without having to go to market towns where the cinemas are almost certainly showing only "X" films.

There will be many applications, and it is important that secretaries of clubs should know how to go about things. Will local sub-postmasters be asked to display a notice telling village clubs that they are required to seek licences and how to go about it?

May I have an assurance that the Home Office will deal with the matter with dispatch and that the fee charged will be reasonable? The difficulty is that fees are usually reasonable at the beginning. I do not know whether the fee will be £3, £5, or any other figure, but I hope that we shall be told. However, although the Government are happily reducing inflation, it will not disappear from our system. As the years go by, such things tend to be forgotten, but, after a sudden Treasury edict, Departments may start to consider their various fee-charging operations and may suddenly say "Oh, my word, here is the private club cinematographic certificate. The fee has remained at £3 or £5, so we had better increase it to £10 or £15." Like most of my hon. Friends, I have an interest in this matter, because those representing rural constituencies will suddenly be confronted by all sorts of immensely worthy village clubs that have been outraged by the sudden increase in the charge for the certificates that they must obtain to carry out a perfectly harmless activity.

In saying that, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Farham will understand that I am not criticising his admirable Bill, which I support. However, as the Customs and Excise is no longer to have anything to do with the matter—I welcome anything that gets things out of the control of the VAT inspectorate—matters will lie with the Home Office. That Department does not have a reputation for electrifying speed, so I should like to know how people are to be informed of their duties under the Bill. May I have an assurance that the paperwork involved will not be cumbersome and that the fee will remain reasonable?

May I also have an assurance that if a club's bona fides are not in doubt—I refer, for example, to an allotment holders association in Walsham le Willows—and if there is no reason to suppose that it will slip a Kung Fu pornographic film into the middle of its programme on gardening, it will be given a certificate that lasts for a number of years and not a certificate that has to be renewed after a year? Will such a club be given a certificate that will allow it to continue indefinitely, without a further fee, unless the police have reason to believe that it has offended against the law by importing some salacious matter into its normal programmes? I hope that the certificate will be semi-permanent.

By any standard, £10,000 is a walloping big fine for Britain. I have already mentioned the difficulties that I experienced when I tried to persuade the Cabinet and the House to accept that the fine for serious pollution commited by industry should be increased to £5,000. I had in mind the grievous offences of deliberately and massively fouling our rivers and persistently polluting the air despite all the efforts of the Alkali Inspectorate to clean it. After the greatest difficulty, it was agreed that the fine should be raised to £5,000 and applied to the large industrial enterprises that offended against the law in that way. But the House was right to be sceptical about any drastic increase in the level of fine.

My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State knows more about the law than I, but I believe that certain offences are defined by the level of fine that the magistrates' court can impose. There is a convention that the seriousness of certain offences is virtually defined by the fact that the offence is subject to six months' imprisonment or to a fine of £1,000. Here, for the first time, we are providing that a magistrates' court can impose a fine that is wildly out of line with the normal fine that a magistrates' court is allowed to impose. Indeed, it is much greater than the fines that can be imposed for certain offences of criminal violence.

It would be ironic if the fine for showing an act of sadistic violence in a private club for gain was higher than the fine that we impose for such an act committed against an individual in the street. I hope that that will not be the case, but in my experience some police officers have been badly assaulted and knocked about and the magistrates' court has bound over the offender or imposed a fine of £300 or £400. There would he a great disturbance in the police service and among the public generally if a club owner who showed a film including vicarious, sadistic violence against police officers were to be fined £10,000 and stopped, with which I agree, whereas a similar act committed in the flesh could not be dealt with so seriously in the magistrates' court.

My hon. and learned Friend may say that the offence would go to a higher court where the fines are larger, but in my experience there are many cases where the penalties for violence against the person and for certain sadistic practices, such as multiple rape, do not always include a prison sentence. I accept that they do generally, but sometimes they do not. It is important that the penalties available to our courts should have, first, some consistency and, secondly, a relationship to the perceived noxiousness of the offence. My hon. and learned Friend, who has so much experience at the Bar and, since his appointment in the Home Office, will appreciate my point. I do not complain, because I believe that those who make gains out of vicious practices should be subjected to what, in effect, are terminal fines that will put them out of business altogether. The Bill will do that. I approve of it, but it is important that the sideways vision that Ministers can bring to the House is applied so that there are no anomalous penalties as between one offence and another. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will say something about consistency and the nature of the fines.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham has performed a public service. We should pay tribute to him and to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for taking a small but important further step in the control of sadism and violence in our society.

I wish to follow up the latter point of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) about the differences in fines and return, for final clarification, to the anomalies between the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill now in another place and the Bill that we are considering today.

During our debate last Friday the Minister of State said that he appreciated that it was difficult to have two different pieces of legislation, with different titles, which aim to do the same thing in the case of cinema clubs but which provide for different penalties. He said, in reply to my intervention, that it would be possible to align the fines. He did not say when or how that would be done. This Bill will now go to another place. Is it the intention of the Government or the promoter to align the fines to those in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill? If so, will the Minister give us that assurance, because it is unsatisfactory to have two pieces of legislation that are intended to tackle the same offence? It would be better to have one measure, but if we must have two there should be the same fine in both. Those who are prosecuting can choose under which piece of legislation to prosecute.

The first Bill that received a Second Reading in the House after I took my seat eight and a half years ago was the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill, which was brought forward by the then Home Secretary, now Lord Carr. It received an unopposed Second Reading. After that Bill, which failed because of the general election shortly after its introduction on Second Reading, a series of attempts were made to get the Bill on to the statute book. However, for a variety of reasons—not because of opposition in the House—those attempts failed.

During the previous Session we succeeded in getting on to the statute book the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981. I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on getting the Cinematograph Bill—the second half of the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill—to this stage. I hope sincerely that this valuable Bill will come on to the statute book shortly in order to complete the process of controlling the degrading material that has been all too prevalent in our society and to which the House first put its hand nearly 10 years ago. I know from my own experience last year the amount of work involved in getting a Bill to this stage and I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done. I also congratulate the Home Office on supporting my hon. Friend's efforts. I am sure that, as I was last year, he has been inundated with correspondence in support of his Bill. I know that it will be as warmly welcomed as was the Indecent Displays (Control) Act and that it will be as effective in its worthy and necessary purpose. My hon. Friend has done the House and the country a service in getting the Bill to this stage and I hope that we shall give it a Third Reading shortly.

It has been very pleasant for me to listen to the congratulations that have come from both sides of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on bringing the Bill so far. I was sorry that I could not be present at the previous debate on Third Reading, but I have read the account in the Official Report and I know that my hon. Friend received further well-deserved congratulations on that occasion. We in the Home Office have been glad to be of some assistance—as I hope we have—in getting the Bill to its present stage.

