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

The amendment is purely technical.

I will not detain the House, but I could not help noticing that there was a split infinitive in the clause, so I welcome the amendment. We ought to ensure that legislation that goes through the House conforms with the highest educational standards, which the Government are considering carefully at the moment. I look forward to the day when the grammar of all our citizens has improved sufficiently to make it unnecessary to introduce such amendments at such a late stage in our proceedings.

It would be a pity if the opportunity were lost to congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on the skill with which he has piloted the Bill through the House. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in doing so.

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

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 8.

The amendments deal with the stopping-up process, which is a rather controversial issue. Throughout our proceedings, my task has been to try to reconcile the various interests. I have had to be a bit of an acrobat at times. I do not know whether that qualifies me for the circus, but I hope that a good Bill will result from the efforts made on all sides. I am reliably informed that the present Bill is indeed a good Bill, although we do riot achieve perfection in this world.

I am extremely grateful to Lord Houghton for the way in which he handled the amendments in the other place. Lord Elton was a distinguished Member of this House for many years and has become a legendary figure, not least for his efforts in animal welfare. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to pay tribute to his efforts with regard to the Bill. He was a very hard bargainer at times, but he was honest and straightforward, and I am deeply grateful to him.

The animal welfare organisations have assisted me at every stage of the Bill and I am deeply grateful to them. Support for the Bill has been widespread throughout the country. One animal welfare organisation told me that after Third Reading, it received more than 1,000 letters of support for the Bill. That gives some idea of the strength of feeling about the matter.

One particular gentleman who has been very helpful and supportive—and I will name-drop here—is Mr. Phil Drabble. He wrote and spoke to me—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most concerned that no Minister from the Foreign Office is present to make a statement about the situation in Yugoslavia. As the House will know, events there are still extremely unstable. There is the potential for probably the worst possible civil war imaginable. There have already been questions about the matter during Foreign Office questions, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made a statement. However, events are obviously moving very quickly and many people are extremely concerned. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why is there no Foreign Office Minister here at 11 am to make a statement about that absolutely crucial issue?

I am not aware of any request from a Minister for a statement on that serious matter, but I am sure what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by the Government Front-Bench spokesmen.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the by-election in Liverpool, Walton yesterday, I understand that an announcement has been made that there is to be an inquiry by the Leader of the Opposition into membership of this House. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had a request from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to make a statement about the allocation of Opposition days, because I understand that there is to be a split between the Militant party in the House and the Labour party? Has there been any request from the Leader of the House to make a statement to you?

There has been no request for a statement. May we now return to badgers?

The last time that we discussed the Badgers Bill in the House, there were interruptions caused by the Gulf crisis.

I hope that the Bill will receive its Royal Assent. It will protect those wonderful creatures and their setts. I look forward to its implementation in three months or so.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on the way in which he has conducted the negotiations on the Bill. I am grateful to him for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). He would have appreciated those comments, but sadly he has been called away from the Chamber.

The hon. Member for Newport, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes have worked extremely hard to achieve today's compromise. I appreciate that those who feel strongly about the protection of badgers and who wanted to see the Bill passed in its original form may feel that it is less than what they set out to achieve. On the other hand, those of us who represent country interests and country sports also have strong views about the effect of the Bill on the activities of sportsmen, conservationists, farmers and those who have to live in the countryside.

I believe that the compromise will satisfy all parties. It will strengthen the hand of the law enforcer against those despicable people who take badgers for baiting. We were all united on that purpose. I welcome the fact that the Bill has reached the point where I am sure that we will be able to accept it. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make that point. It was important to put it on the record, although I appreciate that it was not strictly in order as we are considering a small group of Lords amendments.

The amendments are mostly concerned with stopping and the need of those who hunt foxes to stop up badger setts to prevent foxes from entering them. We had long debates and discussions about the best way to achieve that to the maximum advantage of the badger and the fox hunter to ensure that fox hunters and farmers—particularly in Wales—can control foxes. The hon. Member for Newport, East is extremely sympathetic to the needs of Welsh farmers who would have found it almost impossible to control foxes which ravaged flocks of lambs had the Bill not been amended in this way. I welcome the fact that earths can be stopped in the way set out in clause 3, as amended.

I want to explain how we arrived at amendment No. 5, which allows earth stopping to be carried out the night before the day of a hunt. It was originally suggested that stopping should be carried out on the day of the hunt. I know that the hon. Member for Newport, East was a little aggrieved that the amendment was included when it did not appear to have been fully discussed and agreed. I offer him our apologies for that. I can assure him that that was not intended. Lord Mancroft had discussed the matter with Lord Houghton and they appeared to reach an agreement, which unfortunately did not hold.

None the less, I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not inhibit the value of his Bill. I am sure that it will not make it any more difficult to control badger baiters and those who unlawfully dig for badgers and attempt to get at them for unlawful purposes. Having been amended in this way, the Bill will be invaluable for the proper practice of earth stopping.

As the House will be aware, roughly speaking, the Bill now states that earths can be stopped on the day of the hunt with bundles of twigs and they can be stopped the night before using loose material—usually a loose filling of earth. That is a very sensible agreement. If twigs and sticks had been used to stop an earth the night before, the badger would not have been able to move them, and it might have been stuck for rather longer than anyone would want to see it stuck in the event of the earth being occupied, or if it was out and wanted to return home. As loose earth is to be used, and as badgers are extremely formidable diggers, I am sure that, if a badger is caught by earth stopping that has been properly carried out the night before, it will be able to dig itself out.

In the countryside, as a result of changing ways, there is a substantial shortage of people who are experienced in earth stopping and are prepared to stop earths for a hunt. Therefore, there would have been an enormous strain on the resources of a hunt had the time limit for stopping remained the day of the hunt. It would have been too much to ask one or two earth stoppers to stop all the earths and setts during that time. Under such a time limit, stopping could not have been carried out properly. It was therefore very important that an amendment was included in the Bill to ensure that the earth stopper can fill the entrances to the earths and setts as necessary, and that that is done properly. That is as important for the animal as it is for the earth stopper.

I very much welcome clause 3, as amended. It will fulfil the purposes of those who introduced the Bill and those of us who sought to adjust it to the needs of those living in the countryside. I welcome the Lords amendments.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for his efforts. In the last Session of this Parliament, I tried to be the kind of go-between that the hon. Gentleman has found himself having more time-consumingly to be. I remember the almost extraordinary scenes when I tried to negotiate a compromise form of wording for the badgers legislation then introduced by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Upstairs in Committee, manuscript amendments were whistling about the Committee Room to and from advisers and civil servants. Any hon. Member trespassing with the intention of legislating on this matter knew in advance that he or she was entering what might be called a countryside minefield. The prospect of the Bill emerging unscathed is therefore extremely welcome.

I have three comments about the different amendments in the group. First, it is perfectly proper to debate the definition of the sorts of material that can be used temporarily to stop sett entrances to prevent foxes from entering them during hunts. Amendment No. 4 changes the terminology from "clean loose" to "untainted", which seems generally acceptable.

My second point is more controversial. The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) said that amendment No. 5 had been the subject of some sort of ambush in the other place—I do not mean that pejoratively. The amendment was tabled at a late stage to change the deadline for the stopping up from the day of the hunt in question to the middle of the day preceding the day of the hunt. I know that that caused some people some concern, because it obviously extends the period during which the sett is unavailable to the badger and can be interfered with in other ways. It would have been better if we could have introduced provisions to apply only on the day of the hunt. We shall have to watch the way in which the provisions are implemented, to ensure that there is no abuse.

I can understand the logic of saying that if those of us who are legislators accept the principle of stopping up in connection with fox hunting, it is better to do that on the day before the hunt, rather than risk it being done early on the morning of the hunt, because stopping up that is carried out in haste in the morning might be worse and more destructive for the sett than work that is carried out more carefully on the day before. On behalf of those who are keen to give the maximum protection to setts, I stress that our acceptance of that logic is not to be taken as a sign that we are giving people a licence to do anything other than the law permits.

My third point relates to who has the authority over that activity. Amendment No. 7 expands the definition of those who have that authority from the current definition given in clause 3, which refers to

"the person is so doing with the consent of the landowner and is authorised by a Hunt recognised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association who shall keep a register of all such persons."

The amendment broadens that definition to include those who are recognised by the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles or the Central Committee of Fell Packs. That is to ensure that, in different parts of the country, other categories of people can be included on the register.

I turn now to a point that we debated last year, both in Committee and in the Chamber, and which we have debated again this year. I refer to the principle that a responsible public body, which is recognised by everybody, should keep the register. That would ensure accountability, and nobody could then say, "I have been given permission to do that," without there being some provision for tracking that person's identity and authority. It is important that all stopping-up activities can be checked and authorised.

Finally, this is the second private Member's Bill that we have considered this morning and, like the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill, the Badgers Bill is welcome. However, it is an anomaly of the British administrative system that different Ministers are responsible for those two Bills. Naturally, I welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) to the Treasury Bench. However, when we discussed the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, the relevant Department was the Department of the Environment. Having moved to a discussion of badgers, which one might think is equally a matter relating to wildlife and the countryside, we find that a Home Office Minister is put in charge. That suggests that there might be scope for a little reform in the definition of ministerial responsibilities.

My party certainly thinks that that is needed, and I hope that the Government will contemplate that before the next election. Perhaps the Tory manifesto—and equally the Labour manifesto—might suggest linking animal and nature issues in one Department. To be honest, I do not think that the Home Office would mind geting rid of its responsibility for animals, as they have caused it a fair amount of trouble in recent months.

I begin by apologising to the House. As a result of leaving the Chamber for a few minutes to attend an important meeting outside, I regret that I did not realise that the debate on the second group of amendments had begun, so I am afraid that I speak having committed a discourtesy to those hon. Members who have already spoken.

My comments about this group of amendments reflect the core of my reservations about the Bill and its predecessors. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on having brought his Bill so far. I know only too well the difficulties of getting a private Member's Bill on to the statute book and I very much welcome his Bill.

Like all my colleagues, over the years I have received a good deal of correspondence from constituents who have been keen to do something to assist the cause of badgers. I have always warmly supported that cause, but with one reservation which I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, as I said, I am delighted that the Bill will soon be on the statute book.

Before turning to the points that cause me particular concern, I must advise the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that he is not alone in being mystified by the intricacies of ministerial responsibilities for matters relating to animals, wildlife and the countryside. When I served at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for a time I was the Minister with responsibility for dogs. It was during that period that the Department gave up its responsibility for dogs—with a good deal of relief. I have a suspicion that in the four years since I have left the Department, my two successors have breathed a great sigh of relief that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food no longer deals with dogs and that that responsibility has been passed to the Home Office which, I am sure, is much better able to deal with it. That is certainly the argument that I used at the time.

My great reservation about the Bill is that not only is it trying to help badgers, which I am sure is what we all want, but at the same time it does not want the control of foxes in certain parts of the country, such as my constituency, to be made more difficult. My constituency contains most of the southern parts of the English Lake district—I think that it is the most beautiful part of the British Isles. People visit it to enjoy its wonderful scenery and amenities. One of the things that they like to see are the sheep grazing on the fells and mountains. Not enough people realise that if it were not for a continual, hard and tough policy of controlling foxes on those fells and mountains, sheep farming would be almost impossible there. The hon. Member for Newport, East knows Wales well and will be aware that the successful farming of sheep on mountainous land depends entirely on controlling foxes which can cause the most dreadful, savage and cruel depredations in the spring. It is almost entirely because of the need to protect sheep on the fells—lambs especially —from foxes that we have fell packs. They carry out the essential job of controlling foxes and making sheep farming possible.

If I were to launch into a dissertation on the current problems of sheep farming on the fells, you might say to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was out of order. That being so, I shall merely say that sheep farming in mountainous areas has never been more difficult in my lifetime, despite the literally hundreds of millions of pounds being poured by the European Community and by the Government into the support of upland farms.

Only two weeks ago I had the great pleasure of attending a meeting that was organised by National Trust tenants in Great Langdale in my constituency. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was kind enough to attend, and she made an excellent speech. It was obvious, however, that great difficulties were being experienced in controlling foxes.

The hon. Member for Newport, East knows that I am concerned that controlling badgers under the welcome provisions of the Bill might mean that controlling foxes in upland areas will become a good deal more difficult. That brings me to Lords amendment No. 7. I am delighted that the amendment, if agreed to, will extend the provisions of the Bill as it stands to include the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles or the Central Committee of Fell Packs. I am not so concerned about harriers and beagles, although harrier packs in the Lake district—certainly the Lunesdale harriers—do an extremely helpful job in controlling foxes.

There is no following of footpacks by people on horses because the terrain in the area which I represent is much too difficult. There are footpacks throughout the Lake district and it is essential that the position of the Central Committee of Fell Packs is fully recognised in the Bill. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Newport, East has agreed to include the provisions of amendment No. 7 in the Bill.

