Commons Sitting of 14 July 1978

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITIONS

  Hull (Hospital Closures)
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to present a petition on behalf of my colleagues and myself and 25,000 of our constituents in Hull and its surroundings.
  When this petition was first being proposed, there was a threatened closure of two women's hospitals in my constituency. Yesterday, regrettably, the area health authority confirmed the decision to close. Therefore, this is one of our last opportunities to appeal to the House to have that decision set aside.
  The petition reads as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the undersigned people of Kingston upon Hull and adjoining districts sheweth that there is great concern at any proposals to close the Hull Hospital for Women and the Townend Maternity Home.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray, in order that the Hull Hospital for Women and the Townend Maternity Home may continue to provide their unique and excellent services to the women of Hull and adjoining districts that the proposals to close or alter the use thereof do not meet with your favour.
  And your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
  1920
  The first name on the list of petitioners is that of Mr. Goforth, the lord mayor of the city of Kingston upon Hull.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Ashbourne (Traffic)
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Ashbourne in Derbyshire who are extremely concerned about the situattion in their town. They are anxious about the increasing traffic hazards there during the last few years. Traffic has increased enormously until life has become intolerable, and their only hope now that some relief can be given to them.
  The petition reads as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled:
  The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland sheweth—

  (1) that there are intolerable and dangerous conditions in the town centre of Ashbourne. Derbyshire, caused by traffic congestion;

  (2) that there is a continual hazard to the citizens of Ashbourne resulting from the continual flow of heavy vehicles through its narrow streets;

  (3) that there is a need to prevent further accidents as a result of heavy vehicles getting out of control on the market place hill or brushing aside pedestrians on the pavements;

  (4) that there is a need to preserve the town's historical buildings within the Conservation Area.

  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will ensure the construction of a by-pass at the earliest possible date for the town of Ashbourne in Derbyshire.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  The top signature on the petition of 2,000 names is that of the chairman of the council, Mr. George T. Ward.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL
    Clause 1

      INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS AND FILMS OF CHILDREN
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out clause 1 and insert new clause A (Indecent photographs of children):—
      "A.—(1) It is an offence for a person—

      (a) to take, or permit to be taken, any indecent photograph of a child (meaning in this Act a person under the age of 16); or

      (b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or

      (c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or

      (d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so.

      (2) For purposes of this Act, a person is to be regarded as distributing an indecent photograph if he parts with possession of it to, or exposes or offers it for acquisition by, another person.
      (3) Proceedings for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
      (4) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) or (c), it shall be a defence for him to prove—

      (a) that he had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the photographs or (as the case may be) having them in his possession; or

      (b) that he had not himself seen the photographs and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, them to be indecent.

      (5) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (except in sections 15 and 99) to the offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to that Act shall include an offence under subsection (1)(a) above.
      (6) Offences under this Act shall be included—

      (a) in the list of extradition crimes contained in Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1870; and

      (b) among the descriptions of offences set out in Schedule 1 to the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967;

      and sections 17 and 22 of the 1870 Act and sections 16 and 17 of the 1967 Act (application to Channel Islands, Isle of Man and
      1922
      United Kingdom dependencies) extended to this subsection.
      (7) In paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (offences against the person in the case of which a member of a visiting force is in certain circumstances not liable to be tried by a United Kingdom court), after sub-paragraph (b)(viii) (inserted by the Sexual Offences Act 1956) there shall be added—
      "(ix) section 1(1)(a) of the protection of Children Act 1978"."
      Read a second time.
      11.9 a.m.
      Mr. Speaker: I call Sir Bernard Braine to move his amendment to Lords amendment no. 1.
      Mr. Cyril Townsend: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I not allowed to introduce the Lords' amendment?
      Mr. Speaker: The two will be discussed together. We shall have the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). We know that he introduced the Bill. But the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has an amendment down to the Lords amendment. There is no need for the hon. Member for Bexleyheath to introduce the Lords amendment—it is there.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in subsection (1), after paragraph (c), insert—
      '(cc) to publish indecent printed matter in connection with an indecent photograph of a child or a copy thereof; or.'.
      My amendment has three purposes. The first is to expose the weakness of the Bill, the second is to extend the area of protection of children, and the third is to probe the Government's intentions should the Bill go through in its present form.
      In my view, the Bill was weak when it left the House of Commons. It has been improved somewhat in the other place, but we shall be under a grave illusion if we think that it will do very much to combat the appalling threat of child pornography to increasing numbers of our children.
      It is essential at the outset to make one point clear. The public were led to believe, earlier this year, largely by the media, that this Bill would put down child pornography. As the Second Reading

      1923
      approached every hon. Member was inundated with letters from constituents, anxious parents, teachers, churchmen, social workers and organisations concerned with the moral welfare of children urging us to support them so that a vile and filthy trade which involves the sexual exploitation and corruption of children could be crushed.
      Unhappily, this Bill in its present form, and this is the reason for my amendment, will do no such thing. Clause 1 as amended by their Lordships is the heart of the Bill because it makes it an offence to take or permit to take an indecent photograph of a child, to distribute such photographs, or to have them in one's possession. It will do something for the relatively small number of children actually involved in the taking of such photographs. That is a step forward, as I will concede. That is a reason why I hope that the Bill will make progress today. But, inexplicably, the Bill goes no further. It is blind to the reason why such photographs are taken in the first place and the dangers involved to a far larger number of children. Indeed, every child in the land is possibly at risk.
      People who have studied the problem in the United States and this country, too, tell us that in the United States the problem has clearly reached appalling and frightening levels. They also tell us that the captions accompanying such photographs and the textual material which they illustrate are generally more explicit, more degrading and more corrupting than the photographs themselves. I have seen such material, and I presume that the Minister of State has, too. That material can be bought openly in London and in every other big city in the country.
      I have no doubt that some clever lawyer would argue before a court that photographs of nude children are not indecent. One can almost hear some eminent QC chiding the prosecution "Go to any public museum and you will see this sort of thing in three-dimensional form". But no lawyer could argue so convincingly when the photographs are used in conjunction with a text that is deliberately designed not only to encourage perverted adults to seduce and corrupt children but to encourage children who have been corrupted to seduce others, irrespective of the cost in human
      1924
      misery. This widens the circle of people involved and increases the sales and profits of the pornographers.
      In short—this is the point that I wish to drive home—the number of children at risk from this vile trade is infinitely greater than the number of children who are photographed.
      It may be argued that the text accompanying such photographs can be caught under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which deals with the printed word, but there is no certainty of this. Such material can still be obtained and, in any event, the law on obscenity is currently in hopeless confusion. Moreover, it is likely to remain so for some time—perhaps for some years, since the Government have so far preferred to leave reform to the Williams committee. In the meantime, however, we can be certain that children who are involved as a result of the publication of this material or who become the victims of assault by perverted adults whose fantasies are strengthened by the reading of such material will be damaged emotionally and spiritually, perhaps for life. The link between child pornography and child prostitution is immediate and obvious, and every police officer and social worker in the land knows that to be the case.
      Indeed, the facts stare us in the face. There are horrific but carefully documented accounts of the vast army of children available for hire in the United States where, almost by the law of nature, these dreadful things happen a little earlier than they do elsewhere, but we can rest assured that, unless we are very careful, they will spread to the rest of the world in due course.
      On Monday, in the popular BBC "Woman's House" programme listeners were given details of the multi-million dollar industry linking child pornography and child prostitution in the United States. The New York police were quoted as saying that this evil traffic is netting $1½ billion a year, drawing in 10,000 people, mostly under the age of 21, involving more young boys than young girls. I hope that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) will not seek to provoke me from a sedentary position. I am being as brief as I can. The hon. Member must know from experience the intense anger aroused

      1925
      by a previous intervention of his during proceedings on this Bill.
      British listeners heard the programme and can form their own judgment. A New York police officer said:
      "We have on our files literally hundreds and hundreds of instances of kids who have now been abused, and tortured and beaten and raped by the customers or by their pimps. And those few kids that come to New York to live off prostitution very quickly find out that it's not all money and glamour but it is frequently degradation, and frequently death. A lot of kids get killed; three of the girls who came to us in the past year have been murdered."
      A Franciscan priest who runs a rescue service for children caught in this sink of iniquity said in the same programme:
      "It's absolutely insane that the citizens, for example, of this country"—
      that is, the United States—
      "or even of your own country, can become exercised and involved with questions of pollution and Let Us Save the Whale campaigns and ignore this insane child abuse."
      Before this Bill received its Second Reading, many of us studied the evidence given to a House of Representatives committee last year by a distinguished psychiatrist and lawyer in the United States, Dr. Julianne Denser-Gerber, in which she described the sexual exploitation of American children on a massive scale. She quoted 264 magazines produced each month that used male children. She said in her evidence:
      "The people who support and buy this kind of material are strengthening their paedophiliac fantasies. Now, when fantasies are stimulated people go home and act out. For example, there is no doubt that incest is on the rise… so we must be concerned not only with the kind of visual material and the children who are being exploited, but with the content of the magazine and crimes against children that it incites."
      Dr. Denser-Gerber went on to give examples of the way in which such magazines actually give instructions as to how to abuse sexually pre-pubescent girls and how to pick up children and molest them and to do this, if possible, without coming up against the law.
      I do not mean to be unkind, because I know that the Minister of State cares deeply about these matters. However, the defensive attitude that Home Office Ministers took towards the Bill from the outset seemed to suggest that, in their view, the problem did not exist in this country. I address myself particularly to the Minister of State and I must tell him
      1926
      that, unhappily, the problem does exist in this country though, thank God, not on the same scale as in the United States—yet.
      Hon. Members need not look very far for examples. The police forces in every major city in this country are worried. On Tuesday this week a case was reported in the Daily Express of a 44-year-old man, a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange, which advocates sexual relations with children above the age of 4, who graduated from reading hard-core child pornography imported from Denmark to sexual intercourse with two sisters aged 10 and 6. It was reported that, after watching blue films, the man paid £80 for a 40-minute sex session with the two children and for coloured photographs of what went on between them. He was given a 12-month gaol sentence, suspended for two years. I could comment on that sentence, but I forbear to express an opinion.
      The point of the story is not just that this sick, perverted creature's fantasies were fed by pornographic pictures, but that this led directly to the molesting of young children and that the organisation existed to make them available to him.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), who has laboured long and hard in this matter—the whole country is indebted to him—wanted a tougher Bill in the first place, but he was given to understand that the Home Office was not prepared to support the inclusion of textual material. I understand his dilemma. Here is a pressing problem which cries to heaven for legislation. On Second Reading, the whole House was united in demanding that something should be done, but my hon. Friend was in grave doubt whether he would get the Bill through without the Government giving facilities for it. He therefore settled for half a loaf instead of insisting on the whole and running the risk of getting nothing. But that does not mean that the rest of us must be silent.
      We are entitled to know why the Government have been opposed to the inclusion of textual material in the Bill. What are they afraid of? Whom are they afraid of? Do they care more about being accused by their trendy friends of seeking to censor than about the immediate welfare of the nation's children? We want