Perhaps it would be convenient for me to deal as best I may with the various questions that I was asked today before I come to the substance of my remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked me about those organisations that seek a certificate of exemption from the provisions of the Bill and asked whether an unsuccessful applicant would have the opportunity to re-apply after refusal of a certificate by the Home Office. There is no formal appeals procedure. That would normally be unnecessarily cumbersome, given the small number of applications that are involved—fewer than 50 certificates have been issued—but there is nothing to prevent a body from re-applying at a later date. The body concerned could expect to be told the reasons why an application had been refused. The reasons would relate to the circumstances in which, as the Bill provides, the Secretary of State may not issue a certificate.

My hon. Friend asked whether the advice of local authorities would at least be sought. It is open to the Home Office to make such inquiries as it thinks necessary in deciding whether it would be right to issue a certificate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with this issue on Third Reading last week and said that relatively short inquiries would be necessary. I doubt whether it would normally be necessary to consult the local authority concerned. The bodies which have been issued with certificates to date are clearly eligible for them. This can be readily discerned from scrutinising their constitutions and accounts.

My right hon. Friend referred to accounts last week. I am sure that if it were thought necessary to do so, the local authority concerned would be approached. There is no bar on an authority being approached and the Home Office, being the sensible organisation that it is, would be eager to assist if it felt that the facts indicated that that would be helpful.

My hon. Friend talked about laying down a minimum penalty. He argued that a maximum penalty represents Parliament's idea of the gravity of an offence and that a minimum penalty would, as it were, complete the job. I am personally opposed to the idea of fettering the courts' discretion when it comes to applying a sentence, subject to a maximum that has been fixed by Parliament. That has been the traditional view in this country. One well-known exception to that principle is the statutory penalty for murder. Treason and piracy on the high seas still carry the death penalty. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has reminded us that the offence of driving while under the influence of drink carries a statutory requirement of disqualification, but that relates more to safety than to penal policy.

We hold firmly to the view that it is not right to fetter the courts. Subject to a maximum penalty, the courts should have unfettered discretion, having regard to all the circumstances of the case established in the evidence, to fix the level of fine that they consider to be appropriate.

I accept entirely that my hon. and learned Friend is talking about a matter of principle. However, the range of different offences set out in the Firearms Act 1968 number 50 and they can be tried either at the upper or lower court. For many years both the upper and lower courts have inflicted well below 10 per cent. of the maxima which Parliament laid down where a person has been found guilty. Does my hon. and learned Friend think that in those circumstances Parliament's wishes are being ignored by the courts?

I do not think that that follows. Parliament fixes a maximum fine for application in offences of the utmost gravity. We can readily visualise in another context offences that carry a sentence of life imprisonment as a maximum but not as a statutory obligatory sentence that can be imposed in circumstances that are below the level of utmost gravity. In those circumstances—they are present in the majority of cases—it is appropriate for the courts to award sentences of imprisonment that are well below a life sentence, or, if 14 years is taken as a maximum, well below 14 years. Without wishing to comment on the levels of fine to which my hon. Friend refers, I do not believe that it can be said that Parliament's wishes are being flouted if it imposes a maximum fine of £200, for example, and the courts award an average fine of £25 or £30.

I understand the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and it is one that we have had to deal with on previous occasions. We shall have to deal with it in our discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill. I must take a firm stand on the principle that I have endeavoured to describe.

Questions have been raised about the updating of penalties and the Home Office's thinking on updating. The Criminal Justice Bill provides for regular updating of penalties having regard to any changes that may have taken place in the value of money. When that Bill is upon the statute book it will be open to the Home Secretary of the day to place an order before the House that provides for the uprating of financial penalties. As the Bill is drafted it will not apply to fines that are as large as £10,000, but we propose in another place to make provision for fines of that amount. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friends can be satisfied that revision will be made and that this level of fine will not become fossilised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), who courteously told me that a constituency engagement would prevent him from remaining in his place, said some kind things about the Home Office and its part in getting the Bill to this stage. I endorse his remark that the Bill will block loopholes through which the unscrupulous have made money out of activities of which Parliament has expressed strong disapproval.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) paid a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It was generous of my hon. Friend to introduce his speech with that tribute. He and I know that his kind words have been well earned by my right hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked what the procedure would be for acquiring a certificate of exemption. He drew attention to the fairly modest scale of the organisations in villages and rural areas that would be applying for exemptions. He said that the bureaucracy should not be so great that such organisations would be discouraged, or would receive certificates long after the event in respect of which they were applying. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with this issue fairly extensively last week in column 1094 of Hansard. He made it plain that there will be a transfer of the function that is now undertaken by Customs and Excise and that no new bureaucracy is envisaged. It is a relatively simple matter. If a club does not admit the public on payment and it is not run for private gain, it will not need a cinematograph licence or an exempted organisation certificate.

An exempted organisation certificate will be required only when the public is admitted on payment on a more frequent basis than six times a year. Most of the clients will not need to apply for a certificate. Applications for certificates will be dealt with as quickly as possible. I recognise the need for speed. I also recognise that most of those clubs are run by volunteers who have masses of other things to do. The people who carry out those voluntary duties tend to have a large number of other voluntary duties and to be the people who do everything in a village. Therefore, we recognise that they will not be the people who have the advantages and assets of great business organisations. We shall do our best to process the applications at least no less quickly than they have been processed by the Customs and Excise.

An organisation applying to the Home Office will probably be asked to produce a copy of its constitution and its accounts for the previous year. It will usually be apparent that a body is eligible, or is not, as the case may be. A quick decision can then be given. The fee will be kept as low as possible. There are few applications and the work involved should be minimal.

I am greatly reassured by my hon. and learned Friend's remarks. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will clarify this point. Does he visualise the possibility that an organisation such as the women's institute or the over-sixties clubs could be given an overall certificate? There may be occasions when such organisations show films more than six times a year and when they make a profit. Their motive may not be gain but they may wish to make a profit from the showing to cover the overheads of hiring the village hall or so that they can make a contribution to other good causes, such as meals on wheels. I do not ask my hon. and learned Friend to answer that question at this stage. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place he will consider the possibility that some organisations can have a blanket agreement.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I entirely understand the thinking behind his suggestion, which is eminently worth considering. We should like to help if we can and we shall give serious consideration to his suggestion.

Certificates are currently issued for two years. In response to my hon. Friend's suggestion we shall consider whether they should be issued for a longer period with a view to reducing the work and keeping the fee to a minimum.

My hon. Friend asked about the level of fines. I took note of the point that he made. We are saying that £10,000 should be the maximum fine for someone who breaks the provisions of the Bill once it is enacted, by showing a sadistic film or a film involving an offence which, if it were actually perpetrated, would be a criminal offence. My hon. Friend said that it would be bizarre if that fine were greater than a fine that could be imposed if the offence were committed in the flesh. I understand that. If the film portrays something of gravity, almost certainly it will be triable on indictment. My hon. Friend will know that if it is triable on indictment the level of fine in almost every case—if not every case—is unlimited. The courts' discretion is untrammelled. The fine would not be limited to £10,000.

For a long time our law has provided that fines may not be imposed in a criminal case without having regard to the means of the offender to pay, for obvious and sensible reasons. Therefore, the point to be borne in mind is that the House believes that £10,000 is the correct level as the maximum fine for an offence under the Bill because we believe that a great deal of money is made out of those activities. The maximum fine should take account of that fact. I take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I do not think that he need feel that there are grounds for the anxiety that he expressed, particularly bearing in mind that when the offence is triable on indictment the maximum fine is unlimited.