I told the hon. Member for Newport, East a few moments ago that I would give him an example of the problem that is caused by foxes that comes from Wales. I remember being told about 30 years ago of a situation that arose during the second world war when the huntsman of a footpack in west Wales was called up for military service. The pack of hounds had to be dispersed. The rise in the fox population on the mountains in west Wales became so great, and their ravages of lambs so great, that they had a significant impact on the production of food. That was especially important during the war, when a large part of the nation's food was being delivered by convoys, which were being attacked all the time by U-boats.

I understand that it became almost impossible to pursue sheep farming on the mountains of west Wales. It became necessary to release the huntsman from the armed services so that he could resume his role and control the fox population and so allow the farming systems in the area to make their proper contribution to the production of food. That work was regarded as much more important than the work that he would have undertaken if he had remained in the Army. That is a clear example from west Wales of the essential need to control foxes. That can be done only by hunting, and the only way in which they can be hunted is by footpacks. As I said, there is no question of people following on horses.

The control of foxes is essential if we are to maintain the beauty of the uplands. If sheep farming were to be made impossible in upland areas, the first people to complain would be those who go to enjoy the beauty of areas such as the Lake district and the Welsh mountains.

I am extremely pleased that a good deal of care has gone into amending the Bill. I hope that it will not make it more difficult in any way for upland farmers to earn a living at a time of great economic difficulty. Despite massive subsidies, they are finding life extremely difficult. I thank the hon. Member for Newport, East for being big enough to include the amendments in the Bill, which I think is an infinitely better measure as a consequence.

I am delighted to be able to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), although we have rather different views of foxes. I take the view that the fox is one of nature's entrepreneurs. It amazes me that Conservative Members, who have such fondness for the entrepreneur, should detest an entrepreneur in its natural form.

I shall not deny that the fox occasionally takes a sickly lamb, but the fox's role is more that of the scavenger of the dead lamb and the afterbirth than the taker of healthy lambs. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that, when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was representing the Liberal Democrats at an earlier stage in the Bill's progress, he was as enthusiastic as Conservative Members about the need to control foxes. He listed and categorised the massive destruction of lambs and sheep in his constituency. I observed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had probably eaten more sheep than the foxes in his constituency.

In the debate in which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery spoke, I made the suggestion—one or two Conservative Members seemed to approve of the idea— that it would be desirable to have a scientific appraisal of the effect of foxes upon the sheep and lamb population on these islands. There are sufficient experts in the public employ, whether in the Home Office or in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to carry out such a survey. I know that they would readily do so.

I should be interested to receive the results of such a survey, whichever way they went, for they would add to the body of desirable knowledge. A survey should assess whether the fox is as damaging to sheep farming and the interests of the sheep farmer as many suggest. I suspect that a useful excuse is being employed to justify hunting. I do not want to enter into the argument about fox hunting—

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I do not agree with a word of it. I know that he spends quite a lot of time in the Lake district, and I suggest that he should contact some of the hunts. If he takes up that suggestion, he will find that it is quite a regular happening for farmers from one part of the Lake district to telephone a hunt secretary or huntsman and say, "We are losing an awful lot of lambs. Please bring the hunt over and see if you can reduce the number of foxes."

I am aware of that. I am aware also that studies in some areas do not necessarily confirm the right hon. Gentleman's view. That is why I said in the earlier debate to which I referred that it would be desirable if a proper study were undertaken. I hope that the Minister will take note of my suggestion. I am not suggesting that what the right hon. Gentleman has described does not happen, but I think that the scale of the problem is debatable. Surely it is a jolly good idea to put the facts on the record.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsay (Mr. Hughes) suggested that a Minister should be made responsible for these matters. With privatisation and the transferring of responsibility to agencies, there is a good case for removing a large number of Ministers. Perhaps the Home Office Minister would care to act upon that suggestion, as any Minister undertaking that responsibility should not be included in that large number of Ministers who should be removed.

There is an argument, which has currency not just among my colleagues, that there should be an animal protection agency or something similar, charged with the statutory responsibility of looking after animals welfare. Perhaps that would save some Ministers some of their work, and some of the Government some of their embarrassment.

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) realises that it would not be appropriate to develop that argument while discussing this group of amendments.

I would not wish to waste time on that argument, because I am not overly keen on agencies. I want Ministers to have responsibility. I hope that the Minister accepts that, within that responsibility, enlightenment and a proper factual assessment—which has been the subject of much debate—are desirable.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) is grateful for the tribute paid to him by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). However, my hon. Friend did not exactly enthuse about the amendments; he accepted them out of political realism, because he knew that otherwise the Bill would not succeed. I agree with my hon. Friend's approach, but it is important that we make it clear that the amendments have not been greeted with great enthusiasm.

Lords amendment No. 7 refers to the keeping of a register. Over the past few years, the Government have spent a great deal of money ensuring that those in employment were not allowed to claim social security benefits. In South Yorkshire not long ago, a small army of snoopers spend a great deal of time observing beaters on a shoot. They were all unemployed people who were being gainfully employed on that day's shoot. I suspect that the masters of foxhounds may not be aware how, in certain rural areas, people seek to supplement their relatively low incomes.

Given the reduction in employment in rural areas, one or two of the folk employed as earth stoppers may be dependent upon social security income. I should hate to think that the hunts would be embarrassed when they discovered that they were accessories to an event that Conservative Members regard as far more serious than extensive tax evasion. Given the real enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for the amendments, I thought it worth making that point. We shall see how matters unfold.

As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East had no alternative but to accept the amendments. I hope—I am sure that Conservative Members also hope —that they will not so weaken the Bill that, in another two or three years, we will have to find yet another opportunity to add to the catalogue of efforts to ensure the protection of badgers.

It is a great pity that the 1973 Act, which I took through the House, was imperfect. I ensured as much protection for the badger as I could at that time, but the Act had a loophole that has been exploited by irresponsible, barbarous and evil people. I hope that this Bill will close the loophole and ensure that the protection of badgers is as comprehensive as all hon. Members want it to be.

I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, and we all hope that the Bill will be effective. However, I caution him that we must, as in all matters, realise the limitations of what we can do in this House. We can legislate against murder, and most people will not commit that crime—but there will always be one or two people who will. I hope that we will not panic when one or two people slip through the net provided by this Bill. There must be a balance between what we can effectively achieve and what must be left to the discretion of the public.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's realistic view. Indeed, about 12 years ago I reminded the House that we could not station a police officer by every badger sett, by every endangered plant or by every bird's nest. That is why I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East paid tribute to the voluntary societies, which can help in the processes of education. That is just as important as legislation.

I came into the Chamber when I realised that the hon. Gentleman—who in other circumstances I call my friend —was speaking. All too often, the media pay attention to something that has gone wrong. The Bill is not as perfect as many of us would have wished, so I hope that the media will focus even on the one or two people who make mistakes that involve the death of these wonderful animals. I hope that the media will not be afraid of exposing them.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has made an appropriate request. I am grateful for his remarks, just as I have long been grateful for his interest in the matter. I am sure that the Bill will make a significant contribution to the protection of badgers.

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

The amendment clarifies the Scottish position.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 2, line 49, at end insert—

("(j) for the purpose of the preservation, or archaeological investigation, of a monument scheduled under section 1 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, to interfere with a badger sett within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified.")

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 15.

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

The amendment is an important provision that would ensure that archaeological sites are not endangered. I do not think that there is anything controversial about that.

I welcome the amendment, which is an important provision. It is especially important that there is a licensing system for people to stop badger setts for the purpose of controlling foxes. The system should be properly administered and licences should be made available in appropriate circumstances to appropriately qualified people.

The amendments, which were tabled jointly in the other place by the noble Lord Mancroft and my noble Friend Lord Houghton, clarify and improve the system under which licences may be issued permitting interference with badger setts for the purpose of controlling foxes. The amendments were a response to great concern expressed in another place that the licensing system should be sufficiently practical and sensible to ensure that fox control in upland areas could continue. Hon. Members will be aware that that concern is most relevant to sheep worrying in the upland areas. My noble Friend Lord Swinton moved an amendment which would have given a general licence to landowners, occupiers, and other authorised people to interfere with a badger sett in the spring for the purpose of controlling foxes. However, he withdrew it so that the compromise amendment No. 10 could be agreed, and I am delighted that it was.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the criteria by which licence applications are assessed and granted will be identical for England, Scotland and Wales?

I cannot, because that point is not one which I have considered, but so far as I am aware the criteria are the same. If the hon. Gentleman has any reason to doubt that, we had better discuss the point fairly rapidly, before the Bill progresses any further.

The Bill makes it an offence to enter a terrier into a badger sett. If foxes or rabbits occupy one part of a large sett and the other part is currently used by a badger, the sett will be protected and the foxes or rabbits may not be taken out with the use of a terrier. Similarly, if a fox that has taken lambs runs to ground in a live badger sett, it cannot be got out except under a licence from the Ministry of Agriculture or the equivalent authority in Scotland.

The Bill already makes provision to ensure that under section 9 of the Badger Act 1973, a licence may be granted to allow a person to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry, or any other form of property. However, although livestock is property, wild game and other ground nesting birds are not—so that fox control to protect those birds which in any way interferes with a badger sett would be unlawful and could not be licensed unless the amendments were made.

The Ministry of Agriculture has not been required to issue licences in those circumstances until now because badger setts have not been protected. The licensing system was designed to meet rare situations where farmers wanted to remove a rogue badger, and not to deal with the thousands of farmers and keepers who need to control foxes in or near badger setts. I emphasise the word "near" because it is important that rabbits and foxes near badger setts can be controlled and that people do not put themselves at risk of prosecution because a badger sett is near the place where they are operating.

Although the definition of a badger sett is now much improved, considerable concern remains that persons involved in legitimate fox control would constantly run the risk of prosecution—especially if taking foxes out of places that badgers also occupy, or if badgers live nearby. Such persons would need a licence not so much to interfere with the sett directly but to enable them to operate at all.

Foxes and badgers are becoming more prolific, and although the Ministry of Agriculture indicated that it is willing to review the issue of licences, it is clear that the only practicable way to ensure that legitimate fox control can continue is to amend the licensing procedure so that the grounds on which licences are issued are clear.

The amendments will allow the Ministry and its Scottish equivalent, or the Nature Conservancy Council, to issue a licence to permit a person, but not organisations, to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of controlling foxes in order to protect livestock, game and wildlife. Without the amendments, licences would have to be applied for under the existing provisions in section 9. The condition of such a licence—to prevent serious damage to property—means that, in each case, the applicant would have to go to great lengths to show that foxes are causing serious damage to his lambs. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) queried the extent of that damage, but my hon. Friends and I are sure that lamb damage is done by foxes throughout the country.

How will the Ministry or the Nature Conservancy Council establish the bona fides of licence applications? Will they simply take the word of the landowner, or will they make an on-site inspection themselves?

It is a matter of concern to us all that those who are issued with licences are fit and proper persons to receive them. I will deal with that point later.

I had three lambs taken from the park around my house this spring, undoubtedly by foxes. We found the head of one lamb, but the carcase had been entirely removed. That is a feature of fox taking—it is not how dogs behave, or any other predator.

Or one of the hon. Gentleman's hungry constituents.

A hungry constituent would have to walk a few miles to reach the farm to which I am referring. In any event, I am sure that my constituents are extremely confident that the Government's economic policies will ensure that they do not go hungry.

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) accepts that a fox sometimes takes a lamb, but that the extent of that damage is overstated. He made the point that he would welcome an inquiry to establish the true facts.

I accept that that is what the hon. Member for Wentworth said, and I did not mean to misrepresent him. I merely stated that the hon. Gentleman queried the contention that lamb damage is a significant factor in the need for fox control.

It is all very well considering fox damage in relation to a big area and a large number of sheep, but it is usually a particular fox that is doing the damage in one area. It is of no comfort to the wretched farmer whose sheep are the target for that fox if 20 neighbouring farmers experience no such trouble. The killing of 20 or 30 lambs out of a population of 500 or 600, or of 2,000 or 3,000 may not be considered significant—but it is, if the losses are suffered by one farmer.

Is my hon. Friend aware that foxes kill not only sheep but other animals—particularly birds such as geese? One of my constituents has an ornamental lake which provides a home for several species of extremely valuable geese—some of which are worth more than £200 apiece. This nesting season, nine separate geese on their nests were destroyed by foxes, one by one, with the result that only one goose managed to bring a litter on. Despite my constituent's best endeavours to secure the area against foxes, with the erection of fences and all sorts of other ingenious measures to prevent the foxes from gaining access, they managed to do so every time, causing a great amount of damage and financial loss.