      1927
      answers to those questions. Perhaps I am being unfair, yet what I have said is not unfair on the evidence of the Government's attitude to the Bill.
      The Government view appears to be that they should wait on the deliberations and recommendations of the Williams committee. How long will that take? My action today will depend on the answer to that question.
      There can be little doubt that if the Bill is not amended in the way I suggest we can expect an increase in the amount and the depravity of child pornography. The publishers are waiting to see what the Government have to say, since they know that if textual material is not included now they will have a pretty free run from today's debate until the Williams committee reports and legislation follows—perhaps in several years' time.
      A senior police officer from a northern city force told me yesterday:
      "There are huge financial killings to be made between the passage of this Bill and the Williams report. If indecent photographs are inhibited by law"—
      which is what the Bill seek to do—
      "the pornographers will produce innocuous photographs with even more depraved text. They are laughing up their sleeves."
      I have had contacts with senior police officers for a number of years and have declared my interest before. The effect of this is that I am able to get a pretty quick police reaction to various problems. The view expressed to me yesterday by that northern police officer has been confirmed since by police officers in other forces, particularly here in the capital city.
      Pornography is an international crime racket that can be compared, if not balanced, with the drug traffic. Now that adults are getting satiated with adult pornography, the trade is moving to child pornography. The recent enactment of very strong legislation in the United States, where the authorities have at last awakened to the gravity of the problem, means inevitably that the pornographers will turn their attack to this country. It is a billion dollar industry and there is a lot of money at stake. They will turn their attention to us because, due to our flabbiness and weakness, our defences are down. I suggest that the pornographers are holding back only because of the Bill.
      1928
      It is no good the Government's hiding behind the present obscenity laws. Much of the printed material that I am talking about is no worse than some of the obscene material that has effectively been made legal by case law, due to the failure of the Government and of Parliament to take effective action.
      My action today, therefore, will be governed very much by the Government's response to what is said in the debate. When will the Williams committee report? If I am correct in assuming that it will not be for a considerable time yet, so that a thorough job can be done in considering all aspects of the obscenity laws, can the committee be asked to treat child pornography as a special priority and to make an interim report so that Parliament may, if it wishes, take appropriate action?
      The Williams committee is headed by a distinguished man and I am sure that all the members are most capable and responsible people, but of the 13 members, only three are women. Can the number of women on the committee be increased? Women do not need lectures on this subject. They know instinctively what should be done. The whole being of a woman is geared to the love and care of children. What was the Home Secretary thinking of when he appointed this unbalanced committee? I should like an assurance that those who care for the preservation of the family and care about children and their protection against this terrible threat will have an increased representation on the committee.
      I am fully aware that if I press my amendment to a Division and it is accepted by the House it may mean that, because of our parliamentary timetable, the Bill will not become law. That is not my fault. That is the way that the cards have fallen. If I took that action and the Bill did not become law, I am also aware that the pornographers would have even more to laugh about than if the Bill were passed. Therefore, I should not lightly press the amendment to a Division. However, I am determined that the Government's attitude shall not go unchallenged. I am determined that the voice of ordinary people in the constituencies of this land, who were so disturbed about the matter in the earlier part of the year, shall not go unheeded. Nothing—but nothing—is more important

      1929
      to a nation than its children. They are its lifeline, its present joy and its only hope for the future.
      11.30 a.m.
      Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we are discussing with Lords amendment no. 1 the amendment which has been moved to it, together with the second amendment to it, in subsection (4), paragraph (a), after 'reason', insert—
      connected directly with duties or purposes concerned with the furtherance of the objects of the Act'.
      plus the following:
      Lords amendment no. 7, in page 4, line 15, leave out from "to" to "or" in line 16 and insert—
      "imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to a fine".
      Lords amendment no. 8, in any page 4, line 26, leave out clause 7 and insert new clause E (Interpretation)—
      "E.—(l) The following subsections apply for the interpretation of this Act.
      (2) References to an indecent photograph include an indecent film, a copy of an indecent photograph or film, and an indecent photograph comprised in a film.
      (3) Photographs (including those comprised in a film) shall, if they show children and are indecent, be treated for all purposes of this Act as indecent photographs of children.
      (4) References to a photograph include the negative as well as the positive version.
      (5) "Film" includes any form of video-recording."
      and the amendment thereto, at end insert—
      '(6) In considering the indecency or otherwise of any such photograph the Court may take into consideration any caption or textual material accompanying and relevant to the photograph'.
      Lords amendment no. 13, in line 1, leave out from "by" to end of line 3 and insert—
      "making indecent photographs of them; and to penalise the distribution, showing and advertisement of such indecent photographs"
      and the amendment thereto, at end insert—
      'and the publication of indecent printed matter in connection with such photograph'.
      Mr. Ian Mikardo: I rise for two purposes. First, I rise to support the amendment put forward by their Lordships as well as the other amendments that, as you have directed,
      1930
      Mr. Speaker, we shall discuss with them at the same time. Secondly, I rise to express my sincere thanks to the members of another place who spent a great deal of time, devoted a great deal of effort and applied a great deal of expertise to the task of dealing with the Bill. They succeeded, with no little difficulty, in turning what was a rubbishy and useless Bill into an effective measure that has as good a chance as any Bill can have in advance of fulfilling the purposes to which it is directed.
      There is not and never has been any division of opinion in the House—nor has there been in another place—about the purposes of the Bill. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) is not alone in his concern for the welfare of children. I speak as a father and grandfather, and I do not accept his view that on these matters women are necessarily more concerned than men. There was no division of opinion about the purpose of the Bill.
      I take no exception to what the hon. Gentleman said about the occasion on which some anger was expressed. On that occasion he was as deluded as many others. The anger to which he referred came about because there were those who were willing to have a rubbishy Bill put on to the statute book without any opportunity of discussing it and amending it. The anger was against an action that ensured that the Bill would be properly examined and that its defects and inadequacies would be corrected before it came on to the statute book.
      I cannot believe that that is a proper subject of anger. Nor should it have been a subject of anger, except to the lower IQ brackets on the Opposition Benches and the lower level of newspapers that supported them and every morning exhibited their high ethical standards by delivering a moral homily on page 2 and printing a large photograph of a naked young lady on page 3. Those were the people who generated the anger. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to be tarred with their brush. I know that he would not want to be associated with them, but some of his hon. Friends were not so scrupulous.
      I shall quote a passage from a speech made on Third Reading in another place by a highly respected independent Member of their Lordships' House.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to paraphrase unless he wishes to quote a noble Lord speaking on behalf of the Government in another place.
      Mr. Mikardo: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker, for your kind direction. I shall proceed to paraphrase. The noble Lord informed the House that a few days earlier there had appeared in the Evening Standard a picture taken near the Serpentine in Hyde Park of a large policeman holding by the hand a very small child, who was naked, on one of the few sunny warm days that we had had up to that time of the year. The Evening Standard put below the photograph a caption to the effect that it was probably the last time that it would be able to print such a picture because of the Bill that was passing through Parliament. The noble Lord said that if that were so it would be absolutely wrong. He went on to urge that with such legislation it is terribly important that we should carefully consider the wording and that we should not legislate in a wave of vulgar populist hysteria. That was said by one of the most respected independent members of another place.
      Let us consider what happened to the Bill in another place. As hon. Members know, it is not a large Bill. It is slightly more than four pages long and it consists of a title and eight clauses. In another place the title was amended. One clause was scrapped, as it was counter-productive. It was considered to do nothing to fulfil the objectives of the Bill and it was thought that it might have hindered them. Four clauses were amended, some of them substantially. Three clauses were found to be so bad that they could not even be amended. They were thrown out and replaced with entirely new clauses. Finally, an additional clause was agreed to.
      That must be an all-time record for a Bill coming before the House. In my years of experience in this place I cannot recall any Bill being changed to anything approaching that enormous degree in Committee in either House, or in both Houses put together. Those changes show what a hopeless Bill it was when it first came before us.
      When considering the Bill in the preliminary stages there was one aspect that
      1932
      caused me concern. My mother had on her mantelpiece a photograph of my younger brother, who is now a 50-yearold solid pater familias and a member of the council of one of the London boroughs. At the time that the photograph was taken he was three weeks old. There he was, lying naked as the day he was born, on a furry rug. He was lying on his belly, with his little posterior projected in the direction of the North Star. There were tens of thousands of similar photographs throughout the country. I was worried that such photographs would be caught by the Bill. I am not 100 per cent. sure about that even now. It may be said that the Director of Public Prosecutions would not authorise a prosecution, but it would be nasty and unpleasant to be charged with anything of that sort.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): As my hon. Friend is raising judicial interpretation, it is fair to say that there have been decided cases in which nudity by itself has been held not to be indecency. It seems that the law has taken care of the sort of case to which he refers.
      Mr. Mikardo: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. However, their Lordships referred to other possible examples. They quoted the example of a police photographer who in the course of his duties might have to take photographs of the private parts of a child who allegedly had been assaulted, or even a chap taking a beach photograph of his lady wife in a bikini when there walks by a small child who crosses the field of the camera and becomes part of the photograph. However, their Lordships have done a great service.
      It is no secret that I am not the greatest admirer of the institution of a Second Chamber. I hope that no one will say "This proves the need for a Second Chamber". It does nothing of the kind. The only reason that their Lordships were required to do the job that they did so well was that this House was too lazy, cowardly or incompetent to do its own job. Of the three adjectives, I would choose "incompetent". I have drawn attention to this matter before. Our idiotic procedures on Private Members' Bills ensure almost without exception—there are a few exceptions—that the

      1933
      Private Members' Bills that are discussed in detail are never passed, whereas those that are passed are never properly discussed. I think that the time has come for one of our two Select Committees on Procedure to have a look at this matter.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I really am being very tolerant to the hon. Gentleman, because he knows the House so well. But he must come back to the amendment.
      Mr. Mikardo: I shall come back to the amendment, but not at any great length. I hope that what I have said has been enough to show that the anger to which the hon. Member for Essex, South-East referred—some of it genuine, but a heck of a lot of it synthetic and stimulated by very low level newspaper stuff—was in practice not justified. The great work that their Lordships have done on the Bill—I repeat my tribute to them—directly illustrates that is true.
      Mr. Michael Alison: I listened with great attention to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). He tried to escape from the dilemma, but I thought not wholly convincingly, of having blown up the value of the House of Lords in this context by going to the even more undemocratic position of alleging that the Private Member's Bill procedure was a farce. We have an unsatisfactory account of his hostility to the Bill in the way he criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for introducing what he called a "rubbishy" measure. The hon. Gentleman then blows up the House of Lords—quite properly, in my view, in the positive and helpful sense of doing a marvellous job on the Bill. But he said that in any case Private Members' legislation as we have it is totally undesirable.
      I point out to the hon. Gentleman, with his avowed, and, I accept, totally sincere support for the underlying objectives of the Bill, that, if it were not for the Private Member's procedure and the vote that the House was able to take on Second Reading—there was support from both sides of the House and from the House of Lords—this measure would not have been introduced at all. All the fears, scandals and hazards to which my hon.
      1934
      Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B, Braine) referred would have continued and maybe expanded, because the Minister of State, his advisers and the Home Secretary approached this proposition with the deep conviction that the Bill was not necessary. The argument was not that it was rubbishy in its drafting, not that it simply needed improvement in the House of Lords, but that the law was adequate as it stood and, therefore, the Bill was not necessary.
      Had it not been for private Members—the hon. Gentleman was one of them—insisting by the kind of speeches they made that the Government should swallow their pride and accept what Private Members wanted, we would not have had any measure on this subject. That would have been the worst of all possible worlds. The Private Members' procedure, plus the Second Chamber, is the best—not the worst—of all possible worlds.
      Mr. Mikardo: I was not arguing that we should not have the Private Member's Bill procedure. I think that we should have more Private Members' time both for motions and for Bills. I was arguing that we should use the time intelligently and that we shall not do so until the procedure is improved.
      11.45 a.m.
      Mr. Alison: I am fully at one with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that most Back Bench Members, on both sides of the House—certainly on the Opposition side—could introduce more sensible measures that the present Government. If the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should have less Government time within the admittedly strictly prescribed parliamentary time available year by year and more Private Members' time, I am entirely at one with him. I think that the country would be happier if we had less time for the Government and more time for Private Members, provided that there were genuine facilities for the draft measures introduced to be properly considered, amended and dealt with in the House of Lords.
      I shall be rebuked by you, Mr. Speaker, if I do not come to the amendment. I shall do so quickly. I refer, first, to the second of the amendments standing in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) and the hon. and learned Member for