The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) asked how we would deal with the levels of fines imposed individually by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which deals with sex shop offences, and this Bill. We intend that the maximum fine shall be the same in each case. We shall take steps in another place to ensure that the maximum fine in the Bill dealing with sex shops is increased accordingly. I hope that I have dealt with the questions that have been asked.

The sympathetic consideration which has been given to this measure, and to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill both here and in another place, has confirmed that there is a good deal of concern about the activities of what has been called the "sex industry". In particular, there is concern about the lack of effective powers at present over sex shops and sex cinemas, and a widespread feeling that local authorities should have a greater measure of control over those premises.

One way, perhaps, of tackling this problem would be to attempt a fundamental reform of the laws governing the publication, sale and exhibition of pornography. This would be in the hope that agreement could be reached on what may or may not be sold or exhibited lawfully, and in what circumstances, and in the further hope that the necessary degree of control could be exercised simply by the need to comply with the general provisions of the criminal law. The assumption would be that if a shop was selling articles, or if a cinema was exhibiting a film or cassette, which complied with the general provisions of the criminal law, no further controls would be necessary.

I suggest, however, that this approach would present a number of formidable difficulties, which serve to confirm the wisdom of the rather different approach adopted in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and by the Government in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

It is clear, I think, from the very mixed reception given to the recommendations made by the Williams committee on obscenity and film censorship, that at present it would be a profoundly difficult task to reach any wide measure of agreement on the direction and detail of any fundamental reform of the law on obscenity.

Last June I endeavoured to say in the debate on the Williams committee report that the Government's view is that, in the absence of any early prospect of this measure of agreement being achieved, it is sensible to look to make progress in more limited areas where there may be a greater consensus about what needs to be done. Otherwise that might be described as the nibbling, rather than the overall, approach.

It is also, I think, clear that the general provisions of the criminal law—even if amended or reformed—may not always provide, in some respects, a sufficiently sensitive and flexible means of control. There are always liable to be materials or articles about the position of which under obscenity legislation is in doubt and where the authorities are dubious about the chances of a criminal prosecution, but the sale or exhibition of which is liable to cause offence in a particular locality. This point is already recognised to a considerable extent in the case of the cinema. Films are subject to the provisions of the Obscene Publications Acts, but this layer of control is overlaid by the much more direct and refined control provided by the cinema licensing system. As the House is aware, this system gives local authorities complete discretion over what may be shown in the cinemas in their area.

The very different arrangements governing the cinema attest to the widespread agreement—which the discussions on my hon. Friend's Bill have confirmed—that there is a need for particular caution when considering the impact of film. It is worth recalling at this point what the Williams committee had to say on this matter in chapter 12 of its report. It commented in paragraph 12.10:

"Film, in our view, is a uniquely powerful instrument: the close-up, fast cutting, the sophistication of modern make-up and special effects techniques, the heightening effect of sound effects and music, all combine on the large screen to produce an impact which no other medium can create.".

Discussing whether there should continue to be a system of film censorship for adults, the committee remarked:

"What clinched the argument for some of us at least was the sight of some of the films with which the censorship presently interferes. We feel it necessary to say to many people who express liberal sentiments about the principle of adult freedom to choose that we were totally unprepared for the sadistic material that some film makers are prepared to produce. We are not here referring to the explicit portrayal of sexual activity or to anything which simply attracts charges of offensiveness. Films that exploit a taste for torture and sadistic violence do raise further, and disturbing questions."

The committee added:

"It is not simply the extremity of the violence which concerns us: we found it extremely disturbing that highly explicit depictions of mutilation, savagery, menace and humiliation should be presented for the entertainment of an audience in a way that appeared to emphasise the pleasures of sadism. Indeed, some of the film sequences we saw seemed to have no purpose or justification other than to reinforce or sell the idea that it can be highly pleasurable to inflict injury, pain or humiliation (often in a sexual context) on others."

The committee recommended that there should continue to be a film censorship system applying to children and adults, although, as hon. Members will be aware, it proposed a number of changes, including the replacement of the present British Board of Film Censors by a statutory film examining board and the abolition of the censorship powers of local authorities.

The committee also recommended—this goes to the heart of my hon. Friend's Bill—an extension of the film censorship system in order that it should apply to the bogus commercial "clubs". Before considering how that is achieved in my hon. Friend's Bill, it is worth reflecting that the Williams committee gave considerable thought to the matter. It has been, as is clearly shown in the passage that I referred to, taken by surprise by the scale and quality of the material included in the films. It is against the background of the present system of licensing that we need to consider the activities of the bogus commercial clubs.

The Williams committee believed that the abuses represented by those establishments are of two kinds. First, to evade film censorship requirements the clubs also evaded safety requirements. I do not believe that anyone is likely to dispute that it is wholly unsatisfactory that these premises should not have to comply with the same safety standards as other commercial cinemas. Secondly, the committee pointed out that there was no control at all over the nature of the films shown in these premises—apart from the provision of the Obscene Publications Acts—or over the audiences admitted to them. The committee commented in paragraph 12.35 of its report:

"Although many clubs show films which we would regard as acceptable for restricted viewing, this is not always the case. We were told that one sadistic sex film which we saw might have been shown in clubs in this country; our view was that the film would be turned down by any censorship system, however liberal, and we noted in our talks with the French film censor that the same and similar films are banned entirely in France despite the existence of a special category there for films which are pornographic or, indeed, incite to violenece. There are a number of film clubs which specialise in oriental martial arts films which can be extremely violent and which are often required to be cut by the British Board of Film Censors even before being given an 'X' certificate. The admission of children to these clubs means that uncensored films containing the kind of material which would not be passed even for adult veiwing in a public cinema, is being shown without any restriction at all on who may see it. We consider it desirable that the scope of the censorship system should be extended so as to impose some control on what at present is subject to none. There is a need both to draw the line at what is acceptable even for restricted audiences and to ensure that restrictions are properly observed."

As my hon. Friend has made plain on a number of occasions, the reason that these premises have been able to evade the cinema licensing arrangements is that they take advantage of an exemption from licensing in section 5(1) of the Cinematograph Act 1952 for exhibitions to which the public are not admitted. That exemption, as the side note to the section indicates, was intended to benefit private non-commercial exhibitions of the kind held by many bona fide clubs and societies. Parliament plainly did not envisage that it would be exploited for commercial reasons.

The Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill, introduced by the Government of the day in the 1973–74 Session, proposed, among other matters, that that loophole should be blocked by qualifying the exemption so that exhibitions promoted for private gain would require a licence. The same recommendation was made by the Williams committee and has been adopted by my hon. Friend in clause 2 of his Bill. I am glad to note that in the proceedings to date that approach seems to have met with general approval. It is a more profitable way of proceeding than trying to distinguish between bogus and bona fide clubs. It is notoriously difficult to do the latter. Moreover, there must be many exhibitions given by churches, schools and other bodies which, although clearly non-commercial, are not run on club lines and which would be adversely affected if exemptions from the cinema requirements were confined strictly to clubs.