My hon. Friend is right in saying that poultry in particular are a target for foxes, and it also needs to be emphasised that foxes are one of the animals that kill for fun. When they break into a poultry run, they not only take two or three chickens or geese to satisfy their hunger but kill as many as they can for the sheer joy and pleasure of doing so. The public are mistaken if they believe that foxes are poor little animals that only kill to feed themselves as necessary. Much of the killing done by foxes of lambs, poultry and other animals is for pleasure —and in much larger numbers than is necessary for survival.

A licence granted under the amendments would not permit the killing, injuring or taking of badgers, but the licensing authority is empowered to lay down any conditions as to how the sett may be interfered with, and must specify the area to which the licence applies. The key difference between the amendments under consideration and that of my noble Friend Lord Swinton is that they leave the issuing of licences to the discretion of the licensing authority, whereas my noble Friend's amendments would have made their issuing compulsory but set down conditions to ensure that badgers were not harmed and would have enabled licensing authority to refuse a licence to unsuitable people. Amendment No. 10 states that no licence issued under the Badgers Act 1973 shall be "unreasonably withheld or revoked".

Speaking for the Government on Report in another place, Lord Astor said that he expected that a condition of the licence would be that the person authorised should take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to a badger. The licence might also specify what may or may not be done to a badger sett—for example, the sett should not be destroyed and any accidental damage to it should be rectified as soon as possible. We all agree that badger setts should be fully protected from damage during these operations.

I accept that licences should specify that minimal damage be caused to setts and that the least possible disturbance be caused to badgers. But we should not make the conditions so restrictive or unrealistic as to make the job of fox control impossible. Inevitably fox control in badger setts will cause some disturbance, which is why a licence is necessary in the first place, but it does not harm badgers when undertaken responsibly. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) rightly said, it is essential that only the right people be issued with these licences and that the terms and conditions in them be fulfilled.

Fox control has not just been invented; it will happen in future, it is happening now, and it has happened for centuries. It always has been and it will remain an essential part of country life. Foxes and badgers are on the increase in upland areas and throughout large parts of the country.

They are not threatened species. There are many thousands of both types of animal in the countryside and I sincerely hope that they will continue to flourish. But it is a fact that both foxes and badgers—I emphasise the latter—thrive best in the best hunting conditions because the balance of nature is maintained by those with an interest in country sport and in the conservation of the countryside, who want to ensure that there is a good supply of wildlife but not in such quantities as to throw out of balance the other species in an area. That applies especially to foxes, but also to kites, eagles and buzzards. It is important that they be preserved but also that they do not grow to such numbers as might threaten other species. The role of the licence is important in the keeping of this balance.

It should be emphasised that licences are not necessarily sought to dig for foxes in what are obviously active badger setts, although that may be necessary. Licences are needed as much to ensure that legitimate people engaged in fox control are not prosecuted if, for instance, they enter terriers into a large area with badgers at one end and foxes or rabbits at the other. It is not only the badger sett but the operations that are necessary around it which render the amendments so necessary.

My hon. Friend said earlier that licences would be issued to individuals but not to corporate bodies. Will they be issued to individuals on behalf of such bodies so that it will be easier to prosecute just one person?

I confess that I cannot answer that question. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) may be able to enlighten my hon. Friend. I should have thought that it must have to do with ensuring that the person participating in the activity is the licensed person so that it is easier to keep tabs on him and ensure that he operates properly under the terms of the licence.

Who should be licensed? This is a fairly thorny problem, and one which hon. Members on both sides of the House will watch closely. It is no more in the interests of the sporting community than of other participants in the debate that people who are not fit and proper should be given licences, because they will give us all a bad name if they abuse their privilege.

There is general agreement that certain persons should not be granted licences—for instance, people convicted of offences against badgers or other wildlife. However, the British Field Sports Society, of which I am chairman, is extremely anxious that reputable people engaged in fox control should be able to obtain licences. Professional gamekeepers, hunt servants and members of fox destruction societies must be able to obtain licences provided that they are fit and proper people to hold them. I know that the Government have accepted that idea. Lord Astor told the other place that we need to be confident that anyone authorised to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of fox control is suitable and responsible, and that would include gamekeepers, farmers, hunts, fox destruction organisations and any other suitable people. It is far more sensible to license these individuals for a particular area than to license the individual farmer or occupier who may be suffering problems caused by foxes. The administrative problems involved in issuing licences and vetting applicants must be kept within reasonable bounds.

I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has returned, because I come now to the subject about which he asked me. To insist on every individual occupier being the holder of a licence would lead to far too many licences. A farmer or occupier may not want to do the job himself and the badger sett in or near which the fox has taken refuge may not even be on his own land. It therefore makes every kind of sense that the person charged with the job of removing the fox from the badger sett or from the area of the badger sett should hold the licence.

How long should licences be issued for? As with shotgun licences and other forms of licence, the issuing of these licences must not create a huge administrative burden. I see no reason why a licence should be limited to a short time. The hon. Member for Newport, West will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that the time has been specified, so it will be up to the authorities concerned, especially the Ministry of Agriculture, to decide the length of validity of the licences, and we shall all want to put our own views on the matter.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having left the Chamber for a few moments—a grateful constituent has just brought me a sheep's head—but I was wondering whether he had told the House while I was away how the licences will be operated. Will there be a ministerial visit or a visit by the Nature Conservancy Council, or will a licence just be granted on the say-so of the applicant?

That, too, is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture. The Bill does not specify how this will be managed. Like others, I wonder whether it is right that responsibility for all these activities to do with animals should be so diffusely held. It is sad that no Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture is here today to help my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who will give us the Government's view. I do not know whether she knows what her colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture have in mind. No doubt she will enlighten us in a moment, but we shall have to explore the matter thoroughly. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West will have strong views to put to the Ministry, as will I.

I hope that we may say that we have reached common ground at least in so far as believing that it should be administratively simple to issue licences and to enable fit and proper people to hold them. We should not put too great a burden on the Ministry or on the NCC. The process must be monitored, however, to ensure that unfit people do not hold licences.

It is important that when the need for licences cannot be foreseen they can be granted speedily. That will remain at the discretion of the licence authorities. A rogue fox could cause serious lamb losses or damage to ground nesting birds during a delay of a few weeks. Once we know that a fox is operating in a given area he is likely to come back and do a great deal more damage unless he is killed. It is essential, therefore, that if there is a badger sett somewhere in the area, destruction of the fox is carried out speedily before too much damage is done to the farmer's flock. I do not think that that has been decided yet. I am concerned that we should ensure that licences are issued speedily, where appropriate.

In most cases, gamekeepers, members of fox destruction societies and hunt staff will need a general licence in advance of a problem with a fox in or near a badger sett. The licences must run for a reasonable period— I should have thought at least on an annual basis. In the other place Lord Astor was able to confirm that licences would be issued in advance, and for a prolonged period, where regular fox control, for protection, may risk occasional interference with badger setts. I hope that such licences will be issued to the right people.

I am also a little concerned about the arrangements between licensing authorities. The Bill does not make it clear whether the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be the authority or whether, in given areas, it will be the Nature Conservancy Council. Before the Bill is on the statute book the Government should provide greater definition so that that point can be clarified.

Amendment No. 15 states that

"(6) A licence under this section shall not be unreasonably withheld or revoked"."

Could it not be that a person who feels that his application is entirely genuine has his application rejected and that he is then in a position to argue that it has been unreasonably withheld? Where would he take his case? Would there be an appeals system?

As the law stands, if I understand it correctly, if there is a provision that the Government may not act in a certain way but they do, there is recourse to the courts. How simple it would be to invoke that procedure I do not know, in the light of the generalities with which we have been dealing. We shall need to look closely at that point. It may be in everyone's interest that an arbitration system should be established. Nothing in the Bill would prevent that from being done, if the Government felt it to be appropriate. As an ex-practising lawyer, I am well aware of both the expense and the delay that can result from having to apply to the courts in such instances. I should much prefer an arbitration panel to decide at first instance whether a person had been unreasonably dealt with. If the arbitrator felt that that person had been unreasonably dealt with, that would be a much simpler, swifter and cheaper procedure, which I should welcome.

There is the question of who is to be the licensing authority, and in what circumstances. The position is not yet entirely satisfactory. We are not clear how licensing will work. None the less, I welcome these clauses, as amended. I am sure that they will set up a structure that can resolve these matters, with the assistance of the Minister. We shall have to get together to ensure that the Minister is aware of the needs of those who desire licences and of those who are rightly anxious that the wrong people should be prevented from obtaining them. A balance will have to be established to ensure that only those people who operate properly are allowed to have licences, and that when they are operating properly they should be allowed to get their licences without undue hindrance or difficulty and certainly not be refused without good grounds for doing so.

The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) have all mentioned the damage that is caused by foxes in the countryside. We heard the touching story of the geese of a constituent of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West. I was the proud possessor of two geese at one time. They were bought for me. Unfortunately, Mrs. Banks imposed a block on them being brought home to my small garden in Forest Gate, on the ground that she thought that they were rather bad-tempered and frightening beasts. While they were being kept my two lovely geese were taken—it was alleged at the time, by badgers. I do not know who is telling the truth, but I do not bear badgers any ill will because they took my two geese. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West obviously feels upset about foxes, even though the geese he cited were not his.

I am not sure about the extent to which anecdotal evidence is admissible about fox damage. I accept that some damage is caused by foxes, but until there is a far more accurate scientific assessment, we are left with anecdotal arguments, which do not seem to be the best basis for making good legislation. I understand that a fox's diet is predominantly small rodents. I think that foxes are one of the greatest controllers of rats in the country. Foxes eat worms, carrion, frogs and insects. No doubt they take a sickly lamb from time to time, but that is nature's way of dealing with sick animals.

I think that the hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber when I told the House that I lost three lambs from my park because of foxes. There is nothing anecdotal about that. It is factual. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's implication that foxes normally eat insects, worms and frogs and occasionally sickly lambs. The lambs that were taken from my park were perfectly healthy—until they were eaten by the fox.

I was in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman told the sad tale about the three lambs that he had lost. He said that all that was left was a severed head. Either someone was using a lamb for a rehearsal for "The Godfather", or one of his hungrier constituents may have decided to consume the carcase. I do not intend to reduce this to a Committee debate, but to what extent was the hon. Gentleman aware of the health of those lambs? He may say that they were bouncing around, as frisky as ever, and just waiting to end up on a plate with some new potatoes and mint sauce, but they may have been slightly sickly and that was why the fox took them.

The lambs were inspected daily. They were frisky, romping about and perfectly healthy until they were eaten. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman's hungry constituents were therefore unable to come along and purchase them.

I still maintain that it may have been my constituents who took them. That is something that my constituents are wont to do from time to time. A little bit of poaching from the hon. Gentleman, since he can afford it, is not something that I would condemn unqualifiedly in this House. Those lambs, in the short term, would probably have been dead, anyway. Instead of being consumed by foxes, they would undoubtedly have been consumed by the hon. Member for Upminister in perhaps more salubrious surroundings than a field.

I put it to the hon. Gentleman that foxes also have the right to live. The fox is indigenous to this country. There have been times when foxes have been introduced into certain areas for fox hunters. Under the circumstances, one is being harsh on foxes. They have the right to exist. Nature maintains a certain balance. We are constantly interfering with that balance. I merely wanted to say a word on their behalf, and in defence of foxes, since few hon. Members are prepared to defend them. I am. I am sure that, if they were able to vote, they would all vote for me in Newham, North-West.

On this occasion, I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Upminster about amendments Nos. 13 and 15 on licensing. We share his concern, but perhaps for completely different reasons. Who knows? I have some questions for the Minister, although I understand her difficulties. Amendment No. 13 mentions every Department but hers, the Home Department. [Interruption.] The sartorial wear of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is getting better and better. He is wearing a very snazzy shirt. I am surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not remember Mr. Speaker's ruling about hon. Members, however eminent, walking into this place without their jackets. However, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale did—as did the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West, the epitome of sartorial elegance.

rose—

No doubt the hon. Gentleman intends to make one of his telling points.

Although the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is always immaculately dressed, his hair is always well groomed and he is a picture of sartorial elegance, some of his colleagues flout Mr. Speaker's ruling by coming into the Chamber wearing trainers and no ties and looking like soccer hooligans. Will he comment on how his colleagues are normally dressed on a Tuesday or Thursday in the middle of summer?

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not be diverted from the amendments.

Some of my best friends are soccer hooligans; it was unworthy of the hon. Gentleman to make that point.

I share some of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Upminster. The Minister is the only Minister who does not appear to have responsibility, so it is unfortunate that she must reply to the debate. No Minister from Scotland, Wales, MAFF, or, on behalf of the Nature Conservancy Council, the Department of the Environment, is here to reply. I am aware of the Minister's competence, so no doubt she will be able to answer my questions.