      1935
      Warrington (Sir T. Williams). I believe that it has a bearing on the argument adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East. Although it does not strictly come within Lords amendment no. 1, it is the same subject.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East, when arguing about the text of the Bill, seemed to deploy a general argument about the need to try to take account, in the narrow confines of this measure, of the wider problem of the obscenity of texts as such and the harm or damage that they might do. He rightly pointed out that this was one of the matters taken into account by the Williams committee, and he sought to try to have some of the Williams committee's study of the matter brought forward to make it relevant to the Bill. I understand what he is trying to do, but I suggest that there is another way in which the same objective can broadly be secured. I suggest that the Minister of State should accept our amendment to put this reference into the definition clause.
      The matter of the text is crucial. Fundamentally the Bill, which is specific and narrow in ambit, is concerned with the protection of children, not with the merits or otherwise in obscene terms of a particular text. The real danger to children lies in their involvement in the corrupt world of adult exploitation. It is that corrupt physical world which lies behind any photograph or text which may appear in any publication on a bookstall that we have to get at.
      There is the example of the child who is photographed naked. It could even be the baby son, grandson or relation of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow lying naked on the rug. The photograph of a naked child in any particular posture or attitude is not in itself obscene. But, if that photograph were taken and subsequently used for the purpose of titillating or illustrating a profoundly obscene and pornographic text, the circle of people who got hold of the child in order to photograph him or her in that apparently innocent posture, the studio set-up in which it occurred and the contacts that the child would make in the process of being photographed would draw the child into the dreadful world of sordid and corrupt exploitation. We are concerned with damage and danger to a child, and
      1936
      in those circumstances both damage and danger are self-evident. We are concerned about the world which tries to use photographs of children in a fundamentally pornographic setting.
      In that context, I am encouraged that the Minister of State in the House of Lords said:
      "Nor do I think that a responsible medical journal is likely to print photographs with the kind of ingredients additional to simple nakedness which a court is likely to find in their context—and I do not believe that the concept of indecency can be divorced from the context —are indecent."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28th June 1978; Vol. 394, c. 335.]
      Those are important words. The Minister does not believe that the concept of indecency can be divorced from the context. He is right.
      All that my amendment seeks to do is to write that into the definition clause of the Bill. My amendment reads:
      "In considering the indecency or otherwise of any such photograph the Court may take into consideration any caption or textual material accompanying and relevant to the photograph."
      We are seeking to spell out the association of text with photograph which the Minister of State in the House of Lords admitted was a natural and inescapable legal consideration. Perhaps the Minister this afternoon can assure us that there will be no occasion when a semi-innocent photograph of a child will fail to fall within the ambit of the Bill if the text surrounding it is self-evidently pornographic or obscene. We must have an assurance, because underlying this matter is the possibility of a child being drawn into a dreadful underworld network and the damage that will be caused as a result.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are discussing not merely the question of the possibility of one child being drawn in by means of a photograph but rather that the whole object of the pornographer is to widen the circle so that more children are brought in, in order that money can be made out of the sales of this filthy material? We are concerned such with the intention behind the taking of the photographs, even if they are, by any test in a court of law, not indecent, or not very indecent. If only one could grasp that, we should see the idiocy of the stand that the Government

      1937
      have taken in resisting any suggestion that the Bill should include textual material.
      Mr. Alison: We are both firing at the same target. I am not too much concerned with criticising the text in the Obscene Publications Acts sense. I simply want a generalised recognition that if a text is prima facie pornographic or obscene and associated with it is a child photograph, which might not be self-evidently or wholly obscene, the person responsible for taking that photograph should be subject to the full rigours of the Bill. We must prevent children being associated with the mechanism of the production of this type of material.
      My amendment to Lords amendment no. 1 which we are discussing in this group of amendments deals with different matter. I do not know whether I should allow Ministers to reply to the first amendment before I deal with the second.
      Mr. Speaker: It would be helpful to the House if the hon. Member pursued his separate argument so that both matters might be dealt with together.
      Mr. Alison: The second amendment deals with the possibility of a defendant in court proving that he had
      "a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the photographs".
      By adding, after "legitimate", the wording
      "connected directly with duties or purposes concerned with the furtherance of the objects of the Act",
      the amendment tightens up a possible looseness in the defence scope offered by the Lords amendment.
      Overkill rather than underkill is desirable in this measure. The House will know of the regular farce which occurs in the context of the Obscene Publications Acts because of the exploitation of the unintended looseness involved in the concept of the public good. There is also a looseness which arises from the idea that someone might have legitimate reasons for possessing, showing or distributing such material.
      The word "legitimate" cannot be intended to protect the police, magistrates, solicitors or other officers of a court who might unavoidably have to handle, possess, distribute or show such materials as part of their normal court activities. It is widely accepted that those who are
      1938
      professionally engaged in the affairs of the court should not be subject to penal sanctions in connection with materials which they possess or exhibit in the process of law.
      The system works satisfactorily at present in connection with the Obscene Publications Acts and with matters which involve the possession and distribution of firearms or dangerous drugs. Officers of the court, the police, magistrates and lawyers have to possess, distribute and handle materials such as firearms and drugs which would not be legitimate for them to handle outside their court duties. There is no need for the word "legitimate" to appear in this measure in order to protect such people. They are already protected adequately.
      What group is the word "legitimate" designed to help? The burden is upon the Government to show that they have in mind a particular group involved in the distribution or showing of pornographic photographs of children whom they are particularly anxious to legitimise for handling of such material. Those categories should be written into the context, or the legitimacy loophole will be blown wide open by clever defence counsel. People will be able to prove that they had legitimate reasons connected with therapeutic processes or the improvement of the health or sexual tensions or otherwise of various clients, patients and so on.
      12 noon.
      One can visualise the phrase "legitimate reason", which is self-evidently not needed to protect the officers of the court, being used to provide a whole new case history of people who will be able to get away with handling this type of material and taking photographs simply because the causes or reasons for having such materials are not clearly spelt out. The Government must say clearly which persons they want to legitimise or explain why they cannot do so.
      I stress that I am being purely exploratory in the amendments, because the last thing I want to do is to delay the Bill. If the Minister can give convincing reasons for not accepting the amendment, I shall be only too happy to accept them. If he cannot, I hope that we shall try to amend the Act, as it will be, in another Session, particularly if it is not achieving its intended purpose.
      Miss Jo Richardson: The House will be relieved that, in spite of the wholesale support for the principles of the Bill as originally introduced, it has been amended in the way it has been by the House of Lords. I wish to seek clarification of some aspects of new clause A, and I shall put questions which I hope the Minister or the sponsor will answer, because it is important that those answers should go on the record.
      Take, first, subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c). I am not clear, in spite of what has already been said, about the definition of the word "indecent". I accept, of course, that pornographic films and photographs are self-evidently indecent. I am still concerned, however, to avoid a catchall situation for people who are quite innocently taking photographs of their family, of children on the beach and so on. I seek an assurance that pictures taken on the beach or at home in this way and distributed among the family—we are not here thinking in terms only of the three-week-old brother described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), because the Bill covers persons under the age of 16—will not come within the Bill.
      A council tenant constituent of mine came to see me recently complaining that she had been subjected to a particularly nasty piece of persecution by a neighbour. All hon. Members are familiar with these neighbourhood difficulties which arise between two families living in the same block of flats. My constituent told me that she had faced a stream of accusations about her private life, all of which were totally untrue and were simply designed to harass her.
      We were not discussing this Bill, but my constituent said "I just wonder at some stage whether she will accuse me of pornography because I have some lovely pictures of my kids, and once when she was in my house she noticed them and remarked upon them." That is the possibility I want to avoid.
      Mr. Ian Gow: Does not the hon. Lady think that protection in the kind of situation which she describes is provided by the condition that there can be no prosecution under the Bill save with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions?
      Miss Richardson: Of course, I would expect in those circumstances that the Director would not sanction a prosecution. However, the accusation will have been made, and it might have been made public locally. A person who is thus accused is entitled to some kind of protection. I therefore want an assurance that people who show family photographs to their friends will not be exposed to such charges.
      Would the phrase in subsection 1(a)
      "or permit to be taken"
      involve the possibility of the child itself being regarded as committing an offence under the Bill? Presumably, if one permits a photograph to be taken one can be held to be liable. This point should be clarified, because I am sure that the sponsor of the Bill and the Home Office do not intend children to be prosecuted.
      The next point requiring clarification is in subsection (1)(b), which provides that it shall be an offence
      "to distribute or show such indecent photographs".
      I presume that it is intended to mean the distribution of such photographs to the public—
      Mr. Mikardo: And for profit.
      Miss Richardson: Yes, for profit. Could not this subsection also catch the person who passes on a nude photograph of a child, taken quite innocently, to a member of his family or of the child's family, or to a friend?
      My next point concerns subsection (4). It reads:
      "Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) or (c), it shall be a defence for him to prove—"
      Should it not be for the prosecution rather than the person charged to provide the proof? I had always thought that when one committed an offence it was for the prosecution to prove one's guilt rather than for one to prove one's innocence.
      Mr. John: We are discussing here circumstances in which an avowedly indecent photograph is possessed. I can assure my hon. Friend that there are many dozens of criminal offences in which, the ground bait, as it were, having been laid, it is for the defendant to prove his innocence. The reversal of the burden of proof is by no means unique to this Bill,

      1941
      and in this case it provides a good allowance to the person who legitimately possesses such photographs.
      Miss Richardson: I am grateful for that assurance.
      In subsection (4)(a) there have been substituted the words
      "that he had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the photographs or (as the case may be) having them in his possession"
      for the original clause 4(b), which read
      "he possessed with a view to production, exposed, caused to be seen, displayed or disseminated the photograph or film or copy thereof solely in the course of justice or of scientific or learned study."
      At least, I assume that the two have been swapped, because nowhere in the new clause can I find any reference to the question of scientific or learned study.
      One thing that bothers me about this—here again I should like either the sponsor of the Bill or the Minister to give me some assurance—is that I had rather assumed that under the original clause 4(b) such things as sex education in schools would possibly be covered. I think that none of us would want to see sex education in schools having to go because of any fears that schools or those concerned with courses of study might have as a result of the passage of the Bill. I should like to be convinced that the new subsection (4)(a) covers that point.
      My only intention is to try to get on the record some doubts that I have or have had that we might be catching innocent people in a net in which Parliament does not intend them to be caught. If I can have the assurances for which I have asked, I shall be very happy.
      Mr. Townsend: This modest finger-in-the-dyke Bill passed its earlier stages in this House very quickly, on the understanding that the opportunity would be taken in another place to amend it in various ways which would improve the drafting and effectiveness of the legislation without in any way altering its aims and principles.
      The amendments which now come back to us from another place were prepared by the Government with the agreement of the Baroness Faithfull, who so kindly and admirably piloted the Bill through
      1942
      the other place. The amendments were tabled jointly in the names of the Minister of State and the noble Baroness. I cannot, therefore, accept the interpretation put on the proceedings in the other place by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Mikardo). Indeed, a statement by the Minister in another place quite clearly supports my point of view. I hope that the House will agree that my Bill has been given a full and proper going-over in recent weeks and has been improved.
      New clause A replaces clause 1 with a revised form of the offences of taking or permitting to be taken an indecent photograph of a child and of trading in such photographs or films. The test of indecency is preserved, as is the age of 16, the upper limit of those protected under the Bill.
      The concept of "produce" has been replaced by distribution or showing. Distribution has been defined in subsection (2) in such a way as to cover those who deal in child pornography for commercial reasons, whether by distribution, selling or hiring photographs or films, and also those who, without any motive of financial gain, pass an indecent photograph or film to another person.
      Advertising was one of the acts covered in the definition of "produce" in the Bill as published, and subsection (1)(d) specifies that as a separate offence.
      The amendments also involve some rearrangement of the Bill, so that, for example, new clause A now contains a requirement for the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which was originally in clause 5.
      In passing, I would mention that when I spoke on Second Reading I said that I was in two minds about the need to have the Director of Public Prosecutions involved. I would only add that, following the various discussions that I have had with a wide range of people in recent months, I am now absolutely convinced that this is an important provision.
      12.15 p.m.
      The other provision of significance is in subsection (4) relating to the defences available to accused persons, which replaces what was formerly in clause 4. The Bill as published allowed a defence of using indecent photographs of children