My hon. Friend's Bill is to be commended for the attention that it pays to the practical workings of the "private gain" test. Clause 2 will greatly assist the prosecution in proving private gain, particularly by ensuring that such ruses as inflated cloakroom charges will not offer a means of evasion. At the same time it ensures that non-commercial members' clubs—about which the hon. Member for Halifax expressed concern—will not be caught inadvertently by the private gain test simply because the proceeds of an exhibition benefit individuals as members of a club.

Having considered the way in which the Bill will bring the bogus clubs within the cinema licensing system, it is right to ask how the cinema licensing authorities will exercise their powers. The hon. Lady seemed concerned at the extent to which cinema licensing authorities appeared content to rely on the judgment of the British Board of Film Censors. She said on Second Reading that only about 70 cinema licensing authorities take a regular interest in the subject.

The Government made clear in last June's debate that they believe that there is a great deal to be said in favour of retaining local authority participation. But we would not go as far as the hon. Lady in suggesting that local authorities ought to be involved routinely in viewing films. It seems perfectly reasonable that a licensing authority should choose to rely on the British Board of Film Censors, although reserving its right to review a particular film if it thinks that there is cause to do so and, if necessary, to differ from the board's judgment. I do not believe that the fact that the great majority of cinema licensing authorities are largely content to rely on the board is a matter which is to be deplored.

My hon. Friend's Bill also makes some very useful reforms in the administrative arrangements governing the cinema licensing system. It is right, as the House accepted in discussing the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend, that the fire authority should be given a clear locus in those arrangements. It is understandable that the censorship aspects of the cinema licensing system should attract most attention, but it is often forgotten that its original purpose—even recently the Williams committee called it its "main purpose"—was to provide for the physical safety of those attending cinematograph exhibitions. It is interesting to note that the 1909 Act simply spoke of

"An Act to make better provision for securing safety at Cinematograph and other Exhibitions".

Only in 1952 was it made clear that the licensing authority's powers included censorship.

I am sure that anyone who has had cause to consult the existing legislation will appreciate the case for consolidating it in one comprehensive measure on cinematograph exhibitions. We shall give serious consideration to the possibility of such a measure, and the steps that are being taken in my hon. Friend's Bill will pave the way for that. That in itself is a good reason for urging that the Bill be given a Third Reading and rapid passage to the statute book. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that it is an extremely worthwhile measure which deserves the support of the House as a whole.

The House is aware that, while we have mobilised and dispatched the task force to the South Atlantic, where it has already been involved in active operations, we have also been pursuing a highly active programme of consultation and negotiation in the search for a diplomatic solution to the present crisis.

The House has shown exemplary patience with my inability to explain the nature of the proposals that we have been examining. I now have to report to the House that Argentine intransigence has again led it to reject proposals for a diplomatic solution. In these circumstances, I think it is right that I should give the House an account of where we stand—and of where we intend to go from here.

The fact that we were able to reach a point where a new set of firm proposals could be put to both sides owes much to the tireless efforts of Mr. Haig. We are also grateful for the constructive contributions of President Belaunde of Peru. We also put forward practical ideas ourselves which take account of the Argentine position as well as our own.

Yesterday we signified that we were willing to accept and implement immediately an interim agreement which would prepare the way for a definitive settlement. Such an agreement would have demonstrated substantial flexibility on our part. If it had been accepted by the Argentines, the ceasefire, which would have been firmly linked to the beginning of Argentine withdrawal, could have come into effect as early as 5 o'clock this afternoon.

The interim agreement under discussion yesterday included the following elements: first, complete and supervised withdrawal of Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands, matched by corresponding withdrawal of British forces; secondly, an immediate ceasefire as soon as Agrentina accepted the agreement and agreed to withdraw; thirdly, appointment of a small group of countries acceptable to both sides which would supervise withdrawal, undertake the interim administration in consultation with the islanders' elected representatives, and perhaps help in negotiations for a definitive agreement on the status of the islands, without prejudice to our principles or to the wishes of the islanders; fourthly, suspension of the existing exclusion zones and the lifting of economic sanctions.

This agreement would not, of course, have prejudged in any way the outcome of the negotiations about the future. As the House knows, that is a sticking point for us. Pending the outcome of the negotiations, the two sides would simply have acknowledged the difference that exists between them over the status of the islands.

We have worked, and will continue to work, positively and constructively for a peaceful solution. Our agreement to these ideas make this once again abundantly clear.

I wish I could say that the Argentine junta had been working in a similar spirit; clearly it was not. The Argentines have so far insisted that a transfer of sovereignty to them should be a precondition of negotiations on a final settlement. The Argentines talk much of the need for decolonisation of the islands. What they appear to mean by this is colonisation by themselves.

In addition to this, the Argentines seem now to be obstructing progress in another but equally fundamental way. They appear to be asking for a ceasefire without any clear link with a withdrawal of their invasion force. To grant this would be to leave them indefinitely in control of people and territory which they had illegally seized, and to deny ourselves the right of pursuing our own self-defence under article 51 of the charter.

We have not allowed Argentine military activities to halt the measures which our task force is taking. We will not allow their diplomatic obstructionism to do so either. Nor will they be allowed to halt our vigorous endeavours to find a peaceful way out of the conflict into which they have led us. This is why I welcomed and co-operated wholeheartedly with the initiatives of Mr. Haig, and why I now welcome the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and am working closely with him.

As the House knows, the Secretary-General has put to both us and Argentina some ideas as a framework around which progress might be made. The Argentine Government claim to have accepted these ideas. We are bound to be sceptical of this claim. There is no indication that Argentina has accepted either that she must withdraw, as resolution 502 demands, or that negotiations cannot, as Argentina insists, be made conditional on the transfer of sovereignty to her. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that Argentina, having rejected ideas devised by Mr. Haig and the President of Peru, can now accept the Secretary-General's ideas which have such a similar basis.

For our part, we have accepted the general approach set out by the Secretary-General. I sent him yesterday a positive and substantive reply, making clear that the elements for a solution put forward by him were close to those which had been the basis of our efforts since the beginning of the crisis.

I made clear at the same time that in our view resolution 502 must be implemented without delay; that an unconditional ceasefire could not under any circumstances be regarded by us as a step towards this; and that implementation of a ceasefire must be unambiguously linked to the commencement of Argentine withdrawal, which must be completed within a fixed number of days. I then went on to give details, which it would not be right to reveal to the House now, of what we would be prepared to accept to fill out the framework suggested by him.

If one phase of diplomatic effort has been brought to an end by Argentine intransigence, another phase is already under way in New York. The aim remains the same: to secure the early implementation of resolution 502. We are working urgently and constructively with the Secretary-General to this end. I hope the Argentines will henceforth show that readiness and desire to reach a peaceful settlement which so far has been evident only on our side. If they do not, then let them be in no doubt that we shall do whatever may be necessary to end their unlawful occupation. Our resolve is undiminished.