I am concerned about the process by which applications for licences will be made. Will someone have to produce documentary or filmed evidence? Will a MAFF official have to make a physical inspection before granting a licence? I am distrustful of MAFF and of its attitude to badgers. Many people at the Ministry are still smarting about being made to cease gassing badgers in order to eliminate bovine tuberculosis. Plenty of evidence from around the world showed that badgers were not a major contributory factor in the spread of bovine TB. That problem seems to have disappeared and to have been replaced by other problems such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy. At least no one said that badgers were responsible for that.

I distrust MAFF, so I want to know how the process will operate. It would be preposterous if someone were granted a licence because they were a farm owner or a trustworthy type of fellow who hunted for lambs' heads with the hon. Member for Upminster. That seems to be too slack. I should like to know what specific proposals will be made for licence applications.

The hon. Member for Upminster said that the licence application was administratively simple. There is a difference between administratively simple and wholly permissive. It worries me that in the attempt to make applications administratively simple, they will be granted almost as soon as they are made. Lords amendment No. 15 says that a licence

"shall not be unreasonably withheld or revoked."

The hon. Member for Upminster, among his many talents, is not only a farmer but a lawyer. From time to time, he is able to squeeze in being a Member of Parliament—and a good one at that. He knows better than I do what is reasonable and has probably earned a lot of money from arguing it. I do not like such a word to appear in legislation because it is too open and allows too many lawyers to make too many fat fees.

This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has commented on my activities, so perhaps I should put the record straight. I have not practised as a lawyer since I became an hon. Member. His remarks, are therefore not well founded.

Many defendants are probably grateful for that.

One must ask about reasonableness and the process. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) has accepted the Lords amendments. In many respects, he had no choice because of the problems that are associated with getting a Bill on to the statute book. He has done wonderfully well—far better than I did, but he is more reasonable than I am, which no doubt assisted him.

I am unhappy about the Lords amendments, and in normal circumstances I would have voted against them. On this occasion, I cannot do so, but I believe that we shall have to return to this subject when we try to toughen the badger setts legislation.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief intervention at this late stage of the Bill, which is a good measure in so far as it has tightened provisions to safeguard badgers and has met some of the difficult objections.

I declare an interest as the owner of a considerable badger sett that is just behind my house. If anecdotal evidence is necessary, not so many weeks ago I was amused and enjoyed seeing four pairs of sharp little eyes pointing out of the sett that belonged not to badgers but to fox cubs. Frequently, the sett behind my house is occupied by one or the other.

12.15 pm

I have been asked to intervene to raise a problem that upsets and worries a number of my constituents—the urban badger sett. Those who live near such a sett are extremely worried about the damage that badgers cause. When legislation to protect the badger was introduced a few years ago, I took much trouble to find out how I could help my constituents, whose allotments, gardens and vegetables were being chewed up by badgers.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was able to help by catching some of the badgers and releasing them in a part of the country where there was a sett and where they could do no damage to my constituents' gardens and allotments. Will that still be possible under the licensing system?

I have written to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the problem. My constituents are worried about a large urban badger sett in a part of my constituency. Will MAFF officials or experts be able to capture some of those badgers, which have become prolific this year, and remove them to another area of the country where they will do no harm? Under the terms of the Bill, is that regarded as harmful to the badger or will it still be possible to license such activity?

Once badgers have been removed, their setts are liable to be taken over by rabbits, which is a nuisance, but there are means of overcoming that problem.

I received a deputation in my constituency of genuinely desperate people who wanted to strengthen the law to safeguard badgers against the detestable crime of badger baiting, which no one has time for. A few years ago, badgers in my constituency were transported elsewhere, but will it still be legitimate to do so under the licensing system proposed in the amendment?

I promise to be brief. A number of my young constituents urged me to be here this morning to support the Bill.

I should like to put a couple of questions to the Minister about my concerns on the issuing of licences. I asked the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) some questions about the amendments. As the Minister will know, they refer to the Secretary of State for Scotland and/or the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland being the licensors. Such issues are important and I ask the Minister to impress upon the different Departments the need for identical criteria under which licence applications are assessed, granted or rejected. Unlike the hon. Member for Upminster, I am not a lawyer. I readily acknowledge that we have two legal systems—the English and the Scottish—but nevertheless it is essential that the criteria for assessing such licence applications are identical.

At the moment, it seems that that is still in the melting pot, as neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food nor its Scottish counterpart has made any decisions about the criteria that are to be applied. I endorse what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said. It is important that the criteria for both parts of the United Kingdom are identical.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his fine intervention. If a Scottish applicant were rejected because of certain criteria that do not apply in the assessment of English or Welsh licences, he or she would have a pretty powerful case for appealing against such a decision. I know that the Minister cannot answer on behalf of her Scottish ministerial colleagues, but I should be grateful if she would make my remarks known to them in her characteristically courteous way.

I now deal with the issue of "a suitable person". Again, when referring to those who should be excluded from holding licences, the hon. Member for Upminster mentioned people who have criminal records, perhaps those who have convictions for poaching and especially for poaching with vicious traps. I should have thought that such a person would be rejected out of hand.

I hope that the officials who issue licences will be competent in the ways of country living and country activities, because local authorities could have to issue licences under the regulations. Competence is an important issue.

I asked the hon. Member for Upminster some questions about amendment No. 15 regarding the decisions made by officials to withhold or to revoke a licence. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the length of time that a licence would endure. A licence could have to be revoked because of an action committed by the licensee. I presume that such a person would have grounds for an appeal under the amendment and that he or she could claim that the licence had been unreasonably revoked.

In response to an intervention, the hon. Gentleman mentioned an arbitration system. An appeals procedure must be built into the licensing system, but it must not add to the bureaucracy of that system or make it much more cumbersome either to apply for a licence or for the authorities to revoke that licence if the holder has acted improperly. My hon. Friend the Member for Newhatn, North-West (Mr. Banks) talked about what is reasonable. Amendment No. 15 would require that we determine what is unreasonable, which might be even more difficult. The Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and others must work hand in glove when dealing with licensing. The criteria to be satisfied before a licence is granted must be tough. The officials who deal with the granting of licences must be competent in such matters. If possible, the criteria must be identical in each of the three nations. If licences `are revoked or withheld there must be an appeals procedure, but it should not be a cumbersome addition to the system of granting, revoking or withholding licences.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), I must declare an interest as I own a farm on which there is a badger sett which I have long tried to preserve, sometimes without success. Sometimes it is occupied by rabbits and sometimes by foxes, but I am always glad when the badgers come back.

I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) agreed with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) in doubting whether foxes cause ravages to lambs in upland areas. I confess that I was astonished to hear that two hon. Members doubt that, as it is understood that that is what happens in the Lake district. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-West or his hon. Friend have spoken to upland farmers—

rose—

I shall develop my argument and then I shall give way. One needs only to talk to upland farmers to hear that when they round up their flocks on the fells, they discover that large numbers of lambs have been savaged by foxes. Their first reaction is to ring the hunt to ask it to do something. The hunts are continually requested to move round the fells and mountainous areas to deal with foxes that are causing problems. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, doubts that, I will be most delighted to facilitate a visit by him to the Lake district. I do not know what he is doing on 8 August. I am the president of the Lake district sheepdog trials which will take place near Windermere and if he would like to come, I can arrange for a large number of farmers to talk to him—

Have him come and stay.

I shall be glad for him to come and stay if he wishes to do so. It is the 100th celebration this year of the Lake district sheepdog trials. If he wants to come and talk to the farmers I shall be delighted to facilitate.

That is the best offer that I have had for a long time. I will accept that offer and a pint of scrumpy, or whatever delightful brew is drunk in the right hon. Gentleman's area, will be imbibed by me as well. I shall have a good day out. He is right. There are not many upland farmers in Newham—indeed, there is not much in the way of uplands. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was that there should be more scientific evidence. If that shows that the damage to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is taking place there must be ways of dealing with it. However, I doubt whether the best way in which to deal with it—if it is as widespread as the right hon. Gentleman suggests—is to bring in the hunt.

The wisdom and the experience of upland farmers in the Lake district is infinitely more compelling than all the scientific evidence that the rather clever chaps in sandals can put together. I recommend the hon. Member for Newham, North-West to talk to farmers so that he hears what happens on the ground.

The amendments will make it easier to control foxes in the areas in which it is absolutely essential to do so. I will not go into all the details about the importance of ensuring that foxes are properly controlled in upland areas, as I made that clear in my previous remarks. However, I welcome Lords amendment No. 11, which I am sure will make it easier to control foxes in the area that I represent where the livelihood of the local population is so dependent on the proper control of foxes.

I should like to address a question to the promoter of the Bill—the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)—about Lords amendment No. 13, which deals with who issues licences. The amendment describes two bodies for England, five for Wales and two for Scotland. Will the two bodies decide between themselves who will issue the licences, or will both of them issue licences? I can envisage a situation in which a thoroughly undesirable person with convictions for badger baiting—someone with whom none of us would have any sympathy—hears, as word gets round in the local community, that perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales is an easier touch for a licence than is the Countryside Council for Wales. It is important that if both bodies are to issue licences, it is made clear that they are using the same criteria. None of us wishes to make it made easy for undesirable people to have licences to do those things. I hope that we can have some clarification on that point.

It was wise of the hon. Member for Newport, East to accept this group of amendments, as they will make the Bill much more acceptable in the areas that I represent where the terms of the Bill have caused some anxiety in the past. I hope that because of the wisdom of the hon. Gentleman, those anxieties can now be put at rest.

I shall try to reassure the House by saying something about the licensing proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) said, a new position has been created by the Bill. Because badger setts will be protected under the Bill, licences must be given under the Badgers Act 1973 for the removal of foxes from setts when it is necessary to do so to control the fox population. When the Bill was discussed in another place, a great deal of time was spent on the question of licensing.

A number of hon. Members have asked important questions this morning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) hoped that the criteria would be clearly set out for all the agencies that will issue licences. The Government do not think that that will be a great problem. Because of the doubts that have been expressed about the Bill's implications for farmers, landowners and moorland gamekeepers, I am happy to repeat the Government's assurances on licensing.

The principal problem that has caused concern lies in ensuring that licences are given for legitimate fox control to protect not only sheep but poultry, game and wild birds. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) referred to that point, and the wife of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is worried about geese. Perhaps Forest Gate has become a geese-free or badger-free zone.

It is certainly a Tory-free zone.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's wife will be less worried about geese after the discussions that may take place. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) suggested that we find out the facts.

All those who have been involved with the Bill have learnt that foxes often live alongside badger setts. Often it is not easy to tell whether a hole belongs to a fox or a badger, or both. Farmers whose livestock may be threatened by foxes must be able to take swift action to remove them. Because of the anxieties that were expressed in another place about the basis on which licences might be granted, I tell the House that the Government have held meetings with the Bill's sponsors, including those in the other place. We have offered to help in drafting a suitable amendment. I believe that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) should accept this measure as one that is, on the whole, worthy of us all.

I have expressed my readiness to accept the new amendment. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will notice that in the amendment we are diversifying control to Wales and Scotland. I do not expect that there will be a problem, especially in this age of technology and computers. There will be clear records of who is eligible for a licence and who is not.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving that information—as, I am sure, is my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale.

I wish to explain how the proposed licensing system will work. In the first place, we will need to be confident that anyone authorised to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of fox control is suitable and responsible—thus, gamekeepers, farmers, fox hunts and destruction organisations would be considered for a licence, but convicted badger diggers would not. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will be glad to hear that and to hear that the consultations which have taken place covered the point which he expressed and that all licences will be issued on a common basis. Local authorities will not issue them. Under Lords amendment No. 13, licences can be issued only by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and conservancy councils. I trust that that news puts to rest one of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

There is also a provision that any licence under the Badgers Act 1973 should not be unreasonably withheld or revoked. Clearly, licensing authorities must act reasonably. We envisage that licences will be issued, in advance and for a long period, where regular fox control for protection may risk occasional interference with a badger sett. We would, of course, retain the right to revoke such a licence if a problem occurred.

I understand the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), because it arises not a million miles from my home, although perhaps not so near to my constituency. I assure my hon. Friend that there are powers in the Badgers Act 1973, as well as in the present Bill, to control urban badgers setts that are causing problems.

The Minister said that, in certain cases where known fox activity occurs regularly, licences will be granted for a lengthy period. She said that there would be a power to revoke, but did not say anything about a power to monitor or about whether the licences would be monitored. I am concerned that, if open-ended licences are granted, all sorts of abuses could occur. There should be a failsafe mechanism.

I understand that, and we shall certainly register that concern when we put together the criteria for granting licences.

We also envisage assessing in advance of lambing the position of sheep farmers whose flocks are in danger from foxes living in badger setts, so that licences may be issued either in advance or speedily when the need arises. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West have a dispute about that. I shall not enter into it, because I am not well versed in countryside issues. I represent an urban constituency and am therefore more concerned with urban than with rural farms; indeed, I am the proud owner of a particularly attractive urban farm.

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about urban badger setts. May I perhaps be sent information setting out the provisions in the Bill that would allow the actions of which I spoke to be taken?