      1943
      in the course of justice or of scientific or learned study. During my many discussions with the Home Office, we considered a number of examples of legitimate uses of these materials which would not be covered by that formula. We concluded that it was not entirely satisfactory to attempt to list in the Bill every conceivable legitimate use of such material. The new defence of "legitimate reason" is one that has given rise to some misgivings, but it received wholehearted support from Lord Scarman in what I thought was a most significant speech. It was accepted without a Division.
      I have satisfied myself that it is extremely difficult to formulate a defence with greater precision than we have in the amendment. I think that we must leave it to the good sense of the courts to determine what is legitimate. It will, of course, be open to the Williams committee, which is now looking at the whole of the law relating to obscenity and indecency, to take account of the way that this particular aspect of the Bill turns out to work in practice and, if the situation appears to warrant such a course, to recommend that it should be altered. The Bill is in any case an interim measure to deal with a particular problem while we are waiting for the Williams committee to report.
      I now turn to the other amendments which have been grouped with Lords amendment no. 1. Lords amendment no. 7 removes the limit on the fine which may be imposed when offenders under the Act are convicted on indictment. I know that many hon. Members do not wish to see the fine limited to a specific amount, and the revised provision for an unlimited fine accords with normal modern practice when offences are created which are serious enough to be tried on indictment.
      The new interpretation of the references in new clause A to photographs is dealt with in new clause E, which makes it clear that the word "photograph" includes films, copies of photographs and films, negatives and any form of video recording.
      Finally, the amendment to the long title, contained in Lords amendment no. 13, simply brings the title of the Bill into closer accord with the actual contents of the measure.
      1944
      I listened very carefully to hon. Members' speeches this morning, particularly to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). I am pleased that they have put down their amendments, because it was only right that this House should have a chance to consider two of the most controversial and important problems we face—namely, whether we should be doing something about texts in the Bill and whether "legimate reason" is the best way forward.
      I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East that texts are a serious problem. He and I recently looked at some particularly unpleasant pamphlets, and there can be no doubt that the wording was damaging. For example, in one that I saw, the suggestion was made that if a small boy wishes to earn £5, he goes along to, say, a lorry driver and has sexual relations, and that this is a perfectly normal way of behaving. I think the House will accept that that is not a satisfactory suggestion to have in print. Therefore, I have no illusion at all that many of the texts are dangerous.
      Clearly, however, there are major problems in attempting to tackle the question of texts in the way suggested. Had I had a completely free hand, had this not been a Private Member's Bill, it is possible that I would have put forward a different form of Bill to include texts. I have to tell the House frankly that I have not attempted to reform the obscenity laws. That is clearly a matter for the Williams committee. I have gone for one specific and comparatively narrow target—pictures.
      I am sure that it is good sense to confine the Bill to the one issue of pictures. As soon as one gets involved with censorship of the written word, one moves rapidly into a difficult and dangerous area. We have only to think of some of the classical texts in English literature to wonder whether they might be caught by some possible wording in the Bill. Let us suppose that there is a suggestive poem written alongside one of these photographs. We can see that it would be difficult for the courts to decide whether it with a good or a bad poem, whether it was suggestive and so on.

      1945
      I turn now to the brief discussion that we had on the issue of "legitimate reason".
      Mr. Alison: In the amendment to Lords amendment no. 8 to which my hon. Friend has referred, the necessity is not to reach a conclusion about the content or merits of a particular text. The amendment merely says that it should be taken into consideration by the court. That is very loose, but nevertheless it would be a proper amendment to make to ensure that the context was at least considered.
      Mr. Townsend: I have to agree that the wording is loose. I think that it would be dangerously loose. It seems that the courts will look at the publication. They will not cut out the photograph and stick it on a blank piece of paper. They are bound to have some regard to the context of the photograph.
      I return to the discussion that we had on "legitimate reason". I would be the first to agree that it is not a perfect solution. I would also be the first to point out that in the past six months no one has come up with a better solution. We must get away from the previous approach, the "shopping lists" approach, whereby we list the number of special categories. In discussing this matter with the Home Office, it was not impossible to think up some, admittedly obscure, cases where some sort of cover was required—for example, for the campaigner, the editor of a national newspaper who wants to show in a year's time that my measure is not working.
      We learnt that the British Museum has, for some reason, a selection of indecent photographs from the last century, for historical purposes. I have nothing against the British Museum having these photographs, but the museum will need some cover in my Bill. I took the trouble to write to an eminent psychiatrist at Cambridge who assured me that from time to time in the medical world, admittedly rarely, indecent photographs were used for medical purposes. I do not say that these are commonplace occurrences, but I believe that in a Bill of this nature we must think of all such possibilities.
      We considered trying to restrict this phrase by saying that if the photograph
      1946
      was held for the purposes of gain that would not be a legitimate reason. That point was effectively shot down in the other place. No one has come up with a better phrase than "a legitimate reason", and we have not so far been able satisfactorily to restrict that phrase. The words "duties or purposes" are, I believe, far too vague. I must ask the House not to support these amendments.
      I turn now to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). Perhaps it is best if the Minister gives a detailed answer. I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the speech made in another place on 18th May by the Minister of State. The hon. Lady asked me about the word "indecent". On that occasion the Minister said:
      "'Indecent' or 'obscene' is the test laid down under the Customs legislation for Prohibited imports, and under the Post Office Act 1953 for prohibited matter in the post. Public displays and advertisements are illegal if they are indecent under various 19th century enactments, and indecency is also the test under certain offences at common law, such as that of indecent exhibition which applied to the exhibition of films until the autumn of last year. There is, therefore, nothing new in the concept so far as the courts are concerned…I think, frankly, that there is no danger that ordinary family snap-shots, or legitimate sex education material, would be caught by the terms of the Bill."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18th May 1978; Vol. 392. c. 562–3.]
      If the hon. Lady reads further the reports of another place, I believe she will find that all the assurances she seeks have been given. I take note of her point about children being prosecuted. As far as I can make out, it might be possible for children over the age of 10 to be prosecuted. I would welcome the Minister's judgment on that point.
      Mr. Michael Neubert: This is my first intervention in the proceedings on the Bill. My hesitation about taking part until now has not been due to any reason which devalued the significance of the issues raised by the Bill but was rather because until now I have been assured and reassured that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), having had the good fortune to introduce the Bill, would ensure that its prime purpose of protection would be met. In that endeavour, he has not only my support in believing that the protection of children must have a high priority in our society but the support of many of my constituents.

      1947
      The shock waves set up by the revelations of the dangers to which children were now vulnerable caused an immediate reaction among my constituents. In common with the experience of many other hon. Members, my correspondence reflected that violent reaction. I congratulate my hon. Friend on overcoming the initial reluctance of the Home Office. It was necessary that he should do this, because it is clear that if he had not pursued the Bill we should now, no less than a year after the setting up of the Williams committee—it was set up on 13th July last year—be without any potential cover for children in this context. My hon. Friend has proved to be entirely justified, not only in pursuing his measure but in persuading a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House to overcome ministerial reluctance.
      Until now, I have been assured that the purposes of the Bill would be met. However, I have to say that in moving his amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has raised serious doubts in my mind. This concerns me because the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) would do well not to seek to devalue the strong feelings which people have and which inevitably are to be found expressed most pungently in the more popular newspapers.
      Mr. Mikardo: May I tell the hon. Gentleman—it shows what a difficult area of law and of public reaction we are in—that a great many people who expressed their anger to me did so in language of unspeakable obscenity?
      Mr. Neubert: The hon. Member is rather better equipped to deal with such abuse than the young children about whom we are talking this morning. I cannot feel quite the same sympathy for him as for young children who are the delicate seedlings of society and who deserve every protection. The hon. Member, representing the constituency he does, will not be unfamiliar with the kind of language with which he was addressed. I believe that such language arises not as a result of any theological disputation about the issues in the Bill but from the belief that his objections to it were prompted not by the Bill's merits but by
      1948
      the fact that the Bill stood between him and his own Bill which is no. 11 on the Order Paper today.
      Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. My Bill was before this one.
      Mr. Neubert: Initially that was so. Now it stands lower down the list.
      The hon. Gentleman would do well not to devalue the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East. My hon. Friend's campaigns on moral causes arouse strong feelings in this House and elsewhere because he prosecutes them with a rare combination of passion and pertinacity. He is speaking for many people when he argues causes in this House, of which this one is an illustration.
      The doubts which my hon. Friend has raised this morning about whether it would be possible in the terms of the Bill for otherwise innocent photographs, if published in such a context and with such a caption, to meet the needs of pornographers and to enable them to earn massive profits give me ground for apprehension. I hope that the apprehensions which I have and which obviously are to be found elsewhere will be allayed by the Minister.
      12.30 p.m.
      Although it might be thought unlikely that the picture of the hon. Gentleman's very young brother on a fur carpet in all his pleasant nakedness could be used in this way, I have a current illustration of the technique actually being demonstrated for commercial advantage. Plastered on poster-boards all over London at present is an advertisement featuring Colman's mustard. One would have thought that such a well-known household product—part of the traditional English way of life—did not need to be promoted by a picture of a languorous young woman clad in a leopard skin and lying on a white rug in front of a blazing fire. It is difficult to see the relevance of that to Colman's mustard.
      The relevance becomes clear only when the text is added. The text is—
      "C'mon Colmans, light my fire."
      No Member of the House who is present needs to be shown by me the sexual connotations of that slogan. It displays