It remains the Government's highest priority to achieve an early negotiated settlement if that is humanly possible.

I think that all of us in the House deeply regret the breakdown of the initiatives taken by Mr Haig and President Belaunde. I think that the whole House will also share the Foreign Secretary's concern that it is only the intransigence of the Argentine Government which has prevented a ceasefire from taking place today.

I welcome very much what the right hon. Gentleman said about using the United Nations now as the channel for negotiation. I draw the attention of the House to the remarks yesterday of our ambassador there, Sir Anthony Parsons, who said that

"the United Nations is the only negotiating mechanism in the field now."

He went on to say that he had

"enormous confidence in the Secretary-General."

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will draw those remarks to the attention of those of his hon. Friends who spare no effort to denigrate the efficiency and impartiality of the United Nations as an organisation.

Now that the United Nations is the centre of our efforts for a diplomatic solution, may I put a number of points to the Foreign Secretary?

First, in the light of the Argentine Government's refusal to implement resolution 502, will he seek broader support among the United Nations for economic sanctions against the Argentine? In particular, will he ask the United States Administration to go somewhat further than they went in their announcement last week?

Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman seek to involve the United Nations not only as an intermediary in contacts between the British and Argentine Governments but as an active participant in an ultimate settlement. In particular, now that the Argentines have rejected the American-Peruvian proposals for multinational interim administration, will he seek to persuade the United Nations to provide a transitional administration after the withdrawal of Argentine troops? Will he also explore the possibilities of a United Nations trusteeship over the islands as a long-term solution, as we suggested a fortnight ago?

Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will respect the advice given by the Secretary-General of the United Nations last week that neither side should seek to broaden the confilct? In particular, will he reject firmly and absolutely pressure from his hon. or right hon. Friends to bomb the airfields on the mainland? This would be a far more difficult and hazardous enterprise than even a mass direct assault on the the island of the East Falklands. It would be likely to involve loss of civilian life. It would dismay our friends. It could bring other countries in Latin America into active military support of the Argentine Government.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said at the start of his remarks. The whole House, I think, shares the concern about the breakdown of efforts.

My reply to the first point that the right hon. Gentleman raised is "Yes, Sir." We want the broadest possible support from as many countries as possible for further economic measures. I discussed this matter with Mr. Haig last weekend. The United States has not closed its mind to the possibility of taking further economic measures. Our strategy from the outset has been to build the pressures of the three varieties that we have often spoken about. We have undoubtedly increased pressure in all three areas throughout the period, and that still applies today. We want that to continue into the future with the support of our friends in Europe and the Commonwealth which they have so far shown. If others come along too, that can only be helpful in the overall strategy.

Whether or not the Secretary-General and the United Nations become involved in the transitional administration remains to be seen. At the moment the Secretary-General is waiting to hear what kind of response he gets from Argentina. That is by no means certain. As to the longer term, I certainly would not rule out, and I did not do so in the the House the other day, the possibility of trusteeship. Indeed, the British Government's long-term position has been not to rule out anything, but always without prejudice to what those living on the islands prefer.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have no desire whatever to escalate military action, let alone to broaden the field of military activity. Clearly, our concern is to confine it. At this point, one cannot rule out any option. That must not be taken by the House to mean anything specific. What we are doing is to ensure that our task force has orders appropriate to the circumstances in which it is engaged in the South Atlantic while at the same time we put our maximum weight, effort and emphasis on the attempts that we are making to achieve a negotiated settlement.

Ts my right hon. Friend aware that, despite Argentine obstructiveness and culpability, if he continues resolutely and intrepidly to pursue a peaceful solution he will have the support of the House? However, will he bear in mind in the negotiations that the one thing that is paramount in this situation is the safety and security of our British task force?

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. The safety and security of our task force is uppermost in our minds. It is very much uppermost all the time in the minds of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and all my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that we support his firm stand in insisting that there must be a clear link between any ceasefire and a withdrawal of the Argentine forces.? It would be incompatible with resolution 502 were any such proposition to be put to the Security Council, and I hope and believe that it never would be done. Although the right hon. Gentleman has been generous in terms of the strategic trust area for the longer term, will he accept that this is close to the points contained in his proposals for the interim? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would certainly serve to give the lie to those who claim that we are a colonial power or that we have any wish to do anything other than to resist aggression and to protect the interests of the Falkland Islanders if the British Government stated clearly that they would accept the voluntary placement of the Falkland Islands as a strategic trust area with British administration and protect it for our strategic interests with our veto power in the Security Council?

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the linkage between the ceasefire and withdrawal. That has always seemed to us to be critically important.

On his second point, I am not in the business of ruling out anything even in the short term in relation to possible interim arrangements. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am in the business of keeping doors open and not closing them.

I fully support my right hon. Friend in seeking a peaceful settlement, although the means so far put forward seem unpromising, but will he give an assurance that in no way shall we hold back the military commanders from achieving our objectives by military means if necessary?

I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. The position at the moment, as my right hon. Friend knows, is that the task force is securing the total exclusion zone. That it is undoubtedly doing. There is a range of military options in the future upon which we could well have to take a decision, or a series of decisions, if these efforts fail and circumstances alter. They are very much in our mind. I can certainly give the assurance that my right hon. Friend wants.

Will the Foreign Secretary clarify Government policy in some important areas? First, does he rule out any United Nations appeal for a ceasefire that falls short of total agreement to the withdrawal of all Argentine forces? Secondly, does he reject General Haig's proposal published a week ago that the Argentines should be involved in the administration of the islands meanwhile? Thirdly, does he still insist upon British sovereignty subject to the islanders' veto? Fourthly, has he had assurances from President Reagan that American support would continue if British forces were used to bomb the airfields on the Argentine mainland?

The first point is ruled out. The connection and linkage between ceasefire and withdrawal is included within resolution 502. It is vital that they go together. As to the proposals—indeed, more than one series of proposals—that have been put by the United States and latterly by the United States and Peru to the Argentines, these have been rejected by the Argentines and any further consideration of them does not therefore arise.

So far as interim arrangements are concerned, I would not like to say that we have ruled out any particular options. One can imagine that interim arrangements that put Argentina in a dominant position would be totally unacceptable, but I have kept our options open.

On the issue of British sovereignty, our position is that this is British sovereign territory. We are totally clear about that. We acknowledge, however, that the Argentines feel that they have a claim to it. We believe that that claim is invalid but acknowledge that they have that claim. Let that be negotiated about in a peaceful way. That is perhaps the crunch point.

The right hon. Gentleman's last point has not arisen at the moment. I can only say that President Reagan and the United States Administration have, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, come down firmly on the British side. They are giving us all the support that they can but are not intending to become militarily involved. Mr. Haig announced the basis upon which the United States was supporting us. We are grateful for that. We respect the basis on which the United States supports us.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the course of the negotiations so far with Peru and Mr. Haig seems to indicate that Argentina backs off as soon as proposals become more specific? Does this not indicate that the Argentines are perfectly willing to negotiate provided that they get 100 per cent. of what they ask? Is that a satisfactory position?