I shall be happy to furnish my hon. Friend with as much information as possible; I shall ensure that a letter is sent to him on Monday.

Licences will not necessarily be restricted to a single sett. Although they will relate to a specified area, that area could include a number of farms.

It goes without saying that licences granted under the provision would not be for the taking or killing of badgers and a condition of the licence might be that the person authorised should take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to a badger. That is another point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome is concerned. The licence conditions could also specify just what may, or may not, be done to a badger sett.

Under the present Act, there are different licensing authorities for different situations—in some cases, the Agriculture Departments; in others, the Nature Conservancy Councils.

I note the concern expressed by a number of hon. Members about the fact 1 should be dealing with the Bill and with other matters affecting animals as part of my ministerial responsibilities. I shall certainly register the concern expressed about the allocation of responsibilities to the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other Departments, although I believe that the Home Office is as good a Department as any to deal with these matters and that on this Bill, as on previous Badgers Bills, we have managed to give the promoters some satisfaction. I therefore note the point about responsibilities lying with a number of agencies, but I am not convinced by the argument.

The principle applying to the new licensing agencies will be set out clearly. The licensing authorities will work together as at present to establish common guidelines for issuing licences. The aim is to develop a system that is simple, straightforward and just. We shall consult interested organisations, including those that have played a considerable part in the discussions about the Bill.

We shall consider which licensing authority will be responsible for different areas of licensing. That will be a matter for consultation. In principle, we believe that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will issue licences relating to agricultural land and livestock and that the Nature Conservancy Council will issue licences with regard to wildlife. I should have thought that that was relatively straightforward.

Will the licence fee be modest?

I cannot comment on that now. It will be a matter for discussion and if the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow wants to raise a point about that, I am sure that he will be able to do so.

As I understood my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, she said that our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will issue licences in respect of agricultural land, while the conservation bodies will grant them in respect of wildlife. Who would be the licensing authority for a game park, which seems to encompass neatly both areas? I was thinking of that sort of case when I made the point a few moments ago.

One of the benefits of this debate is that those points can be made. We must clearly take note of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and ensure that the responsibility lies with the correct agency. My right hon. Friend made a telling point and we recognise that there will be cases where the areas of responsibility will overlap. There will have to be consultations with the interested parties to decide which licensing authority will issue licences in certain cases.

It is also important to state that the administrative arrangements for licensing must be worked out properly and an amendment has been included, as hon. Members will have noticed, to extend the time to allow the necessary consultation to be conducted over the summer before the Bill comes into force.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West asked whether visits would be paid to licence applicants. I assure him that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will consult interested parties on how licences are issued. In some cases a visit may be necessary, but in others a licence may be issued without a visit. We have yet to finalise the practicalities of that system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) asked whether licences could be issued to individuals or to organisations. That was an interesting question. The answer is that licences would have to be issued to individuals, although they could be issued to named representatives of organisations such as fox destruction societies.

Hon. Members have expressed concerns which I trust that I have answered satisfactorily. The consultations between MAFF, the nature conservancy agencies in England, Scotland and Wales and the interested organisations will lead to satisfactory procedures. This debate has been helpful in identifying concerns that will have been noted by those who will participate in the consultations.

I have just received a note from the people who do not exist and I can inform the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that the licences will be issued without a fee. That may be of great comfort to him.

I congratulate everyone involved in steering the Bill safely through its various stages in this House and in another place. It is to everyone's credit that we have a measure today that can be supported by all sides. That is a good reflection of the spirit of co-operation that has existed throughout the passage of the Bill. Hon. Members have raised points about which they feel strongly, and answers have been given. There has been a great deal of co-operation to ensure that a sensible measure is put on the statute book.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for introducing his Bill and for the climate that he has so skilfully created around it. The success of the Bill is a tribute to the part that has been played by him and his advisers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that so many of my hon. Friends are happy to join me in that tribute. I must pay tribute also to my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster and for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison), to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and to various other colleagues for the part that they have played in building the consensus that has now come to fruition.

I know that there has been a lot of debate and quite a bit of hard bargaining behind the scenes, but the achievement is clear for all to see. Finally, and without more ado, I express the Government's view that we are extremely glad that the Bill will soon be on the statute book. Indeed, this Session has been notable for the amount of legislation relating to badgers. This Bill provides increased protection for badgers. The Badgers (Further Protection) Bill will shortly receive Royal Assent and the Criminal Justice Bill contains increased penalties. All round, 1991 has not been a bad year for the badger. Perhaps it could successfully be nominated the Year of the Badger.

I do not wish to detain the House, but it is important to mention that it is critical to the success of the Bill that the definition of badger setts should be correct. We have had much debate about the correct definition of a badger sett and I am now satisfied with the Lords amendment, which refers to

"signs indicating current use by a badger".

For all the reasons that were expressed earlier, it is clearly important that empty holes, pipes and other places where badgers occasionally live should not be brought within the scope of the Bill or it will become unworkable and many people in the countryside will be unable to pursue their lawful interests. Therefore, I very much welcome the amendment with its satisfactory wording and I am happy to join the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) in recommending it to the House.

I am not happy with the amendment because it weakens the Bill. We have had long arguments about how a badger sett should be defined and about whether someone found interfering with a badger sett could be excused if they said that they had believed that the sett had been vacated. One could make many points about this issue, including the fact that badgers have been known to leave their setts and to return to them later. Members of Parliament are not the only creatures on this planet to have two homes—badgers sometimes have two homes. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) would be a damned sight more sympathetic towards badgers than he has been. On this occasion, he has got what he wanted—a looser definition of a badger sett which, as I have said, is a weakening of the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) says "Come off it" or some such phrase that he has got from Jeeves and Wooster, but I will not come off it because I believe that the amendment weakens the Bill. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) I must perforce accept it. Unless we do, I doubt whether the hon. Member for Upminster and the forces of darkness on the Government Benches would allow the Bill to proceed. I register my protest, but I must accept the amendment.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to me "and" the forces of darkness, thus dearly differentiating between the two. I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the amendment. He should accept that badger baiters will attack the live badger where he is, and they will be responsible for their actions under the terms of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is entirely candid, as he has always claimed to be, he will accept that the purpose of the Bill is to get the badger baiter and not to try to obstruct fox hunting. That being so, I do not think that he should take the attitude that he does to the amendment.

The hon. Member for Upminster, or Darth Vader, as he is known among his admirers, knows that the amendment represents what he fought long to get into the Bill. I do not believe that he or any other Conservative Member supports badger baiting. The one thing that united us throughout was that no one in this place represents badger baiters. Indeed, many of us would do unspeakable things to the baiters when they were caught. In that sense, we are united. The amendment protects the sport that the hon. Gentleman supports, but in which he does not participate—that is, fox hunting. The amendment will make life easier for fox hunters and therefore I am opposed to it, but at this stage I have no alternative but to accept it.

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

The amendment lengthens the period that shall pass before this measure comes into force from two to three months, and I accept it.

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

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Lords amendment No. 1 is an amendment of convenience. As the definitions will be included in clause 6, there is no need for subsection (5).

Lords amendment No. 3 is important. Lord Wade of Chorlton, to whom I pay tribute, received representations from the National House Building Council. I understand that the provisions of the Bill will be enforced by the person who is enforcing the building regulations of 1985, which relate to other aspects of the construction of the dwelling. Before 1984, that work was always carried out by the local authority. It was undertaken exclusively by local council building inspectors. In 1984, the Government decided to allow the private sector to take part by extending authority to inspect to the NHBC. That system has worked well and 35 per cent. of inspections are now carried out by the council.

It is apparent that the system must make sense. Although inspections are often carried out by building control officers who are employed by the local authority, part II of the Building Act 1984 enables building works to be supervised by approved inspectors from the private sector. That is the point of the 1984 Act. The NHBC has been approved as an inspector of the construction of most new dwellings and if it asks that the role of approved inspectors should be specifically recognised in the Bill, that must make sense. It would not be satisfactory if local authorities had to enforce the provisions of the Bill when an approved inspector was enforcing the requirements of building regulations. I am sure that that was not the intention of the Bill.

The new clause is modelled on the relative provisions of the Building Act 1984. When an approved inspector, rather than a local authority, is appointed for the purposes of building control, an initial notice must be served on the local authority. When the approved inspector is satisfied that the work has been completed in accordance with the regulations, he will issue a final certificate to that effect. When an initial notice is in force or a final certificate has been given, the local authority cannot take action to enforce the building regulations.

1 pm

The new clause would operate in exactly the same way if an approved inspector had been appointed in respect of work consisting of the construction of a dwelling. That approved inspector would also be responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Bill. He must certify that he has done so when he issues his final certificate. The amendment may be complicated, but it is important, and I hope that I have explained it reasonably competently.

Questions have been raised about exemptions. If the NH BC believes that its staff are fully qualified—and in many ways they may be as well qualified or even better qualified than inspectors employed by local authorities —surely the NHBC should be allowed to make exemptions. There was a lengthy debate about that in the other place which I am sure will continue. At a time when central Government, arguably, are giving more and more work to local authorities in some areas, this may be one area where local authority expenditure could be saved. We will come back to this aspect of the Bill later. In some ways, it is a controversial aspect, which is why, under the Lords amendment, NHBC inspectors would not be allowed to make exemptions. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that.

I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing the opening part of his speech. Surely the question whether NHBC staff should be allowed to issue exemptions does not relate merely to qualifications. We accept that its staff are just as good as those employed by local authorities. Perhaps it is a question of people being recognised as being in a position of authority, rather than of the qualifications of those who exercise that authority.

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and that is probably why the other place decided not to give NHBC staff the power to make exemptions. The NH BC was first allowed into this area of work only in 1984, seven years ago, but it has done extremely well. Some 32 per cent. of all inspections are now done by NHBC staff. Perhaps the time will come when their reputation and standing will have risen to such a level that it will make sense to allow them to make exemptions. I hope that the House agrees to the amendment.

Lords amendment No. 4 is a purely technical amendment which does not require much explanation. It is about definitions. It must be read in conjunction with Lords amendment No. 1, which would delete clause 1(5) because its provisions are repeated in Lords amendment No. 4, which would insert new clause 6.

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) for their clear explanations. What will be the precise effect of amendment No. 1, which will remove line 17 onwards of clause 1? Will it exclude reconstructed or converted dwellings, as opposed to those built from scratch? If so, I would regret it.

I freely admit that I come late to the general debate on smoke detectors, but, in common with some other hon. Members, I have been abruptly brought face to face with the importance of the issue. Last week in my constituency, a mother and five of her children died in a council house fire. I began this week by attending their funeral, and it was the saddest event that 1 have ever witnessed. The House must do whatever it can to make it less likely that such a terrible event will happen again.

I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view. Smoke detectors can save many lives, and clearly it would have been desirable for the House involved in that tragic accident to be fitted with them. The purpose of the Bill is not to insist on the installation of smoke detectors in all old properties and new houses, but to persuade people to fit them in older properties and to legislate for their fitting in new houses.

I was certainly deeply impressed by my conversation in the aftermath of that tragic accident with the chief fire master of Strathclyde region, Mr. John Jameson. He was emphatic that, in the fire I have described, lives would have been saved if smoke detectors had been fitted to the property. He estimated that about half the lives lost in house fires would be saved if smoke detectors were always fitted. That is a striking statistic in the context of the Bill, and it should be taken account of.

I congratulate also the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) on his efforts. The original Bill covered wider ground, but the Government and the House should welcome the coverage given by the Bill to new properties, which is welcome and desirable. I hope that the amendment will extend its provisions to reconstructed or renovated dwellings. However, it still does not go far enough and we must set our sights on something much better. It should be mandatory to fit smoke detectors in all houses and flats—whether they are owner-occupied or private or public sector rented accommodation. If the House shares that view, I am sure that legislation could be easily introduced and with virtually no public expenditure implications.

I do not advocate the armies of inspectors should be established to enforce such legislation. When seat belts became mandatory the law was respected; if we legislated to make smoke detectors compulsory in all homes, I believe that most people would observe the law without weighty enforcement measures.

In the aftermath of the fire in my constituency, in the town of Kilbirnie, there has been massive media interest in smoke detectors. I commend the Glasgow Daily Record for the campaign that it has led, which has had a huge impact on public opinion. I am told that, all over the west of Scotland, the shops that sell smoke detectors, at modest prices, are sold out of them. People have been brought face to face with the fact that, for a few pounds, little lives and big lives can be saved.

Within a few weeks of this tragedy, interest will have moved on to some other subject and the impetus towards installing devices will be lost. The House has a role to play in maintaining that impetus by legislating accordingly.

I have tabled an early-day motion, with the support of the hon. Members for York and for Norfolk, North-West, and with all-party support. As of this morning, 117 signatures have been appended to it and I hope that a great many more will be added in the next few days. I hope that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will sign the motion, since that will bring home to the Government, on a non-party political basis, the impression that the dominant school of thought in the House believes that something can be done, which does not involve significant public expenditure.