      1949
      the poverty of imagination of the advertising agent who finds it necessary to introduce that kind of element in promoting such a salutary household food.
      However, that poster demonstrates to my satisfaction that it is possible to take a photograph and, by setting it in a context and giving it a certain caption, to use it for the purpose of pornography. If they were photographs of children and if they could continue to be used in that way from this point when the Bill looks likely to secure its passage on to the statute book and when the Bernard Williams committee reports at some time in the future, it is wrong that we should let this go by.
      Finally, if people were moved to anger by original revelations and if they have been reassured by the passage of the Bill that the point is being met, their anger will turn to outrage if subsequently it is found that, even though the Bill is on the statute book, there is a loophole and certain people can still get away with promoting their filthy trade. I ask the Minister to address his attention to this matter.
      Mr. John: I want to deal first with the general points in this case. Because of the speech of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), with whom I have crossed swords on many occasions in relation to this point, it is necessary for me to put on record that it is true that the Home Office took the view that the overwhelming majority of cases were covered by the existing law of child pornography.
      On the earlier occasion I cited—I do not intend to do so now—the various provisions which cover those offences. I conceded that there was a relatively small category of case in which indecent photographs could be taken without the offence of indecent assault having been committed by touching the person, and, because of that, the Government gave their blessing to the Bill.
      I think that all hon. Members should understand that the process that has gone on since Second Reading in no way illustrates either lassitude or hostility on the part of the Government, nor indeed is it any indication of how bad the Bill was originally. What has happened is that
      1950
      since Second Reading there have been frequent discussions between the sponsor of the Bill and the Home Office, at both official and ministerial level. The amendments that have come from another place are the amendments that the Government and the sponsor had hammered out for tabling during the Committee stage in this House. If there is a criticism to be made, it is that there was no time to consider the Committee stage in this House rather than that there were added resources which became available in the other place but were not available here.
      There has been a considerable amount of discussion, in which, as I think the sponsor will be willing to concede, the Government have played a very willing and constructive part. I therefore reject the criticism of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. I know that he will take that as a reassurance rather than with any resentment that his own words have been put back in his face.
      I commend the Lords amendment because, as the sponsor has said, it has combined within the one clause a number of elements which were disparate in the original Bill and it has strengthened and made more effective the wording of what will be clause 1 in the Bill. I therefore hope that the House will accept the Lords amendment.
      I shall devote the rest of my time to answering the many Points that were raised in debate. I shall do so in the order in which the speeches were made, starting with the speech of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East.
      As the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) pointed out on Second Reading, the central purpose of the Bill is to protect the child who is exposed to photography. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that what personalised the matter was the photograph rather than the text, which might be quite theoretical So text was not included, because the real vice, in this particularly vicious and loathsome trade against which the Bill is aimed, is the extent to which indecent photographs can be taken of children in ways which would not at present lay those who take them open to prosecution.
      In several parts of his speech the hon. Member for Essex, South-East almost fell into the trap of saying that there was an

      1951
      argument for legislation to take care of words without photographs. It may be that he believes this. If he does—
      Sir Bernard Braine rose—
      Mr. John: Let me deal with this. The hon. Gentleman mentioned, for example, the man from the Paedophilia Information Exchange who, having read Danish—or was it Dutch?—hard porn went on and started to practise that particular loathsome activity; but there was no mention of the photograph. Let me return to the protection that exists—
      Sir B. Braine rose—
      Mr. John: Let me finish and then I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman. At present the Obscene Publications Act applies to those documents which are of themselves obscene in this country. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importation of foreign material. Where material is imported, it is liable to seizure under Customs legislation if it satisfies the less stringent test of being indecent.
      Sir B. Braine: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. What I said is on the record. I certainly recall exactly what I said. In the case I quoted the man's fantasies had been fed by pornographic material which was illustrated by photographs. I was establishing the fact, which everybody except the hon. Gentleman seems to understand, that there is a definite connection between the use of photographic material, the text and the procuring of children and thus widening the circle of children who are affected by this particular type of offence. If the hon. Gentleman cannot grasp that, he has grasped nothing.
      Mr. John: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is ending this debate, as he began it, in a thoroughly churlish, partisan and rather childish way. On the last occasion he walked out of the Chamber and came back later having no doubt ventilated his steam somewhere else. If he cannot discuss differences of debate or of wording calmly—because he devalues his own case by behaving as he does—he would do better to listen rather more carefully.
      Sir B. Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am perfectly
      1952
      capable of containing myself. The hon. Gentleman is attacking me—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Whether the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) can contain himself is not a matter for the Chair.
      Sir B. Braine: My point of order is this, Mr. Deputy Speaker: the Minister alleged across the Floor of the House that I had said certain things which I most certainly had not said. When I rise and tell him that this is not so, he continues his attack. Is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to behave in that fashion?
      Mr. John: I was not attacking the hon. Gentleman initially; I was referring to what he seemed to have implied about words without photographs. That was not an attack. I was referring to the way in which his speech was tending to go. I see nothing in that for which I need apologise. I do not think that there is anything that I need to withdraw in that. But let me get back to the theme of the matter and let the hon. Gentleman play to the gallery somewhere else.
      I am talking about the hon. Gentleman's amendment, and I say to him, and to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), who is anxious about this matter, that the question seems to be whether a photograph which was innocent could be embellished by textual description in such a way as to make indecent what was innocent. The wording of the amendment of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East is:
      "publish indecent printed matter in connection with an indecent photograph".
      There is no question there of an innocent photograph. The photograph must, by the terms of the amendment, already have been indecent. There cannot be a question, therefore, of turning what was a pure photograph into an indecent photograph, merely by description.
      That does not answer the point made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash—I will come back to his point—but I hope that it meets the point of the hon. Member for Romford. We are talking about indecent photographs. If the photograph is indecent, the whole purpose of the Bill is to outlaw it and to make it no longer a lawful thing to publish. If it is then

      1953
      published, prosecution can and should follow.
      Although I accept that words can make worse what a photograph illustrates, I believe that the terms of the amendment would not serve the purposes for which hon. Members seem to want it, because the photograph would have to be an indecent one, and indecent photographs, by their definition under the Bill would be outlawed. I hope that that amendment can be withdrawn without the Bill as it now stands being threatened.
      Mr. Neubert: Would it still be possible for innocent photographs to be used in that self-same way?
      Mr. John: I shall be coming to that point when dealing with the remarks of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, because his amendment no. 8 deals with that point in a way by saying that
      "In considering the indecency or otherwise of any such photograph the court may take into consideration any caption or textual material accompanying and relevant to the photograph".
      The photograph is at the centre of the Bill, and the indecency or otherwise of the photograph will be perfectly well understood from the context. The context includes all the surrounding material. I hope that the hon. Member will not press his amendment for a reason that is opposite to the one that he is adducing. He is saying that in the case of a perfectly normal photograph, which is not indecent at all, it would be possible by the description to make it appear indecent, but I suggest to him that the converse could be true. In the case of an indecent photograph, it would be possible, by the use of such anodyne words as "John is the 100 yards champion of his school", to change the context, and it could be argued before a court that as a result the photograph was less indecent because the surrounding text was perfectly straightforward.
      I suggest to the hon. Gentleman it is the photograph and the surrounding circumstances in which it is published which need to be considered. I do not think that we need to isolate the text, or to run the risk of lessening the indecency of the photograph by the text in the way that has been mentioned. The wording of the Bill has been discussed over many
      1954
      hours outside the Houses of Parliament, and for a far longer time than Parliament has discussed it. In my judgment, the new clause that comes from the House of Lords will be effective in meeting the purposes of the sponsor of the Bill.
      12.45 p.m.
      I cannot, of course, guarantee that smart lawyers will not seek to do something or other. After all, everyone has the right to be defended to the best of his lawyer's ability. I believe, however, that the offence which we seek to put on the statute book is worded effectively. After all, that is the legislators' duty.
      I now turn to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, the wording of which is
      "connected directly with duties or purposes concerned with the furtherance of the objects of the Act".
      The object of the Act will be to punish those who take photographs of people under 16 for indecent purposes. There may well be many cases in which that wording would, for example, outlaw a monitoring of the effect of the Act. if the purpose of the Act is connected directly with the prosecution of people who are seeking to capitalise on this trade, in my view the question of research may not be covered, and the question of monitoring may not have been considered.
      I will give the hon. Member for Barkston Ash two examples of cases which are outside our normal ken but which are nevetherless valuable as examples. As he will know, there are mentally disordered patients, and in many cases the crimes for which they are committed are sexually oriented. There is an ambivalence about their sexual orientation. Some of them commit crimes which are both heterosexual and homosexual in nature. A psychiatrist has very real difficulty in isolating, the right sort of treatment to give such patients. Before he can determine the degree of danger to the public, especially if there is likely to be an inward progression of the patient's condition, he needs to have an opportunity of examining and isolating the patient's true sexual orientation and motivation. This can be done by the showing of slides and photographs to the patient.
      I believe that the words "legitimate reason" in subsection (4)(a) have great

      1955
      merit, in that they would include the sort of example that I have just given, whereas it would not be included if we were to adopt the wording of the amendment, which is:
      "connected directly with duties or purposes concerned with the furtherance of the objects of the Act".
      I wish to return to a point made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East concerning paedophilia. I regard that trade as being as loathsome as the trade of pornography. There is no question that we all have a great loathing for paedophilia. Nevertheless, it is possible for some paedophiliacs to be turned from their ways by means of aversion therapy, and during the course of that aversion therapy it might be necessary to use slides or pictures which might themselves be regarded as indecent. Nevertheless, they would be serving purposes which, in the long run, would be wholly in the interests of society, by converting a former paedophiliac back to normal sexual channels and normal sexual orientation.
      Mr. Alison: I am very concerned and worried by the case that the Minister is developing. I know exactly to what he is referring. In an earlier ministerial capacity I have seen, at Broadmoor hospital, exactly the processes mentioned by the Minister used for testing responses arising from the presentation of photographs. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind two very important points. First, we are concerned here with the exploitation of children. The fact that, subsequent to the production of an obscene photograph of a child, a constructive and productive use can be found for it in Broadmoor hospital, does not alter the fact that the photographing of the child in another context is profoundly damaging. Therefore, it could legitimise the production of a set of photographs for official purposes by its being held in a prosecution in court that they were used in Broadmoor and that that legitimised them.
      I make my second point quickly. I hope that the Minister will try to deal with both points. I hope that he realises also that once it is said that there is a legitimisation for this kind of photograph in a therapeutic context, we are off on the "public good" defence, which we found so damaging to the purposes
      1956
      of the Obscene Publications Act, and I can see the way in which it would be exploited.
      Mr. John: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the hospitals themselves do not produce these photographs, so there is no danger of their committing the offence, and those who have produced the photographs may have themselves been prosecuted. I am saying that there may be cases in which a person has a legitimate reason for having such photographs, which is not connected directly with the duties or purposes of the objects of the Act. Therefore, I am saying that the limitation of "legitimate reason" would be too great.
      Perhaps I may say, in passing—since the hon. Member wants to tighten up the purposes of the Act—that I believe that
      "connected directly with duties or purposes concerned with the furtherance of the objects of the Act"
      would lead to a trial within a trial, which would be quite as capable of interpretation by defending counsel as anything that has been suggested so far, so that in fact the hon. Member may well be leading the courts into a great deal of difficulty.
      I commend to the hon. Member the speech of Lord Scarman, who is a judge of considerable experience. He said that legitimate reason is a matter which can safely be left to courts and juries as a matter of common sense. The fact that it is new wording ought not to take us away from that. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member will leave the text of the Bill as it is.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) mentioned the police photograph. If a police officer, in the duties that he performed, had to take such a photograph, it would not be indecent because the intent behind it would not be indecent. But "legitimate reason" would cover such a case. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured about that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) can be assured that "indecent" is as it was described, and that if there is an innocent photograph it is not by definition indecent, and nudity of itself is not indecent. That has been held by a long series of judicial decisions.