It is not a satisfactory position. What is to be put to the test now is the response of the Argentines to the Secretary-General. We want to see what it is. They have given the impression by statements, many of which, if not most of which, as the House knows, have been very misleading, that they have accepted it. I have already remarked that we are sceptical about that. We want to find out—no doubt we shall find out in the next few days—what has been their response. We shall then see whether or not we are in business.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Liberal Party continues to support the Government's initiatives to try to secure a solution and that we join others in the House in lamenting the fact that the Peruvian initiative has failed? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that members of the task force, who are clearly in some danger, will be left in no doubt that the additional Harriers that are on their way to the South Atlantic in the "Atlantic Conveyor" container vessel will soon be there to give the necessary air cover to ensure the air exclusion zone? Will he also accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I join other Opposition Members in looking towards a United Nations solution based on trusteeship?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think that I can give him the assurances for which he asks. I can also tell him that the morale of the task force is very high indeed. It is setting about its work with the professionalism that we have come to expect from all our Services. It is, of course, aware of what is going on and what reinforcements are coming up behind. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the morale of our troops is very high indeed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he deserves the thanks and congratulations of the House on the tireless way in which he has striven to achieve a peaceful solution? Is he also aware that the Government fully deserve complete support for any measures that they and our task force commanders consider sensible and feasible? Will he please use whatever channels he can to impress on the Argentines that if we have to repossess the islands by force it will become extremely difficult to contemplate the sort of package that was on offer yesterday?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, if all endeavours to reach a sensible, reasonable and fair settlement by peaceful means fail, nobody is in doubt about what we shall do. We cannot allow the occupation of the islands to continue.

rose—

Order. I think it wise for us to have another five minutes on questions. We shall probably have further statements on the issue.

Is it not clear that the recent escalation of military activity has contributed nothing to diplomatic success and that while negotiations continue our paramount concern should be to avoid the loss of more lives, from whatever source? Until it is clear that the present diplomatic initiatives and the new wave of negotiations are completed, any action that would result in the death of anybody should be suspended.

I regret to say that I completely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have not the slightest iota of doubt that the sustained build up of military pressure has had, and is having, its effect. Our securing and protecting of the total exclusion zone is an indispensable element in any possibility of achieving a peaceful result.

May I congratulate the Government on the skill, resolve and patience that they have demonstrated in handling this immensely difficult dispute? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that every means available to the Government is employed to bring home to world opinion, in its understandable anxiety about a potential increase in armed conflict, that it should not overlook the fact that the Argentine aggressors have continued over the past five weeks blatantly to disregard resolution 502, have sabotaged the heroic efforts of Mr. Haig through his peace proposals, and have now sabotaged the proposals of their Latin American ally, President Belaunde of Peru?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which is extremely important. It has not been possible hitherto to give anything but the most elementary outline of what might be the elements of a settlement to bring about a withdrawal, and we have, in a sense, been handicapped, compared with the propaganda effort of the Argentines. Although much of it has been misleading, they have been able to say whatever they like and some countries and people are apt to believe what they say.

I hope that what I have said to the House today, which I will convey to the press in all other countries in a conference that I am to hold when I leave the House, will start to put right what has hitherto been an inevitable and unavoidable omission in what we have been able to say. I think that it is clear after what I have said in the House that we have gone as far as we reasonably could to try to get a settlement. Proposals of more or less the same type, though they were different, have twice been rejected by the Argentines and we shall have to see what response they give to the Secretary-General.

I am conscious of the most important point raised by my hon. Friend and we shall do everything that we can to convey the facts to public opinion in other countries, which is no less important or significant in the conflict than is the opinion of our own country.

What steps have been taken, possibly with North or South American assistance, to overcome the jamming of the BBC service to Argentina?

Secondly, do the right hon. Gentleman's options include the possibility of using article 96 of the United Nations charter? The Prime Minister rejected that on the ground that it would produce only an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, but surely it is a possible advantage that the Security Council is not necessarily bound by such a judgment.

We are doing what we can with overseas broadcasts. There are many other channels in the Southern American hemisphere and we are using every channel that we can and doing everything we can to get our message through by those means.

On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we have not ruled out that option. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear in our debate just over a week ago.

Is it not clear that, if we go on as we are, we shall be bending over backwards so far that we shall fall flat on our backs in seeking to achieve a diplomatic settlement? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the Argentine junta will never agree to a settlement in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution 502 and that the longer our forces are in the South Atlantic, the greater will be the danger to them? Is it not time that we answered with what has to be done, which is to take the Falkland Islands back by force?

It remains to be seen whether the Argentines will fulfil resolution 502. I think that not only the exertion of the various measures that we have taken, but the influence of public opinion in countries all round the world can have an important influence on the Argentines at the present time. It remains to be seen whether they fulfil the resolution, but I assure my hon. Friend that, in the meantime, I intend to stand and to remain upright.

rose—

Order. We must return to Private Members' business.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House entrusts to your good judgment the time at which questions on statements should be terminated, but may I point out to you that only one non-Privy Councillor on the Labour Benches has been called to ask a question?

An absolute disgrace.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bear that point of balance in mind when statements are made in future?

rose—

Right hon. Members must not be barred from being called merely because they are Privy Councillors.

On a distinct and different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to submit to you a consideration for the future handling of statements and discussions in the House on this grave matter.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was asked from the Opposition Front Bench to forgo the option of bombarding Argentina, he was asked from the Liberal Benches about the supply of Harriers, and he was asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) about methods to prevent the jamming of our broadcasts. The answers to those questions could surely be of great value to our adversary.

There are many questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would like to ask, but we have not asked them because of our fear that the answers, or even the putting of the questions, might give comfort to the Argentine bandits. Therefore, I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, might wish to consult both sides of the House on whether we should be willing in future to go into secret session if necessary.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I was mentioned by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), may I assure the House that Argentina may take no comfort from me? I fully support my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

I keep for the next occasion a list of those Members who are not called.

Then what has happened in the past four weeks?

The hon. Gentleman is not alone in not having been called; others have been trying to be called. I am conscious of the frustration of those who are not called, but we must move on now.

Disgraceful.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Object.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Object.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

It gives me great pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), in his place to answer this Adjournment debate. I know how hard my hon. Friend tries to help hon. Members with their constituents' problems.

My hon. Friend will know that the majority of low-rise building before 1940 was in 9 in. brickwork and that since 1945 it has been mainly of cavity construction. By using the same volume of material and by creating a gap of about 2 in. between the two skins, and using only the same amount of total material, usually with bricks on the outside and an inner skin of thermal blocks, it has been found possible to reduce the heat loss through the walls by about half. In technical terms that means a U value reduction from 2·3 to about 1·2. I apologise for those technical details, but as a chartered surveyor I believe that this is a matter of considerable importance.