This idea commands the wholehearted support of the fire service whose members have to deal with these tragedies—the most emotional and desperate experiences in most people's lives. They have repeatedly asked why cheap smoke detectors cannot be fitted to save lives. I hope that the Government will listen. The idea involves little public expenditure—possibly none. If we legislate accordingly, no one involved has the slightest doubt that lives will be saved—and there are few pieces of legislation of which that could be said with such utter certainty.

I hope that many hon. Members will have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), because what he said about the potential for saving life and avoiding tragedy was correct.

I wish to explain my part in this Bill as it is a rather curious one. Early in the year I objected to it, mainly on the ground that it insisted on introducing smoke detectors for old buildings as well as new. Later when the Bill reappeared I did not realise, perhaps because I had not been told, that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) had removed old buildings from the Bill. The Lords amendments do not reintroduce them. If they did, I would have serious reservations, for reasons that I will make clear—

Since fires undoubtedly happen more often in old houses than in new and lives are lost more often in the former than in the latter, what is the logic of opposing the installation of these devices in older properties while supporting it for new ones?

I am not opposed to the installation of smoke alarms in old buildings—far from it. They should be introduced into every single building in the country. Their value is without question. However, what I oppose is legislation that would be ineffective or unenforceable. We should not insist on smoke alarms being introduced into old buildings if the legislation would place a burden on local authorities that they were unable to fulfil. If legislation cannot be enforced, it brings all our legislation slightly into disrepute. Unenforceable legislation is always bad legislation. I shall give the reasons why I believe that this is unenforceable legislation by mentioning the tragedy that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North raised.

1.15 pm

Many people have suggested that there should not be an army of inspectors going round all old buildings as well as all new buildings to discover whether smoke alarms have been fitted and whether they are working. The hon. Gentleman made that point. The only alternative is to ask a person who has suffered a fire in their home whether a smoke alarm had been fitted. That is the only moment at which one can discover whether someone had fitted a smoke alarm. In the tragedy to which the hon. Gentleman referred, if the mother had survived that fire but all her children had been killed, she would have been asked at the worst possible time in her life whether she had fitted a smoke alarm. She would have been asked whether she had broken the law, at just the moment when she had lost her children and was experiencing a tragedy that very few of us can begin to comprehend. To hit someone at that stage with the potential of a criminal case would be inhumane.

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the value of introducing smoke detectors. I have four of them in my house. Occasionally they go off when my cooker goes wrong and I am delighted that they do. However, to insist that they should be introduced into my house, with the sanction of a criminal penalty, seems to me to be wrong.

I acknowledge the validity of the hon. Gentleman's point, but does he accept that his argument is not absolute—that a balance of arguments is involved? While the danger exists of criminalising people who have already suffered a great deal, by definition that is likely to arise in only a tiny number of cases. That has to be weighed against the other certainty that many such fires would be pre-empted if such legislation were on the statute book. There is a balance, regarding which a mature judgment has to be made.

Order. We are straying a long way from the Lords amendment.

The relevance of this point to the Lords amendment is the question that the hon. Gentleman raised whether the Lords amendment covers old buildings, or whether it refers merely to new buildings. That is a central issue in the debate and it needs to be cleared up before we decide whether to support the amendments. I hope, therefore, that we shall be allowed to debate it.

I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's point that it is a matter of balance. I have made my own judgment about the balance, which is partly affected by the question whether local authorities are already inspecting houses. Because of the difficulties that local authorities have in inspecting houses in multiple occupation for normal fire requirements, I believe that they would be burdened with a task that they would be unable to fulfil. For example, they would be burdened with the task of checking whether the batteries of smoke alarms that had been fitted were up to strength. We would create the criminal offence of merely allowing a battery in a smoke detector to run down. We should hesitate long and hard before doing that.

There is an alternative that involves persuasion and as many people as possible listening to the good, persuasive and effective speech that the hon. Member for Cunningham, North made in favour of smoke alarms.

Before my hon. Friend leaves the valid point that he is making, may I ask whether he agrees that in trying not to place a heavy burden on local authorities, we must consider changed construction techniques such as system building? A builder can construct a dwelling at a certain cost only within a certain time scale. If he must wait for a local authority to check smoke detectors, his time scale, work programme and costings will be thrown out.

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive my saying that I do not agree with him. The Bill is intended to insist on the installation of smoke detectors and alarms in new buildings, and rightly so, because local authorities must inspect new buildings in any event. They could combine the inspection of smoke detectors with their other inspections of fire doors and foundations. They must he fairly assiduous in inspecting new buildings. The possible application of the Bill to old buildings would place a burden on local authorities.

This is the last time that I shall intervene as I do not wish to prolong the debate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned multiple occupancy houses. The Strathclyde fire master expressed concern to me about the private rented sector, which is particularly vulnerable to fire. I do not underestimate the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but a balance must be struck, because for the first time the onus to take fire precautions would be placed on the private landlord. Does he agree that the difficulties are outweighed by such an onus being imposed?

I agree that it is a matter of balance. Further provision could be introduced to deal with the landlords of multiple occupation buildings. I accept that such dwellings are a high risk.

My hon. Friend made an important point about old buildings and the maintenance of smoke detectors. Should not responsiblity be devolved to insurance companies, which would require the policyholder to maintain the smoke detector because if he did not do so his claim would be invalidated?

Order. This is very interesting, but it has precious little to do with the amendments that the House is supposed to be discussing.

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be relieved to hear that I am drawing my remarks to a close.

A case could be made for placing the onus on insurance companies, but it would be difficult to assess whether a battery was in good condition after a fire had occurred.

I hope that the Bill will not apply to old buildings. Hon. Members can try to raise people's awareness of smoke detectors and try to persuade the owners of old houses, rather than to legislate to install smoke detectors, which are extremely valuable.

I have listened carefully to the debate—not without some emotion, as I would undoubtedly have lost my family, or at least my two oldest children, if smoke detectors had not been fitted to my house.

About five or six years ago, the House sat very late one night and I did not go home. It was the first and, I believe, the only time that I have done that without letting my wife know that I should have to stay in London. I had expected to get away, but, as sometimes happens in the House, I was detained much longer than I had expected and was unable to get home. I rang home in the morning at about 8 o'clock and cheerily said that I supposed everything was all right. The reply was almost unprintable because everything was not all right. My daughter, who was then about eight years old, had been asleep in her room and had inadvertently knocked over an electric fire which was allegedly safe for children but was obviously not. The curtains, carpet and furniture in her room had caught fire. She was asleep but the smoke detector went off and, luckily, woke my wife who was in the next room. She went into my daughter's room and turned on the light, but the smoke was so thick that it made no difference and she was unable to see anything. There is no doubt that my children would have perished in the fire if smoke detectors had not been fitted in that room. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to say that, and it is the background of what I have to say about the amendments.

It is important that the Government should make a commitment to ensure that smoke detectors are fitted in new buildings. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) that it would be impractical, though desirable, to insist that they be fitted to all old houses. My house was built in 1570 and I have had many smoke detectors fitted in it, but I do not believe in the concept of the nanny state. Individuals must be expected and allowed to look after their own interests. There is a limit to what the Government can do to interfere by ordering people to take steps in the interests of their own safety, however necessary and desirable those steps might be.

It would be hopelessly impractical for all old houses to be inspected to ascertain whether smoke alarms had been fitted. Would they be inspected every time there was a change of ownership, every time there was a change in the circumstances, or would such an inspection be a one-off operation? It would not be right for the Government to put that burden on local authorities and to force them to inspect every house in their area to check whether alarms had been fitted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford was also right to say that there is no earthly use in fitting alarms unless people are prepared to look after them properly. Human nature being what it is, I am afraid that if alarms were fitted in houses where people did not care whether they worked or not, they would not be properly maintained. It is quite a chore to ensure that batteries arc replaced when they run out and to ensure that the machine is working properly. I do not believe that many people, in practice, would maintain smoke alarms in those circumstances.

Therefore, I query whether the Bill would have the effect that we hope. It is one thing to place a duty on constructors to fit smoke alarms in the houses that they build, as I believe that the Bill as amended would do, but it is another to ensure that they are working when they are needed.

Order. Once again, I must tell the House that this is not Second or Third Reading. We are debating Lords amendments, and I very much hope that the debate will draw nearer to them than it has come so far.

The part of the amendment with which I shall deal in detail is that which covers inspection. The purpose of the amendment is to bring the Bill into line with the Building Act 1984. It is in that context that we are considering the extent to which it is feasible for those inspections to be carried out, and to be carried out properly.

What I am about to say may to an extent argue against what I said earlier. Smoke detectors are now made with a clever device which means that when the battery is running flat it makes an appallingly nasty squeak. The incentive to change it becomes greater the flatter the battery gets.

My hon. Friend is right up to a point, but in the end the squeak also dies. There have been occasions on which, the squeak having died, I forgot about the need to replace the battery and it was a little while before the battery was duly replaced. Although I do not claim to be less fallible than anyone else, I do not think that I am more fallible. I suspect that that would be reasonably common practice in houses in which smoke alarms are fitted, especially when they are fitted without the agreement of the occupier of the house. There is nothing in the Bill, even as amended, which puts a duty on the occupier of a house either to have a smoke alarm fitted or to maintain it.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the amendment.

I was led slightly astray by the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford. I apologise.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure me that he is coming to the amendment?

I am. The question is whether the inspection of the house can be properly carried out, in the context of the amendment and whether only new houses will be fitted with smoke alarms. I question whether the local authorities which will have the duty to inspect the houses will welcome that duty. It is unlikely that local government, which has already rightly complained that central Government continue to give it added responsibilities without enough funds, will welcome an additional duty on its building inspectors or be able to enforce its being carried out. That is the crux of my worry.

I do not believe that the way in which the inspections will be carried out will safeguard the lives of the people in the buildings concerned. The amendment, which beings the matter within the Building Act 1984, is not helpful. It excludes a course that easily could have been taken, which would have enormously strengthened the working of the Act. I refer to the way that outside the context of the 1984 Act, there are many instances in which the National House Building Council inspectors are authorised to make inspections and to do work on behalf of the local authorities.

To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), this is not his Bill, so he may not be able to answer me. I am reasonably confident that, under the terms of the amendment, the NHBC inspectors will not be able to carry out inspection of the properties. If I am right, we are missing a great opportunity to facilitate the inspection of such properties. I would go further. The question of ensuring that the house is a fit and proper dwelling is complicated. It is something which only a qualified building inspector, architect or surveyor can determine. However, the duties imposed by the Bill and the people who are authorised by the amendment to carry them out are not compatible. Anyone can easily check whether smoke alarms have been, or are to be, fitted to houses. It would not take anyone with a great professional qualification to ensure that the smoke detectors are put in places so that the house was safe.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. If, like me, he has fitted smoke detectors, he will know that the inspection requirements of a building inspector can be different from the inspection requirements for smoke detectors. One must envisage the use to which a particular house, or a room in the house, will be put. For example, there could be no point in putting a smoke detector in a hall if it was the occupant's intention to place a small stove in the hall, directly under the detector because it would be set of by such things as a deep chip frier. We are extending the requirements of inspection beyond those already in place.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right. Buildings can be changed. A room that is not designed as a kitchen may subsequently be used as one. If the person charged with the duty to inspect were charged to do that once, and once only, at completion of the work, there would be a great loophole. It would be much more satisfactory—it may not be too late for the Government to do this—to ensure that many more people are qualified to inspect than is provided for under the new clause.

I strongly believe that the criterion for the inspectorate is far too narrow. If many more people were allowed to inspect, the Bill would be greatly strengthened.

Lords amendment No. 4 refers to construction

"by reconstructing or converting a building or any part of a building".

This is where we come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford. It is difficult to know where that measure begins and ends. The shell of a house may be reconstituted. Flats in my constituency are vacated for a period and then reconstituted by the local authority. Will such buildings be within the ambit of the Bill? What does "reconstruction" mean? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can enlighten me.

If the Bill is to be effective, all substantial building work on houses should be brought within its ambit. It is no use imposing a limited duty on those who construct new houses if the proportion of new houses to the 22·7 million houses in the housing stock—I have not checked the figure—means that the Bill has a limited effect.

My hon. Friend will not have had the chance this afternoon to go on to the Terrace pavilion, which is a semi-permanent construction. Pavilions were erected at Stoneleigh for the Royal Show this week. How would the Bill deal with such places?

On behalf of the Bill's sponsors, I can reassure my hon. Friend. New clause 6 in Lords amendment No. 4 makes it clear that the Bill applies only to dwellings. My understanding of the definition of "dwelling" is that it is something in which people live, as opposed to a place that they visit at Henley or Wimbledon, or the House of Commons. I do not believe that the obligation to install smoke detectors will be imposed on people who erect such places.