      1957
      Distribution is not a real issue, in my view, although it cannot be put quite as simply as my hon. Friend suggested. It is not done only for gain. One has knowledge of paederasts who pass the photographs of young children from one to another without commercial exploitation but nevertheless in a way that can lead to the seduction of young children. As it is at present mentioned, distribution covers not only commercial exploitation but cases such as that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Barking also asked whether a child could be guilty of the offence of permitting a photograph to be taken. There is well-defined judicial authority that where a statutory offence is committed with the object of protecting a class of persons, that class of persons which is exploited is not itself open to a criminal charge because it has been exploited. In this Bill, we are after the exploiter, and not the child who has been exploited. Therefore, the child would not be guilty of any offence merely because he or she had been exploited in such a way that indecent photographs were taken.
      To come back to a non-controversial note, I hope that the clause as the other place has sent it to us is worthy of commendation as it stands and that none of those hon. Members who have tabled these amendments will press them and so endanger the passage of this Bill. We all know the present parliamentary position. That is why I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
      Sir Bernard Braine: It is customary after the Minister has spoken for the mover of an amendment to indicate whether, in the light of what has been said, he intends to press his amendment or ask leave to withdraw it.
      Nothing that the Minister has said removes the anxieties that I expressed at the outset of the debate. This is not because of the hon. Member's imputing to me so soon after the event words that I never uttered. My shoulders are broad. I venture to think that I shall be in this place much longer than the hon. Member. There will be other opportunities for me to deal with his rather cheap attack, which revealed to me and no doubt to other hon. Members just how uneasy he is in his mind about the
      1958
      criticisms that have been voiced this morning.
      What concerns me is that the Minister has not seized the central point, which is that child pornography affects not merely children who may be involved in the taking of photographs but the much wider circle of children who are drawn in by the pornographers, who took the photographs in the first place for precisely that reason.
      Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member, without having sought and been given the leave of the House, to speak twice other than for the purpose of asking leave to withdraw his amendment?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was wondering whether the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) intended to ask leave to withdraw his amendment, and I was giving him that opportunity. I have not yet discovered whether that is what the hon. Member intends to do.
      Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So did I, otherwise I would have raised the matter before. The hon. Member has already been speaking for some time without giving the least indication of his intention to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Essex, South-East has heard what has been said. We are interested to know his intention.
      Sir B. Braine: I am sure that you are interested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I feel sure that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is also interested in what I shall say. I reassure him at once that I have no intention of detaining the House, since I know that there is other important business to follow this.
      Having proposed an amendment and having gone to a great deal of trouble to explain it in detail and to give reasons why I think it should be accepted, it follows that I am entitled to say, before announcing my decision, why that decision has been taken.
      The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow is an old and experienced parliamentarian and I bear him no ill-will for the always courteous exchanges that he and I have on these matters.

      1959
      1.0 p.m.
      What disturbed me was not the churlish way in which the Minister of State chose to put into my mouth words which I had not uttered—a fact that indicated very clearly the deep unease that he feels on these matters; an indication that was not lost on the Opposition Benches—but the fact that the Minister had failed to realise that there is a grave problem which will remain unresolved if we pass the Bill today without further amendment or qualification.
      For the reasons that I gave earlier, although I am totally dissatisfied with the Minister of State's reply—a large number of people outside the House will be totally dissatisfied, also—I am very well aware that if I press my amendment to a Division on a Friday afternoon, the charge may be laid at my door that the Bill failed to make the statute book because of a procedural ploy on my part. I shall not open myself to that charge.
      I believe that it is better to make a move in the right direction—even though I believe that the Bill will have only a limited effect—than to have no legislation at all. It should be possible to enact an amending measure in a new Session of Parliament, if it is seen that this Act will not meet the very serious problem that we face. For these reasons, and only these reasons, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lords amendment no. 1 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 2, at end insert new clause B Evidence):—
      "B.—(1) On a charge of an offence under section 1(1)(a) of this Act, the wife or husband of the accused shall be competent to give evidence at every stage of the proceedings, whether for the defence or for the prosecution, and whether the accused is charged solely or jointly with any other person:
      Provided that—

      (a) the wife or husband shall not be compellable either to give evidence or, in giving evidence, to disclose any communication made to her or him during the marriage by the accused; and

      1960

      (b) the failure of a wife or husband of the accused to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecution.

      This subsection shall not affect section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 (competency of witnesses in criminal cases), or any case where the wife or husband of the accused may at common law be called as a witness without the consent of the accused.
      (2) In section 27(4) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (definition of "sexual offence" for purposes of provisions of that section about calling children's evidence) after "the Indecency with Children Act 1960" there shall he inserted "or section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978".
      (3) In proceedings under this Act a person is to be taken as having been a child at any material time if it appears, from the evidence as a whole, that he was then under the age of 16."
      Mr. Townsend: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This new clause deals with evidence in relation to charges under the Act and broadly follows provisions in the Bill as introduced. Subsections (1) and (2) replace clauses 1(3) and 1(5)(b) respectively of the Bill as published. They have now been more properly confined to those offences actually involving children. Subsection (3) provides that, as proof of age may not always be possible, the court may make its own judgment of the likely age of the child appearing in the photograph and may take account of any available evidence, such as any reference to the age of the child in the caption or accompanying text, in deciding whether the child is under 16.
      Mr. John: On behalf of the Government, I agree with the sponsor that the amendment should be approved.
      There are three points. First, the evidence of spouses can be admitted. Secondly, the amendment obviates the necessity of calling a child to give evidence in the committal proceedings. Thirdly, it makes much more straightforward the proof of age. This will be the difficult matter in the legislation, and to leave it to the good sense of the court in the circumstances is an improvement in the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 2

      OFFENCES BY CORPORATIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 13, leave out "or" and insert "of".
      Mr. Townsend: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment simply corrects an error in the Bill as introduced where the common form provision about the liability of officers of corporations should have referred to "the functions of management."
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 3

      POWERS OF SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 3, line 15, leave out clause 3 and insert new clause C (Entry, search and seizure):—
      "C.—(1) The following applies where a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath, laid by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions or by a constable, that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that, in any premises in the petty sessions area for which he acts, there are indecent photographs of children and that such photographs—

      (a) are or have been taken there; or

      (b) are or have been shown there, or are kept there with a view to their being distributed or shown.

      (2) The justice may issue a warrant under his hand authorising any constable to enter (if need be by force) and search the premises with in fourteen days from the date of the warrant, and to seize and remove any articles which he believes (with reasonable cause) to be or include indecent photographs of children taken or shown on the premises, or kept there with a view to their being distributed or shown.
      (3) Articles seized under the authority of the warrant, and not returned to the occupier of the premises, shall be brought before a justice of the peace acting for the same petty sessions area as the justice who issued the warrant.
      (4) This section and Section D below apply need by force) and search the premises within relation to premises, with the necessary modifications of references to premises and the substitution of references to use for references to occupation."
      Mr. Townsend: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment no. 5.
      Mr. Townsend: New clause C and new clause D—Lords amendment no. 5—replace clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill as published with a more systematic arrangement for search, seizure and forfeiture which has been modelled on similar provisions in the Obscene Publications Act 1959. New clause C sets out the circumstances in which a justice of the peace may issue a search warrant under the Act, and it lays down the procedure for material to be seized by a constable if he reasonably believes it to infringe the law and for it to be brought before a justice of the peace, save in those circumstances where there is reason, after more detailed scrutiny, for it to be returned.
      New clause D provides the procedure under which material seized under warrant by the police can be ordered to be forfeited in cases where there are no grounds for criminal charges against any person. It provides, in addition, that where a conviction is obtained for one of the offences under new clause A, the court is required to order any material seized in connection with the case to be forfeited.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: I do not want to say much about this new clause from the Lords because it is obviously more or less in accordance with practice in these matters. It is a quite extreme procedure, and one hopes that magistrates will not cause warrants to be issued as a matter of form and that they will require to be satisfied that there is reasonable evidence to suspect that an offence under the Act has been committed.
      Hon. Member may remember the case a couple of years ago—not under this legislation but under drugs legislation—in which the premises of a lady were searched in most humiliating circumstances because the magistrates had authorised the issue of a warrant on not much better ground than its being asked for by the police. This can be an outrage upon people's privacy and rights.
      I realise that what is said in the House of Commons on a Friday afternoon does not necessarily endure in the practice of magistrates. All kinds of ministerial assurances are given, and they sound convincing on the day they are uttered, but they die very soon afterwards. We pass this kind of thing rather easily because the

      1963
      purpose and the sentiments behind it are impeccable and we want to root out this kind of offence.
      Nevertheless the accumulation of these things becomes a little frightening, and one sometimes fears, not without reason, that magistrates issue search warrants because they are asked to do so by a respectable police officer.
      Mr. John: In commending this amendment, I respond to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). He made an important point about ministerial pronouncements. I do not argue that they disappear, but obviously the process of percolation, even of circulars, leads to variation in proceduce. As legislators we can lay down the conditions on which a search warrant is to be granted and can seek to ensure that they are reasonable. However, we cannot always guarantee the administration of the law.
      The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) forbore to comment on a case in which I suspect he thought that a particular decision was not satisfactory. There are cases in which the administration does not always go as we like. It is our job, as legislators, to lay down a reasonably stringent test. In this case the justices must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting both that there are indecent photographs of children on the premises and that such photographs either are being taken or have been taken on those premises, or are or have been shown there. Therefore, the test in law is pretty stringent. I hope that all those who have to administer the law will observe those tests when considering whether to grant a warrant.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment no. 5 agreed to.

    Clause 5

      RESTRICTION ON PROCEEDINGS
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 4, line 5, leave out Clause 5.
      Mr. Townsend: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      1964
      Provision requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceedings under the Act now appears as subsection (3) of new clause A, and clause 5 is now redundant.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments nos. 7 and 8 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 5, after clause 7, at end insert new clause F (similar provision for Northern Ireland):
      "F. An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which contains a statement that it operates only so as to make for Northern Ireland provision corresponding to this Act—

      (a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but

      (b) shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House."

      Mr. Townsend: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Lords amendments nos. 10, 11 and 12.
      Mr. Townsend: I am delighted that the Government have announced that they wish to make equivalent provision to this Bill in Northern Ireland and that this will be done by way of Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law. Lords amendments nos. 9, 11 and 12 pave the way for this to happen.
      At the time of the Second Reading debate in this House I intended to incorporate Scotland, but I consulted the Scottish Office and the Scottish officials were perfectly happy that their own laws gave them adequate cover.
      New clause F enables the Order in Council applying the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland to be subject to a negative and not the usual affirmative resolution procedure. It will mean that it can be more quickly brought into effect in the Province.
      Amendments nos. 11 and 12 amend the provisions about territorial extent and commencement respectively in a consequential way. The other amendment— amendment no. 10—extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland the application of

      1965
      the provisions making offences under the Bill extraditable. This has been done because the Extradition Act 1870 and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 both apply throughout the United Kingdom. Therefore, any amendment of those Acts, as contained in new clause A, should also extend throughout the United Kingdom.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments nos. 10 to 13 agreed to.