About 20 years ago it was realised that by putting insulating material into the gap, the loss could be reduced by more than half again so that one finishes up with a heat loss of about one fifth of the total heat loss that would have taken place through a 9 in. brick wall. Because of the enormous increase in fuel prices during this period there have been major advances in cavity wall insulation. This normally takes three main forms. It can be of mineral wool, urea formaldehyde foam or polystyrene granules. The mineral wool and polystyrene granules are manufactured off site and are back-filled into the cavity through the gaps after bricks have been removed or holes have been made to facilitate that operation.

On the other hand, urea formaldehyde, which is created by the introduction of resin and a hardening material, is pumped into the cavity where it hardens off, and during that process it gives off a vapour. Urea formaldehyde has been used for a long time, particularly in the medical world. It is, I understand, even used in small quantities in the making of bread. Therefore, the substance has been in common use for a considerable time.

Since a vapour is given off the operatives who work on site must use masks to ensure that they do not take too much into their lungs or eyes. However, if people are subject to the vapour and they are not properly protected they often complain of nausea, sore eyes, skin rash, headaches, general lethargy, muscular pain, insatiable thirst and disturbed sleep, and I imagine that there are probably other symptons.

In most domestic properties the inner skin of the cavity is load-bearing and therefore this is relatively continuous and impervious to the vapour. I am told that over 1 million domestic properties have been treated in this way. However, in a number of cases that have recently come to my notice, including an old people's home in my constituency, it appears that no adequate check was made before application to ensure that the inner skin was impervious.

A number of heating ducts, for example, breached the cavity. The architect who designed the building did not of course, have it in mind that the cavity would be filled with a substance that gave off vapour. As a consequence vapour was discharged into the premises while they were still occupied by residents and staff in March of last year. It was obvious that something had to be done, and in its usual efficient way, the local borough council, which has an excellent record for taking care of elderly people in the borough and which has extremely good relations with its staff, determined to do something as soon as possible. It called in the contractors and it was agreed that work should be done effectively to seal the inner skin. Therefore, the staff and patients were moved out about five weeks after the cavity had first been filled.

About five weeks later the patients and staff were allowed to return, the main remedial work having been carried out and the discharge of vapour having dropped considerably from the levels recorded when the substance was originally inserted. However, although the figures have continually dropped, during wet and windy weather the readings are inclined to rise giving positive signs in some rooms that the vapour is still present. The contractor left measuring apparatus on the site so measurements can be taken whenever necessary. Even on bad days the discharge is still within the limit that the factories inspectorate considers tolerable, but, nevertheless, it causes considerable distress, especially to people who were present when the work was originally carried out and who have now become especially sensitive to the vapour.

Recently, the problem has arisen at Hemel Hempstead, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who, unfortunately, is incapacitated and cannot be present, where a school has suffered. In all of these cases the problem appears to occur in unusual constructions. A house built conventionally with two skins usually has no difficulty, but in a purpose-designed building, such as a hospital, old people's home or school, often the architect had no knowledge or expectation that the cavity will be subsequently filled, so it was not designed to accommodate any such substance. Consideration should therefore be given to what might be done about the British Standards for dealing with the material.

Where it is desired to carry out such work, an inspection should be made of the site and an expert from the firm concerned should examine the structure, preferably using construction plans. Most properties which are likely to be treated will have been constructed since 1945 and it should not therefore be too difficult, through either the owner or the local authority, to gain access to plans for investigation to establish whether difficulties are likely to arise by the addition of a substance giving off vapour. Where plans are not available, the contractor should be required to carry out a pressure or smoke test to ensure that no inside emission is possible.

For example, in the structure in Southend the cavities around the windows and at roof level especially were open and the fumes free to escape into the atmosphere inside the building. That is, in my view, a failure on the part of the contractors, probably through ignorance. They did not check that that would be likely to happen, and I understand that the school has now been made unusable for a number of weeks. If that is likely, those people who are not wearing protective masks and clothing are bound to suffer.

We then come to the most important aspect of the case. Is that suffering likely to be temporary or is it likely to be long-term? If the latter, are we thinking in terms of five or 10 years, or could people be sensitised for the whole of their lives? Obviously, it will seriously impair their pleasure and their opportunity to find employment, because they will have to avoid any environment that might include this substance.

I understand that the Consumer Product Safety Commission in America has expressed grave concern over the use of the product and has instituted a ban on the use of urea formaldehyde, which is subject to ratification by both Congress and Senate. I should like to know whether the Minister has any information, either from the United States of America or as a result of research carried out recently in Britain, on the effects on health of foam vapour.

I refer particularly here to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction gave in a written answer on 18 March this year, at c. 193. I am most anxious to know whether any known antidote has been established, and whether there are likely to be any long-term or more serious effects that my constituents could suffer through having been subjected to an excessive dose of this vapour when it was first used on their premises.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for raising this subject today, because it gives me the opportunity to review the uses of the material, the problems to which it can give rise and the actions that the Government are taking to deal with it.

I would not dissent from the perceptive historical analysis with which my hon. Friend introduced his remarks. He gave the history of how dwellings in Britain have been constructed. As he said, urea formaldehyde foam has been used here for about 20 years to insulate the cavity walls of houses. It is an effective and relatively inexpensive insulant, and it has brought substantial benefits in energy conservation.

A broad estimate, which my hon. Friend mentioned—based on the figures of Audits of Great Britain Limited—suggests that about 1 million dwellings in Great Britain have been insulated with the material concerned.

The overwhelming majority of those dwellings have walls of traditional double masonry construction, by which I mean walls with brick or block outer and inner leaves spaced apart by some 50 millimetres. I appreciate, of course, that timber frame housing is now being constructed in increasing quantity in the United Kingdom, but this particular type of house still forms only a small fraction of the total stock, and information available to the Building Research Establishment suggests that very few houses of this kind have been insulated with urea formaldehyde foam.

In saying this, I would not deny the fact that UF foam has been used to insulate some houses not of masonry construction. It is not suitable where the inner walls are lightly built, in some cases consisting only of plasterboard which does not provide a sufficient barrier to formaldehyde vapour penetration.

I am also aware that UF foam has been used in hospitals, schools and non-housing situations, and that a particular type of foam has been used on a small scale to insulate lofts. The extent of those uses is currently being determined by the Building Research Establishment and I shall return to the Government's attitude to those uses in a moment.

Using ingredients of the right composition, mixed in correct proportions, and installed by trained operators in walls that are soundly built and of appropriate construction, UF foam does not give rise to significant problems of formaldehyde smell. The British Standards Institution reports that in a sample of over 150,000 houses insulated with this material under its certification scheme, there was a complaint of smell after eight weeks in only 0·04 per cent. of installations. The initial complaint rate was higher but in most cases the installer was able to take effective remedial action. Most of these were probably cases in which there were undetected defects in the inner masonry leaf, allowing easier penetration of the formaldehyde vapour into the dwelling.

Formaldehyde vapour, when it does enter the building, can sometimes cause irritation of the respiratory tract and the eyes of occupants. Formaldehyde is also known to produce sensitivity of the skin and respiratory tract in a small proportion of individuals.