My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) mentioned a loophole. The word "dwelling" is far too narrow a term. I do not necessarily think that smoke detectors should be fitted to every tent at every function, but many constructions that are not dwellings put people in them at great risk. The Bill should cover all places that should be fitted with smoke alarms—for example, restaurants and places that are permanent structures but not dwellings and where large numbers of people congregate.

The Lords amendments leave the provisions of the Bill far too narrow. Those who, under the Bill, have a duty to inspect are a much smaller group than those who are qualified to inspect and could do so. They will be charged with the duty only of inspecting new buildings, and will therefore look at only a tiny proportion of the dwelling houses in Britain. Moreover, as I understand the terms of the Bill as amended, the duty to install smoke detectors will be placed only upon those who construct dwellings and not upon those who live in them or on those subsequently involved in their sale or resale.

With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), whose worthy aim I applaud, I feel that the achievements of the Bill will be minimal in terms of saving the lives that we all wish to be saved.

We have had a valuable little debate on a Bill which we did not have the opportunity to debate on Second or Third Reading. I shall respond as briefly as I can to the points that have been made.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who is responsible for the Bill. It is an indication of his deep concern about this important issue that he took the trouble to pilot the Bill, which has so far received a fairly smooth passage, through its earlier stages. It is characteristic of my hon. Friend's commitment to his constituency and to the interests of his constituents that he has had to give priority to an engagement in York. He told me this morning how much he had hoped to be here to take his one opportunity to speak to the Bill on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend's constituents are extremely lucky to be represented by such a diligent Member of Parliament; long may he continue here. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) has proved to be an admirable replacement and gave an eloquent and concise summary of the amendments. I confess that I was not previously aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject, but he has mastered the detail remarkably quickly.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who has apologised for having to leave the House before the end of the debate, and is now on his way to his constituency, spoke movingly of the recent appalling tragedy in Scotland. I entirely understand his views, but I must emphasise that there are very real problems of enforcement. The argument against extending the requirement to all existing dwellings was effectively put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), who also apologised for having to leave before the end of the debate. The approach adopted in the Bill is that smoke detectors should be installed in all new dwellings and I hope that by that example, we shall persuade owners and tenants of older dwellings also to install detectors in their homes. The Government are strongly in favour of the installation of detectors in all dwellings—old and new. We do not, however, believe that it is appropriate to extend the criminal law for the purpose of enforcing the installation of detectors in older dwellings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) spoke of his personal experience—of which I did not previously know—of the value of smoke alarms. I point out to him that one advantage of confining the Bill to new dwellings is that such buildings will be routinely inspected—whether by local authorities or by the National House Building Council, as the amendments provide. We can therefore ensure that, at that stage at least, scrutiny confirms that a smoke detector has been installed. That can be done without any additional bureaucratic imposition and without extra time being involved.

Will my hon. Friend consider the point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), which was that it is not sufficient simply to inspect to ensure that a smoke detector has been installed? It is also necessary to ensure, by reference to all conceivable uses of the building, that the detector has been installed in the correct place.

I intended to refer to that point, which draws attention to a difficulty. I do not think that it will ever be possible to make 100 per cent. certain that smoke detectors are always in precisely the place that they should be, for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave during his earlier intervention. The uses of particular rooms in a house will change from time to time. Unless attention is paid to the position of the smoke detector each time that occurs, there may be occasions when the existence of the smoke detector may not be sufficient to guarantee the prevention of a fire. Nevertheless, my hon. Friends will agree that the provisions make it at least likely that a number of fires that would have occurred will be prevented by virtue of the fact that new dwellings have smoke detectors.

1.45 pm

Furthermore, the process of requiring detectors to be installed in new dwellings and the fact that this debate is taking place today will help to persuade others, particularly in older dwellings, of the importance of installing smoke detectors. We are helping a valuable measure through the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West explained the effect of the amendments very clearly. The most important point is that the crucial role that approved inspectors can already play in the building control system is now recognised by the amendments. They are clearly extremely sensible amendments and the Government fully support them. I commend them to the House.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the tribute that he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who, as he rightly said, has had to return to his constituency he has entrusted to me the task of moving the Lords amendments.

Has he gone back to his constituency because he is worried that he will lose his deposit at the next general election?

No, he has gone back because he is an extremely assiduous and hard-working Member. He has returned to honour a very long-standing engagement. That remark from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was completely unnecessary.

Amendment No. 2 relates to consulting the local fire authority. Clause 2 relates to exemptions. We all agree that there must be some exceptions. For example, when refurbishing historic homes or other buildings of considerable importance to our heritage it would be out of place to have smoke detectors on a Grinling Gibbons ceiling. Those exceptions and exemptions must be kept to a bare minimum.

We are talking about lives being at stake. On average every year 700 people die in homes as a result of tires in which smoke is involved. In addition, 10,000 people are injured in such incidents every year. Those figures are horrendous. People will recall that appalling disaster when the Piper Alpha platform caught fire. One hundred and sixty-seven people died in that tragedy, but every year 700 people die in their homes as a result of fires. I believe that many of those lives could be saved if those homes had smoke detectors.

In that context, and as we are talking about consulting the fire authorities, I am in order if—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Chair will decide what is and what is not in order. 1 take this opportunity to remind him and the House that I also have a duty to protect the rights of other hon. Members whose Bills await us and are on the Order Paper. I very much hope that the House will debate the Lords amendment and not the generality of clause 2.

I apologise for trying to usurp your position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will forgive me for that impertinence.

The Norfolk fire service has devised several extremely important initiatives. One of those, its smoke detector campaign, has been running for two and a half years. As a result, 47 per cent. of all dwellings in Norfolk now have smoke detectors. That is 15 per cent. above the national average. In the last calendar year, there were 667 fires and 801 chimney fires in Norfolk. The Norfolk fire service has told me that those figures would have been much worse without its smoke detector campaign, which has increased the number of smoke detectors to an extremely high level. That must not go unrecorded, because it is crucial.

It is important that local authorities produce schemes to install smoke detectors on council estates. Norwich city council has carried out a pilot scheme, which involves a team of officers from the fire service meeting the occupiers of the homes in question to tell them about safety issues. I am informed that one councillor in Norwich, Andy Paynes, carried out a poll which produced the staggering result that since the pilot scheme began, the number of smoke detectors installed in the area has increased by 22 per cent. I am urging my local authority, King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, to introduce a similar scheme. I know that the central area manager, Mr. Simon Beales, will be extremely sympathetic to my suggestion.

The Norfolk fire brigade is right up there in the vanguard and has recently introduced a community fire safety programme. In due course, it will involve every full-time and retained fireman in Norfolk. That shows the conscientiousness, dedication and commitment of the Norfolk fire brigade. Its campaigns have been extremely successful. I urge other fire services to come up with similar campaigns. The Norfolk fire brigade is continually producing newer and better leaflets that are sent out to householders, developers and to the wardens of different housing complexes. They urge people to spend just a small amount of money installing a smoke detector.

As I said, exemptions should be a matter for the fire authority as well as the local authority. That is why I was slightly concerned and surprised that when my hon. Friend the Member for York was piloting the Bill in its early stages, he did not spot the need to involve the fire authorities. That is why their Lordships tabled the amendment, which insists that the fire authority is consulted.

The House may ask why the amendment provides an exemption for the Isles of Scilly. The fact that their Lordships took special note of the Isles of Scilly may be slightly surprising because the amendment is straightforward, except for the categorical reference to "other than the Council of the Isles of Scilly".

I shall try to cast some light on why that exemption has been made. The council of the Isles of Scilly is a remarkable and long-established example of what many people today would regard as a model for local government in the rest of the country. It is a unitary authority with a single tier. The writ of Cornwall county council does not run in the islands—and nor do the services of Cornwall's county fire brigade. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the chief officer of the Cornish fire service also serves as the chief officer of the fire brigade of the council of the Isles of Scilly, although they are separate roles. When dealing with matters in Cornwall, for example, the chief officer uses the writing paper of the county fire service, but when dealing with matters relating to the Isles of Scilly, he uses the paper of the council of the Isles of Scilly. That is a classic Chinese wall.

The question is whether the inhabitants of the Scilly isles will be disadvantaged by the exemption. If an owner or a builder of a new house on the islands has reason to seek exemption from the requirement to install a smoke detector in the property, he would, under the Bill, have to seek permission from the officers of the council of the Isles of Scilly. Those officers will not be provided with any extra help to ensure that they reach proper decisions about whether to grant an exemption. On the fact of it, builders on the Isles of Scilly might find it harder to obtain exemption. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that.

Exemption could become an important issue on the Isles of Scilly. It would be difficult to conceive a reason why a new house on the isles should be exempted, but the House will know that very few houses are allowed to be built on the islands. Planning laws are, rightly, extremely strict and little new housing has been authorised on the islands over the past 20 years or so. The House will recall that a former Prime Minister, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, used to have a property on the Isles of Scilly and regularly retired there during parliamentary recesses. It is fair to say that Lord Wilson helped to put the Scilly isles on the map. It is unfortunate that he did not have time to contribute to the debates that took place in another place during its consideration of the Bill.

There have been a number of conversions of agricultural buildings on the Isles of Scilly and some of the properties are listed. That raises the question of implementation. Should the installation of smoke detectors in such properties be allowed? It is still not properly defined when the repair on extension of a building will bring it within the scope of the Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that. For those who are engaged on conversions of the sort that are under way on Tresco, the issue remains outstanding.

Could the officers of the council of the Isles of Scilly consult the fire fighters? Each island has a system of retained fireman. Even the smallest island, Bryher—it is only 1·25 miles by 1·25 miles with a population of 76—has access to its own fire service. I am told, however, that house fires are extremely rare and there has not been one in living memory. Perhaps all the houses on the island have been fitted with smoke detectors already.

St. Mary's, the island on which Lord Wilson used to spend his holidays, has a population of 1,600. That population increases substantially in the summer. Like the other islands, it relies on part-time retained fire crews. It is worth saying that such crews are crucial. I have told the House that the Norfolk fire brigade is highly professional and well respected. It relies, however, to a large extent on retained part-time firemen. Those men adopt the highest possible standards of professionalism, training and expertise and they have a commitment and devotion to serving their local community. I pay tribute to the work that is done throughout the country by retained part-time firemen.

There is no doubt that the senior retained men could advise on suitability for exemption, but that would raise a further problem. In the rest of the United Kingdom, the decision whether to exempt will rest with district councils' building inspectors. They will seek the advice of the fire brigade, which will be under the control of the county council. Thus, the advice will come properly from a separate and independent body. On the Isles of Scilly, however, if the council sought the advice of the chief fire officer, wearing the hat or using the notepaper of the Isles of Scilly, it would be seeking advice from itself. That would give rise to accusations of partiality. That is something which those who demand unitary authorities throughout England and Wales might wish to consider. It is worth saying that the debate about the structure of local government will rumble on an on. In the context of the Bill, however, unitary authorities lead to problems when those representing a certain function seek advice and authorisation from another authority. It is an important matter which should be borne in mind.

The only way to avoid the problem would be to summon an independent fire officer from the mainland and from a different force or fire brigade. That, however, would be costly and we must bear in mind the fact that it would add to the cost of new homes on the Isles of Scilly. New homes are needed on the islands for local people, including many in rural areas. It goes without saying that costs are inflated by the distances involved. The sea journey from Penzance to the islands is very expensive and the service operates only from April to early November. The skybus which flies from Land's End operates only in the summer. The only way that a fire officer could visit the islands in the winter would be by helicopter. I understand that the service runs four times a week. Transport between the islands is easier, through the good services offered by the St. Mary's Boatmen's Association.

2 pm

The cost of getting a fire officer from the mainland to the Scilly isles is prohibitive, and there would be a number of important implications for the ratepayers. The independent fire officer might have to spend a few days on the islands because he could not carry out his role in just a morning or an afternoon. It would not be possible to fly from Penzance to St. Mary's, cross to Bryher by boat, and then get back to the air base at St. Mary's in time for the return flight on the same day, even if the fire officer had only one visit to make. Rough weather might intervene and trap the fire inspector on Bryher for several days. Of course, he would not lack creature comforts as I understand that the services offered by local hostelries are superb. I am trying to explain the implications of the additional costs that would be involved; the extra costs involved in island living are already accepted. It would be an economic nonsense to install testing facilities on all five islands.

Will the amendment have an adverse effect on tourism, which is the mainstay of the economy—although 10 years ago, it was daffodils—

Order. I have been tolerant with the hon. Gentleman, but even he will recognise that he is going too far. He must keep his remarks closer to the amendment.

I am sorry that you feel that I have strayed too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Lords amendment would specifically exempt the Scilly isles and the House must be made aware of the reason.