RATING (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
Lords amendments considered.
RATING (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
  Clause 1

    REBATES FOR HEREDITAMENTS WITH SPECIAL FACILITIES FOR DISABLED PERSONS
    Lords amendment: No. 1 in page 2, line 12, after "includes" insert "or consists of".
    1.15 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this amendment it will be convenient to take Lords amendments nos. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 18, 21, 22 and 26.
    Mr. Hughes: These amendments combine to make it absolutely clear that carports as well as garages and land qualify for relief under the Bill. Their inclusion under the fixed tariff items in schedule 1 at £15, which is midway between the figures specified for garages and parking spaces, removes any doubts which may have arisen about their classification as garages or land.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

  Clause 2

    REBATES FOR INSTITUTIONS FOR THE DISABLED
    Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 3, line 2, after "used" insert "(a)".
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall also take Lords Amendments nos. 5 to 7 and 12 to 15.
    Mr. Hughes: The purpose of these amendments to clause 2 and clause 5 is to make clearer which institutions qualify for relief under these provisions and which are excluded. Subsection (3) at present purports to exclude from relief institutions whose predominent purpose is treatment—for example hospitals and old people's homes.
    It is not the intention to exclude premises where the predominant purpose is one of those which qualify under subsections (2) but where there is a subsidiary or ancillary treatment purpose. As the Bill was drafter, there might possibly have been room for doubt about this The amendments made by their Lordships should clear up the point.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments nos. 5 to 10 agreed to.

  Clause 4

    REBATES FOR LANDS AND HERITAGES WITH SPECIAL FACILITIES FOR DISABLED PERSONS
    Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 6, line 7, leave out
    "rebate shall be proportionately reduced"
    and insert
    "rating authority may, if they think fit, reduce the rebate by the proportionate amount or any lesser amount."
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may also take Lords amendment no. 23.
    Mr. Hughes: These amendments allow rating authorities discretion in the matter of recovery of part of a rebate where for some reason the entitlement to it stops during the currency of the rebate period. At present they would be required to recover under the Bill, but it was pointed out in early discussion in this House that there could well be circumstances in which it might be unreasonable for a rating

    1967
    authority to have to recover amounts either over-allowed or overpaid. One example might be the death of the recipient, but there might be many other examples. For these reasons, I trust that the House will accept the amendments.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments nos. 12 to 15 agreed to.

  Clause 5

    REBATES FOR INSTITUTIONS IN SCOTLAND FOR THE DISABLED
    Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 7, line 22, leave out from "section" to end of line 23 and insert
    "108(1) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978"
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This is a purely drafting amendment, the purpose of which is to ensure that the definition of the word "illness" in Clause 5(2) is as accurate as possible and in line with the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. The amendment is a necessary consequence of the current consolidation of the Scottish National Health Service legislation, including the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Schedule 1

    AMOUNT OF REBATE UNDER SECTION 1
    Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 10, line 35, at end insert:
    "subject to sub-paragraph (2) below".
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may also take Lords amendments nos. 19, 20, 24 and 25.
    Mr. Hughes: These amendments permit the applicant for a rebate on the rates chargeable on his garage, carport or parking space to elect that the rebate shall be based on the actual rateable value of the garage, and so on, where that will be more advantageous than a rebate based on the values specified in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1.
    1968
    These amendments arise from the undertaking which was given in this House that disabled people with garages the rateable value of which exceeds £25 should receive no less relief under the Bill than they receive at present. Clause 1(2)(f) of the Bill, together with paragraph 7 of schedule 1, will, at present, give relief in England and Wales based on £25 rateable value for a garage, £15 for a carport and £5 for a parking space. The amendments to clause 1(2), which take the opportunity of removing the unnecessary distinction between cases where a disabled person lives in the hereditament and cases where he does not, pave the way to the amendment to paragraph 7 of schedule 1. For consistency, an amendment parallel to that made to clause 1(2) is made also to the Scottish clause 4(2).
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): Since this is the last group of amendments that we have to consider, I take this opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend on the work that he has done on the Bill and of saying how much the Government welcome it. Many of us know how long such legislation has been awaited since the famous Vandyk case.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am sure that we all welcome the Bill and I hope that the amendments indicate clearly to the House the imperative nature of having a second Chamber. Without that Chamber, the Bill would have gone through unamended and some important points would have been lost. I hope that the point will not be lost on the Government.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I take this opportunity of thanking the sponsors of the Bill. I also express the gratitude of the House to Lord Hughes, who took the Bill through another place and made such important amendments to it. I also express my appreciation to the Under-Secretary and his Department for the great amount of technical advice that they have given, and to Conservative Members who raised a number of points during earlier stages of the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments nos. 18 to 26 agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1974 (AMENDMENT) BILL (changed to LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL)
Lords amendments considered.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1974 (AMENDMENT) BILL (changed to LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL)
  Clause 1

    POWER FOR AUTHORITIES TO INCUR ExPENDITURE TO REMEDY INJUSTICES CAUSED BY MALADMINISTRATION
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 6, after "1974" insert
    "and section 29 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975".
    Mr. Ivor Clemitson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments nos. 2 to 5.
    Mr. Clemitson: The purpose and effect of the amendments are twofold—first, to extend the scope of the Bill to Scotland, in pursuance of an instruction passed in this House on 17th February this year and, secondly, to provide that expenditure incurred by local authorities under the Bill will count as relevant expenditure for rate support grant purposes. This was enabled by the passing of a money resolution to that effect in the House on 11th May.
    Mr. Speaker: Privilege is involved in this amendment, but it is covered by a money resolution already passed by the Commons.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am not happy about accepting Lords amendment no. 2. I shall explain why I think that it is a mistake. We have reached the position in which, in certain circumstances, local authorities are enabled to make some form of payment where maladministration has been found, but it is not clear under which powers they should operate. The Bill is welcome. It does not go far enough in some respects, but it goes too far in this respect.
    I shall need to be convinced before accepting the amendment, because it is extremely important that the remedy available should fall on the authority that has committed the maladministration. My reading of the Lords amendment is that
    1970
    the expenditure would qualify for support under the rate support grant. That means that the general body of taxpayers would be making its small contribution to bailing out the local authority that had committed the act of maladministration. I believe that the cost should fall completely on the local authority that commits an act found by the Commission for Local Administration to be maladministration.
    When the Bill was going through, there must have been consultation and advice must have been received. The preamble to the Bill makes clear that it gives effect to a recommendation from the Commission for Local Administration. It is no secret that I have on today's Order Paper a Bill which seeks to plug an admitted hole in the present ombudsman system for local government. One reason why Government support is not being given to my Bill is that it has not come via the considered view of the Commission.
    The Bill that we are debating comes from a consideration of the Commission. It must have been satisfied to agree with clause 1(2) that:
    "Expenditure incurred by virtue of subsection (1) above shall not be relevant expenditure within the meaning of section 1".
    The House is entitled to a detailed explanation from the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson). So far, we have had no explanation.
    This is an important issue, and a matter of principle. Some of the cases of maladministration that have given rise to the Bill have come about as a result not merely of normal maladministration, but of sheer incompetence and in some cases an attitude of mind, which comes through in some of the reports of the Commission, of officials who could not care less about members of the public. The officials seem to take the view that members of the public are annoying because they disturb the officials' routine and it seems that the officials cannot be bothered to get out the right files.
    In those circumstances, responsibility must lie upon the local authority for the actions of its officials who have given rise to a charge of maladministration. In the case of maladministration by, for example, the London borough of Lambeth, why should the ratepayers or taxpayers of the London borough of Camden have

    1971
    to pay anything at all? Why should the ratepayers and taxpayers of Camden have to pay for the maladministration of, say, the London borough of Greenwich? It does not seem right.
    I do not think that the Bill will operate fairly if we remove the safeguard that the hon. Gentleman was perfectly happy with when the Bill was in its original form. It seems that it did not give rise to any consideration when the Bill was vetted by the Department of the Environment. However, at this stage there is an attempt to accept the Lords amendment.
    1.30 p.m.
    I am much in favour of the principle behind the Bill, but only if that principle is fairly applied. In this instance I am not satisfied that there is fairness of application. I could expand on the argument by quoting some examples where in my view it would be wrong to take advantage of the omission that is sought. I shall not do that, as it would merely be repeating the basic argument and the basic principle that I have set out. Without a good explanation, I shall seek to divide the House on Lords amendment no. 2.
    Mr. Clemitson: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) says that I and the local government commissioners must have been happy with the Bill in its original form. I shall explain why the Bill was written in such a form originally. Subsection (2) originally provided that expenditure incurred by local authorities under the Bill would not count as relevant expenditure for rate support grant purposes. That limitation was included for procedural reasons. It was included because I was advised that in accordance with Standing Order No. 91 it was not possible for a private Member to introduce a Bill the main purpose of which was to create a charge on public funds. On the basis of that advice it seemed that the subsection had to be included in the original Bill.
    Subsequently a money resolution was tabled by the Government after Second Reading. The resolution was agreed to by the House without a Division. There were representations on the point made to the Government by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and supported
    1972
    by the local authority associations. The Government formed the view that local authority expenditure under the Bill should count as relevant expenditure for rate support grant purposes. As I have said, a money resolution was tabled and approved by the House on 11th May.
    I agree that that explanation does not meet the point of principle advanced by the hon. Gentleman, but to put the matter in perspective the amounts involved are not large. Between 1st April 1974 and 31st March 1978 the expenditure by local authorities in England sanctioned for these purposes was £17,000. The expenditure by Welsh authorities was only £4,600. We are not talking about large sums. I agree that if the hon. Gentleman feels that it is a matter of principle it does not matter whether it is £20,000 that is involved or £20 million. I agree that that consideration is irrelevant. I merely offer that information and suggest that it brings the matter into perspective. Apparently the metropolitan authorities and the various associations of local authorities are happy with the change proposed by their Lordships.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I appreciate that the AMA is happy. It will be expecting the taxpayer to pick up part of the tab for the cost. If the reverse were happening, I doubt very much whether it or the Association of County Councils would be happy to pick up part of the tab. Neither would be happy if the Government said that part of the costs incurred by the parliamentary ombudsman should fall on the rates. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think again. Does he not agree that it would be wiser to meet the point of principle and to ask the House not to accept the Lords amendment?
    Mr. Clemitson: No. I am satisfied that the bodies representative of the local authorities have been able to make their views clear. The Government tabled a money resolution to overcome the difficulty that had been created earlier by the Standing Orders. The opportunity to raise the point of principle was present when the resolution was put before the House. No argument was raised, and the resolution was passed by the House without a Division. I submit that we should accept their Lordships' amendment.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Lords amendment: no. 2, in page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (2).

    Division No. 271

    AYES

    [1.38 p.m.

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Spearing, Nigel

    Bates, Alf

    Huckfield, Les

    Stallard, A. W.

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Stott, Roger

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    John Brynmor

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Luard, Evan

    Ward, Michael

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Weetch, Ken

    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Madden, Max

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Mikardo, Ian

    English, Michael

    Moyle, Roland

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Mr. Ivor Clemitson and

    Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

    Parker, John

    Mr. Norman Buchan.

    Golding, John

    NOES

    Body, Richard

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Michael Neubert and

    Mr. Charles Morrison.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendments nos. 3 to 5 agreed to.