We have no evidence that a significant proportion of people in this country are allergic to formaldehyde. If allergy is suspected, the normal allergy treatment is appropriate. If positive, the usual anti-allergy treatments are recommended. My hon. Friend referred to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction in a written answer of 18 March. This stated that

"the chief medical officer of the Department of Health and Social Security, who is the Government's senior adviser on health matters, has indicated that the completed studies of people exposed to formaldehyde vapour have not found any evidence that it causes cancer, changes in lung structure, or permanent impairment of lung function in man."—[Official Report, 18 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 193.]

Further research on animals in the United States is being evaluated by a DHSS expert advisory committee, and in this country and in North America several wide-ranging surveys of the health of people who have been exposed during their work to concentrations of formaldehyde substantially greater than will be encountered in insulated buildings are in progress.

Their results should be available next year. All the evidence on possible health effects of low-level and long-term exposure to formaldehyde is being reviewed by the expert committees who advise my right hon. Friend the Secrtary of State. I say this to emphasise to my hon. Friend that present evidence does not indicate any hazard to health at formaldehyde vapour concentrations liable to be attained in properly insulated dwellings. Concentration in such situations, where these have been measured, have in all cases been substantially below the limit value established to protect workers in industry.

Perhaps this is the point for me to remind the House that formaldehyde, as my hon. Friend mentioned, is not only used in UF foam. It is widely used in plastics, resins, chipboard, and many other products from which its vapour can also escape. It is an important biological preservative. In some industrial situations, it can attain much higher concentrations than in non-industrial buildings. Questions of its safety have much wider implications than those we are debating today. Because of the importance of this material, it is right that we give close attention to all the medical evidence as it comes to hand, and I can assure my hon. Friend that this is and will continue to be the Government's policy.

My hon. Friend mentioned the United States. It is perhaps right that I say something about the differences between the situation in North America and the United Kingdom. It is a fact that in both Canada and the United States concern over the emission and effects of formaldehyde vapour has led to a ban on UF foam in the former country and the proposal of one in the latter. But the circumstances are different. The majority of North American houses are of timber frame construction, with wide cavities and inner walls that are relatively readily penetrated by formaldehyde vapour. As I said earlier, we in Britain do not regard these as appropriate to insulation with UF foam, and have not normally used it in such dwellings.

Both Canada and the United States, moreover, have lacked the apparatus of control through building regulations, and of advice and guidance through the British Standards Institution and through a responsible trade association, which have been fortunate features of the British scene. I say this to stress that there are substantial differences between the United States and Canadian situations and our own.

None the less, I appreciate that the actions in North America, together with reports of cases in this country where formaldehyde has entered buildings and caused symptoms including irritation, have caused concern among architects and industry alike.

Very recently, the Royal Institute of British Architects has advised members who intend to use the foam to obtain warranties from the manufacturer, supplier and installer and to discuss use of the material with their clients in advance. It is clearly right that those in the building industry do all that they can to ensure that any installation is done using high quality ingredients, to a good standard of workmanship, and that purchasers understand what they are buying.

I must stress that we already have substantial control machinery. There are two British standards that bear on urea formaldehyde foam. The first, BS5617, specifies the quality that should be attained by the raw materials to be used, in producing the foam and the performance to be expected of the resulting foam if it is to be suitable for cavity wall insulation. A second British standard, which is in the form of a code of practice—BS5618—describes how the foam should be installed, and the properties of the masonry—masonry cavity wall that make it suitable for filling. The British standard lays great stress on climate, because our earlier concern with cavity insulation was that it would allow damp to penetrate through the outer walls of a house more readily.

The standard lays down conditions for exposure in terms of driving rain and also limits wall height. It also describes the essential procedures and precautions to be adopted by those installing foam. It does not deal with walls other than those of double masonry construction.

The British Standards Institution has also established a surveillance scheme under which firms conducting the installation of this material can be registered. Those thus registered are expected to comply with the two British standards and to undertake proper training of their staff. The Department of the Environment has issued type relaxation direction 4 under the building regulations, allowing firms registered with the British Standards Institution under this scheme to insert foam upon seven days' notice to a local authority. Those not thus registered would be required to make a specific application for each individual installation, and to go through the full procedures of local authority scrutiny.

In addition to those controls, the National Cavity Installers Association, as the relevant trade association, provides guidance to its members on the procedures for satisfactory installation of foam and on the training of personnel. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that that adds up to a substantial framework of controls.

My hon. Friend mentioned two instances that he has brought to our attention. I take it that the Hyleford old people's home is the home to which he referred He has written to my Department and I shall shortly be replying, telling him that if the appropriate authority approaches the BRE for an investigation through its advisory service it would be happy to undertake such an investigation and to give advice on building and construction matters, on the usual terms of such investigations.

I take it that the school to which my hon. Friend referred was the one in Westcliff. My Department has not been involved in any investigation of the building, but we are in touch with the Health and Safety Executive and we are aware of the visits and measurements that it has made at the school and at the old people's home. I understand that the school is to be re-opened on 17 May, doubtless to the relief of the parents concerned.

My hon. Friend has made a number of points that deserve a response and I should like to stress that my Department is not content to rest at this point. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has instituted a substantial supplementary programme of research to ascertain more precisely the extent to which formaldehyde vapour does penetrate into the interior of buildings of various types insulated with UF foam, and the survey is looking at houses other than those of double masonry construction and installations in other types of buildings.

A review of the scope of building regulations in this area is also in hand, and we are in consultation with the British Standards Institution about the possibility of a revision of its standard, making it explicit that it is inappropriate to use this material in this form in any buildings other than those which combine double masonry construction with other features that make penetration of vapour into the interior unlikely.

Can my hon. Friend help over the sensitivity that is acquired by those who are subjected to the vapour and whether they are likely to suffer for long? It appears that if a person suffers an excessive dose at some stage, subsequent minor doses can cause the original distress to return. Does my hon. Friend have any information on that and, if not, will he look into it?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend such information as I have. Formaldehyde can cause irritation of the eyes and upper respiratory tract. The threshold for mild eye irritation may be as low as 0·01 parts per million in some particularly sensitive individuals; 4 parts per million and above causes the eyes to water in most individuals and higher levels will have marked irritant effects on the nose and throat. However, the available evidence from occupational studies suggests that those effects are reversible and that formaldehyde does not cause chronic impairment of lung function at the levels encountered in the work place.

As I said a few minutes ago, we have no evidence that a significant proportion of people in Britain are allergic to formaldehyde. If allergy is suspected, the normal treatment is appropriate and if positive, the usual anti-allergy treatments are recommended. If my hon. Friend wants any additional information, I shall be happy to give it to him in correspondence.

We are here dealing with a material that has brought substantial benefits to the community through energy conservation. We have not encountered the difficulties that have emerged in North America. We have hundreds of thousands of houses where the foam has been installed without any complaints arising; it has brought substantial savings to the occupants.

However, we are working on the strengthening of the framework of advice and control so as to guard against inappropriate use, and we are also keeping under close and searching review all the medical evidence about the toxicity of formaldehyde available both in this country and overseas as it becomes available to our expert advisers.

I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied that the Government are aware of the issues that he has raised and have formulated an appropriate response to them.