I hope that I have managed to explain the background to the position in the Scilly isles, which have a special case. That is why the other place decided to exempt them from the provision that requires the fire service to be consulted. On balance, I think that their Lordships were right. I am aware that a number of them lobbied a great deal about the special circumstances of the Scilly isles.

Ensuring that the fire authority is consulted is at the core of the Bill. It has the experts. I have already mentioned the Norfolk fire service, which has a superb record of informing the public and presenting the case for smoke detectors. The fire service has the professionals and the experts and they need to be consulted. I commend the amendment to the House.

I welcome the explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who raised two specific issues. The first is whether fire officers should be consulted when existing dwellings or those about to be constructed are to be given exemptions. The second issue is whether the Scilly isles should be exempted.

It is slightly anomalous that the fire service should be consulted when a local authority is considering whether to grant an exemption, but not consulted on whether or where a smoke alarm should be placed. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the fire service has a body of experts who can best advise on the provision of fire appliances and on fire prevention and protection units. It seems odd to draw that distinction. On the one hand, a local authority is deemed to be the right body to determine that the correct number of smoke alarms have been fitted properly, and in the right place, and will serve to give sufficient early warning of a fire. On the other hand, the authority is not deemed competent to decide whether a new or reconstituted dwelling should be exempted. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West can enlighten me as to why that distinction has been made. It does not seem logical that a local authority should have the power to act by itself in certain circumstances, but in others cannot be trusted to reach a decision without the intervention of the local fire service.

I was intrigued by the reference to the Scilly Isles. It seems astonishing to exempt them, as I am not aware that the Scillies are less able to provide a fire service check than the many other islands offshore to the United Kingdom mainland. Is there anything special about those isles, as against the Orkneys or Outer Hebrides to the extent that the Scillies alone should be given exemption from what is deemed to be a necessary safeguard in the rest of the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West described at length the population of the Scilly isles and said that, in general, they do not have a fire service of adequate strength to undertake the checks required. However, he added that each and every one of the islands —even the smallest—has a resident fire officer. Is there any reason why those officers should not be considered lit and proper persons to undertake the checks required?

As my hon. Friend rightly said, there are few new buildings in the Scillies and the chances of any of them being properly exempted from the provision seems remote. It is a pity that the promoter of the Bill cannot be present, although I fully understand the reason, as I would have enjoyed the opportunity of examining him on precisely how many buildings would fall into the category specifically exempted by the Bill. I will be extremely surprised if at any time in the next five years more than a handful of buildings qualify for the exemption. Is it necessary, therefore, to make such an exemption in respect of the Scilly isles? If the safeguards are thought to be so important for the rest of the United Kingdom, why are they not considered equally important for the Scilly isles?

My hon. Friend mentioned added expense, and there would be additional costs involved in taking over to the isles an officer of the Cornwall fire service, which I understand is the one affiliated to the Scilly isles, to investigate an application for exemption. However, it would be no more expensive than flying someone over to the Mull or Isla, or any of the western isles, where the same criteria must apply. Despite my hon. Friend's admirable introduction to the amendment, I see no reason why the Scillies should he given the exemption that the House is asked to approve.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West also raised the question of tourism. I am sure that I would be hauled up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I started talking about daffodils, but the tourist industry is surely the mainstay of the isles' income. The tourists who visit them must be able to expect their safety to be safeguarded there, as in any other part of the United Kingdom. I fail to comprehend why a guest house in the Scillies should be exempted on the basis that the local authority thinks that it should not be required to fit smoke alarms, whereas one in Cornwall will require the consent of the Cornish fire service before it can obtain exemption. We should be wary of legislating for different standards in different parts of the country—the more so when there is no obvious reason why one part should be regarded as different from the others.

I do not intend to block the amendment. The Lords have considered it and they think it appropriate, but I agree to it with great reservations. I see no good reason for exemption for the Isles of Scilly, although the Minister may be able to provide an explanation.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) I found that the introduction to the Lords amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) gave rise to one or two doubts.

In theory we are all against unnecessary legislation and I wonder how necessary this amendment is. It would provide an exemption from the requirement to put smoke detectors in new dwellings. I should have thought that any local authority faced with a request for such an exemption would automatically consult the local fire authority, so do we really need a legislative requirement to do so? Surely the same clause to which the amendment refers provides the opportunity for local authorities to do this. If they refuse an application for exemption there is a right of appeal and, inevitably, the evidence that would be called for during that appeal would be given by the local fire authority. I am not sure whether there is a need to include a legislative provision to this end. I hope that one of my hon. Friends will be able to reassure me on that point.

In many parts of the country there will be unitary authorities. In my part of the world it is likely that either the city of Bristol or Avon county council will cease to exist as a local authority in five years' time. So why do we need a provision stipulating that one part of a local authority must consult another to achieve the aim of the Bill? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, I have no intention of blocking the amendment, but it leaves me worried.

This has been a helpful debate in which important issues have been aired. The introduction to the amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) was a classic of its kind: he explained the matter most clearly. He also took the opportunity to describe the excellent work of the Norfolk fire service, which I commend. It has already had some success with a higher than average rate of installations of smoke detectors.

My hon. Friend asked important questions about the Scilly isles. The amendment deals with exceptions to the general run of things. It is expected that after the passage of the Bill almost all new dwellings will be covered by the requirement to install smoke detectors, so this aspect of the Bill deals with only a small number of cases. I recently saw the structure plan for the isles of Scilly—it is something of an anomaly that it has to have one, given its very small population. Without breaking any confidences I think that I can say that under that structure plan it does not appear that the Bill will have a huge impact, because the number of new dwellings to be built in the Scilly isles in the next few years is relatively small, so it is possible that there will be no exceptions of the sort dealt with by the clause.

The issues were further illuminated by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). It might be best if we monitor the progress of the legislation in the Isles of Scilly by getting my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) to keep an eye on the situation. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West will ask him to do that.

The nub of the matter is that the local authority and the fire authority are one and the same body on the Isles of Scilly. That is unique. It does not apply to the parts of western Scotland that were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster. That fact is the explanation for the amendment. The amendment does not extend its requirements to the Isles of Scilly because the local authority and the fire authority are the same body.

I am grateful for that explanation. I accept that that is the difference between the Isles of Scilly and the outer isles around Scotland—one of which I was not aware. However, that in itself does not seem to be a good reason for the exemption. First, as my hon. Friend said, this is unlikely to have any effect on the Isles of Scilly. Secondly, although it is one and the same authority on the Isles of Scilly, there is a specialist fire service officer there who must be perfectly capable of making the sort of decisions that fire authorities in other parts of the country have to make. It is something of an insult to the specialist fire service officer on the Isles of Scilly that that power should be removed from him.

It may be some time since the affairs of the Isles of Scilly have been discussed in such detail in the House. It is possible, therefore, that the attention of the population of the Isles of Scilly will be drawn to our proceedings. I hope that, on the ground, common sense will prevail. If there is the need for a Chinese wall to be erected, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West, I am sure that the authority is capable of erecting one. In practice, therefore, I hope that the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster will not prove to be a real anxiety, if the situation unfolds as he suggested.

Amendment No. 2 allows the appropriate local authority to dispense with or relax the requirement to fit smoke detectors. There are unlikely to be many situations in which the power will need to be used. The conversion of an historic house into a dwelling is a possible example, but when such a situation does arise it seems sensible to require the building control authority to consult the fire authority before deciding whether to give a direction under clause 2. The amendment will ensure that consultation takes place. It would remove any chance of a local authority deciding, for one reason or another, to cut corners. It would have to consult another body before this dispensation could be granted.

Against that background, the amendment commands the full support of the Government. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, after 'person', insert `wilfully'.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

• No. 3, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'procures'.
• No. 4, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'or assists at'.
• No. 5, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'or suffers'.
• No. 13, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'two' and insert 'one'.
• No. 16, in page 1, line 7, leave out

`in a competition as to their ability to course hares'.

The amendments have been put together in a package and would amend clause 1 in various ways, through which I shall briefly lead the House.

Amendment No.1 would insert the word "wilfully" after "person" in line 5. The clause would then read:

"If any person wilfully causes, procures or assists at, or knowingly permits"

and so on. The reason for the insertion of the word "wilfully" is that the question of when someone causes a dog to course a hare is much too wide. Both I and those of my hon. Friends who joined me in tabling the amendment believe that it is important that someone should do so wilfully. In other words, they should have the intention of doing the act that the Bill seeks to prevent before any criminal act can be deemed to have been committed.

It appears that, at the moment, anybody who is out with a dog, or with two dogs, who permits or causes that dog or those dogs to course a hare in the way defined by clause 1 would be guilty of an offence. That person might cause the dogs to do so without intending that that should be the consequence of his actions. For example, he may be walking his two dogs through a field in which there are hares. If his dogs decided to course a hare, it would be possible to argue that he caused the hare to be coursed by the two dogs because he had taken the dogs into that field and released them, after which they had coursed the hare. However, he may not necessarily have intended that they should do so.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will have no difficulty in agreeing with that amendment and that he would not wish to cause somebody who was not acting deliberately to commit a criminal offence. I very much hope, therefore, that he will agree to the amendment.

Amendment No. 2 goes to the heart of the Bill. A quick reading makes it clear that the Bill does not prohibit hare coursing where the object is to catch the hare. Only coursing where the object is to test dogs is to be abolished. That form of coursing is regulated by the National Coursing Club to ensure fair play.

As a supporter of coursing, it is odd that I am moving an amendment that would help the hon. Member for Leyton. However, logic insists that I do so, because under the present ludicrous state of affairs if somebody courses a hare with two dogs in a competition to test the dogs' ability to course hares he commits a criminal offence, but if he courses with the intention of killing the hare he does not do so.

Order. I must draw it to the hon. Gentleman's attention that amendment No. 2 is not included in the group. It is out of order.

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that that fact escaped me when I compiled my notes. I hope that I am right in thinking that amendment No. 3 is in the group.

Yes.

Thank you, Sir.

It will be an offence not only to cause coursing—or, as I hope, after the Bill has been amended, "wilfully" to cause coursing—but to procure it. According to the "Oxford English Dictionary", "procure" can mean to take care for, take care of, attend to or look after. Alternatively, it can mean to put forth, employ care or effort, to do one's best, to endeavour, labour or to contrive or devise with care, to bring about by care or pains, to bring about, to cause, effect, produce, to obtain by care or effort, to gain, win, get possession of or acquire. Clearly the word "procure" has a wide range of different meanings which could lead to substantial confusion in the Bill. I do not think that it would be in anybody's interests that there should be less than clarity in the way in which the Bill sets a new criminal offence.

Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) said, the word "procure" is otiose as the word "causes" appears earlier in the sentence. In the context of the supposed meaning of "procures" in the clause, "causes" or "procures" seem to mean the same. Therefore, the word adds nothing to the clause and it has many irrelevant meanings that could throw a cloud of uncertainty around the Bill if it were unamended. It must be in the interests of clarity and of the Bill that that word is omitted, particularly when "wilfully causes" embraces everything that the hon. Member for Leyton is seeking to achieve.

I gather that the word "procures" was originally included in the Hare Coursing Bill, which was a Government Bill, but was deleted in Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton would wish to follow the example of Dr. Shirley Summerskill, who saw the logic of the argument that I am advancing, although it was probably advanced more strongly than I am advancing my argument today. In 1975, the Labour party was prepared to accept the deletion of the word "procures", and I can see no good reason for including it today.

I am slightly nervous that the list that I have is not the correct one, but I hope that amendment No. 4 is in this group.

Yes.

If amendment No. 4 and all my other amendments were accepted the clause would read:

"If any person wilfully causes, or knowingly permits or suffers any place to be used for, the coursing of a hare by two or more dogs in a competition as to their ability to course hares, he shall be guilty of an offence".

I do not believe that the "or assists at" adds anything to the clause as it would read if my amendments were accepted. If someone knowingly permits or suffers something to happen, or if he assists at something, he is clearly knowingly permitting or suffering it to occur. Furthermore, if a man sets his dogs on to a hare and starts to judge them he would then be committing an offence. The question then arises, who are his assistants? Do they know that that is the purpose for which he is letting the dogs go? That seems to go to the heart of the Bill's inadequacy. It will clearly not achieve what the hon. Member for Leyton wishes it to achieve, which is the prevention of hare coursing as we know it.

Although I sympathise with and respect the campagin waged by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), he is misguided. If the Bill were passed it would encourage the form of illegal hare coursing which does so much to destroy wildlife and the countryside. People would arrive illegally on the land and let their dogs out to course at night without the permission of the landowner. As a result, many more hares would be killed and there would be a great deal of destruction of the local environment. That is exactly what would happen if the Bill became law, so, although we respect the motives and the campaign of the hon. Member for Leyton, our advice to him would be to spend some time in the countryside finding out how it works. He should attend a hare coursing meeting, and I am prepared to invite him to my part of the world to show him at first hand the damage that would be done by illegal hare coursing.

Order. Interventions should be brief.