CONSUMER SAFETY BILL
Lords amendments considered.
CONSUMER SAFETY BILL
  Clause 1

    SAFETY REGULATIONS IN RESPECT OF GOODS
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 5, after ("may") insert
    ("make regulations containing such provision authorised by subsection (2) and (3) of this section as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.")
    Mr. Neville Trotter: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Lords amendment no. 2.
    Mr. Trotter: Both these amendments are of a technical nature. They improve the powers of the Secretary of State for the purpose of securing that the goods are safe. It is possible that regulations made under the clause, as it left this House, could be challenged on the ground that
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:
    The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 2.
    they did not secure that the goods were safe. The two amendments overcome that difficulty by enabling regulations to contain such provisions as are authorised in subsections (2) and (3) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of securing that the goods are safe.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment no. 2 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
    ("(ee) with respect to the ways of dealing with goods of which some or all do not satisfy a test prescribed by the regulations or a standard connected with a procedure so prescribed;").
    Mr. Trotter: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The purpose of this amendment is to make it absolutely clear that regulations made under clause 1 may specify what action the manufacturer must take when goods do not satisfy a test or inspection described in subsection(2)(e).
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 32, leave out from ("goods") to end of line 33 and insert:
    ("in respect of which requirements of the regulations are not satisfied").
    Mr. Trotter: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Lords amendment no. 5.
    Mr. Trotter: The purpose of these amendments is to enable regulations to be made prohibiting the supply of goods in respect of which requirements under regulations as to information which must be provided are not satisfied. Lords amendment no. 5 is consequential on Lords amendment no. 4.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment no. 5 agreed to.

  Clause 2

    OFFENCES AGAINST THE SAFETY REGULATIONS
    Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 3, line 33, leave out from ("provision") to ("then") in line 35 and insert:
    (", by means of a mark or otherwise, of information of a particular kind in connection with goods").
    Mr. Trotter: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The purpose of this amendment is to remove the reference to "inappropriate information" which was criticised on Report in the Commons on the ground of its vagueness. An undertaking was given by the Minister of State after criticism about the reference to "inappropriate information" on the ground that the term was vague in the context of an offence. The Minister undertook to consider whether the term should be defined.
    The term did not lend itself to definition. The need for a definition was avoided by redrafting the provision along the lines of this amendment. The information which is prohibited in relation to goods will be spelt out in regulations containing provisions of the type referred to in clause 2(3). The amendment makes that clear and deletes the reference to "inappropriate information". The amendment complies with the undertaking given by the Minister. I trust that it will satisfy those who criticised the clause.
    Mr. David Hunt: I wish to express a strong reservation about the way in which the amendment leaves important decisions to secondary legislation. We have dealt with a number of legislative measures which involve consumer safety. I wonder whether we have been sufficiently cautious in dealing with such measures and in considering the way in which they will affect the business world and the world in which the consumer lives.
    Perhaps the most important of such legislation is the Unfair Contract Terms Act, which highlights the considerable difficulties involved in dealing with legislation of this nature without the fullest consultation taking place. That Act is now seen to have ramifications which are far beyond those which were anticipated for it.
    Lord Denning has indicated that there will be a considerable increase in the number of cases which come before the courts as a result of that Act. That legislation refers to all business dealings. It means that no parties—in some cases strong parties such as multinational companies—can enter into contractual relations in the secure knowledge that they will be termed as being reasonable in the light of what was in the minds of the parties at the time. That experience is important to this Bill, which extends consumer safety further.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on having introduced legislation in an area about which there is deep concern. I am, however, worried about whether, in seeking and discovering that there is no correct definition and that the matter has, therefore, to be subject to regulations, my hon. Friend has too easily pushed into the world of secondary legislation. I have spoken about this matter before and I have criticised it.
    I am a practising solicitor. I believe that we leave too much to statutory instruments, either because of time or because of an inability to draft correctly. We enact too much legislation on a secondary basis much later than we enact the primary legislation. The greatest misgiving that I have had since I came to the House a comparatively short time ago is that we have considered statutory instruments in a neutered fashion in Committee, usually

    1977
    after the statutory instrument has come into effect. We have considered them too late to effect any material alteration. We should ensure that we pass legislation in as clear and as precise a manner as possible.
    There are a large number of Bills before us today. Indeed, those who believe that all Governments should take the pledge and enact only a little legislation would be horrified to see the list. Some people would treat it as a joke. I do not. I find it horrifying that we can still keep churning out as much legislation as this, often leaving important matters to secondary legislation and regulations which the Minister may or may not make later.
    Mr. Richard Body: In his experience as a practising solicitor, does my hon. Friend find that the difficulties are increasing for small business men?
    Mr. Hunt: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, because that is what prompts me to leap to my feet today and give my opinions. Life has become too complicated and the law too complex. I should prefer to see a world in which instead of leaving matters to secondary legislation, the law is codified. I should like us to enact legislation which spells out clearly exactly what it needs and where it slots into other legislation, without constant references to regulations which are not known. One does not know to what extent they will cover existing situations and to what extent they will be able to cover situations that arise in the future of which we now know nothing.
    2.0 p.m.
    The only reason for the amendment is that no one could find clear enough words to avoid it. I make a plea that, instead of always reverting to secondary legislation when we cannot find the necessary and relevant words, we should not bother, bccause we are making life far too complex.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) asked me whether, as a practising solicitor I thought that the world was becoming simpler and life easier. Far from it. I was discussing this matter with the Law Society only this week. The poor individual now has very little chance of getting legal aid
    1978
    in order to get advice from a solicitor. When legal aid was introduced in 1949, just under 80 per cent. of the population were entitled to it. Today, that figure is 23 per cent. That means that very few people can go along to a solicitor and seek an explanation.
    Let us consider the effect of secondary legislation. When the individual has saved enough money to embark upon a legal case—he might be a landlord wishing to let off part of his premises—he goes to a solicitor, who has to have on his desk perhaps 15 different books which, because of resolutions and regulations, cross-reference each other in a way that makes his position very difficult and the whole exercise much more expensive.
    My major plea is that we should move away from the constant urge on the Government side to handle these matters by regulation. Let us have instead simple, easy legislation, and let us start moving towards the situation where an ordinary member of the public can go into a public library, look up the law and know exactly what the position is. We have now reached the stage where not only are we governed by the stare decisis, where we have to look up the ratio decidendi of every judge in every case in order to see whether the facts in a case fit the facts in the case in point.
    In addition we have to go through the case law and the statute law which we churn out in sufficient quantity to fill one or two volumes every year. On top of that, last year there were more than 2,000 statutory instruments which had to be cross-referenced back to the relevant Act to determine exactly what was being provided, and quite often the Acts themselves are cross-referenced back to other Acts which have to be looked up.
    What sort of a situation are we embarking upon for the consumer with this amendment? It might be a good idea to put in some limiting words to the effect that there could be only so many regulations and amending regulations. We have to control the vomiting of secondary legislation which spouts forth, although it comes not from the Minister, because he has tried hard to simplify the law by introducing other Bills and methods of legislating further, but, unfortunately, they have led instead to further complication.
    The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): When we last discussed safety regulations in Committee upstairs I, as the Minister, and the Government were strongly criticised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) for not making a sufficient number of such regulations. The hon. Gentleman should know that there are differences of opinion on this matter even within his own party.
    Mr. Hunt: That is precisely the sort of intervention that no member of the public could ever understand. How on earth could this issue be a party issue? Unfortunately, there are those in politics today who see any issue as having two sides, with one party on each side. It is this very nature of confrontation politics that does so much damage to our image outside. I do not want to move on to the broadcasting of Parliament—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I see only one side, and that is that the hon. Gentleman had now better come to the amendment.
    Mr. Hunt: Will you tell me, Mr. Speaker, to which one you are directing me to address my remarks?
    Mr. Speaker: We are discussing Lords amendment no. 6, but the hon. Gentleman was discussing confrontation in politics. That has nothing to do with the amendment.
    Mr. Hunt: I thought that we were dealing with Lords amendment no. 4.
    Mr. Speaker: I had been uneasy for some time about the hon. Gentleman's speech We passed Lords amendment no. 4 some time ago.
    Mr. Hunt: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the list before me is complicated and it shows five different groups of amendments that you were to call. I see now that I was discussing the amendment which I had intended to discuss.
    Mr. Body: My hon. Friend is perfectly in order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall decide that, thank you. If I need help I shall come to Norfolk—or is it Suffolk?
    Mr. Hunt: I was dealing with the question of certainty in legislation. I came to talk about confrontation in politics
    1980
    only because the Minister intervened, and you did not rule his intervention out of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Perhaps I may deal with the Minister's point, which was that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said in Committee upstairs that more safety regulations should be made. She is absolutely right. There are many areas where regulations need to be made. Is that not, however, a reflection upon our actions in passing primary legislation which fails to provide sufficiently at the start of the legislative process for safety regulations?
    I am appealing for simpler and clearer legislation, and although I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) on having introduced this excellent Bill, I am a little worried that certain aspects of it will cause increasing complication in the legislative process.
    Mr. Speaker: I was very tolerant indeed with the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt), because he really raised a Second Reading debate point, not one directed to the amendment. I rise only to make clear that I was right last time.
    Mr. Body: I congratulate my hon. Friend for having taken this Bill so far. If, in the course of my comments on the amendment or subsequently, I make any criticism it is not of the principle of the Bill or of what it seeks to do. I gather that the Minister of State has had some hand in the Bill, and I say "Three cheers" for all that his Department has done to promote it.
    The fact that the Lords amendment is necessary illustrates how woefully the Bill has been drafted. The amendment requires an insertion to be made in clause 2. I do not understand the part to be added, and I should be grateful if the Minister of State or my hon. Friend would explain it further. The words to be included are:
    "by means of a mark or otherwise, of information of a particular kind in connection with goods".
    I understand the word "mark". What I do not understand is the addition of the words "or otherwise". I cannot understand how that phrase could be inserted to make any sense. I hope that

    1981
    I have understood it correctly. I understand that we shall be having regulations drafted by the Department, and in due course published, which will add to the Bill certain requirements of law, and we have a requirement implied by "a mark". Could it be made plain to us at some stage how the phrase "or otherwise" can be necessary?
    I put this point because I want to support as wholeheartedly as I can everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). He has made a plead for simpler and clearer regulations. They cannot be so if we permit the officials in the Minister of State's Department to produce regulations that would be permitted by the use of the phrase "or otherwise". If it is to be a mark, that is something that we can understand. That is clear and definable. A mark is a mark. But when one adds the phrase "or otherwise", one makes it almost incomprehensible.
    That leads me to wonder, having spent some time in studying the Bill, albeit only a little time, how it came to be drafted in the way that it has been. We ought to object to it. All of us who have read the Bill, and particularly the cause that we are now in the process of amending, ought to register our objection to the fact that this kind of legislation has been drafted in the way that it has been.
    I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) was responsible for drafting the clause. I suspect that he could not have been responsible for it. If he had been, he would have drafted it in much plainer English than the form in which it has reached the House.
    One knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral is a practising solicitor. Indeed, to my certain knowledge the Minister of State was once a practising solicitor. I should have thought that the Minister would have some sympathy for the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend a few moment ago. From practising in the area in which he did, the Minister must know of the great difficulty that all people have, particularly the kind of people who are concerned with this subject, in understanding the law when regulations are churned out in the way in which the Bill envisages.
    Mr. Trotter: I may be able to satisfy my hon. Friend on the point about a mark. Having read the detailed wording again, I can understand the problem that my hon. Friend sees. It is really the other way around. The mark has been added to the information, because the problem may well be that information given in the normal way is misleading. I am sure that we can all understand that. In addition, it could be possible for a trader to use an official mark in a misleading way. One of the official signs that are recognised in trade as having an official significance could be used in a misleading way. I hope that that explains the point to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Body: With respect to my hon. Friend, it does not quite do so. It would still be a mark. I do not want to labour the point or to repeat myself and to stray out of order, but I should have thought that a mark was a mark, and that is what we know. I still do not understand the insertion of the extra two words "or otherwise".
    Mr. Trotter: Really, the "otherwise" will be the normal, and the mark will be the abnormal. I hope that that makes the matter a little clearer.
    Mr. Body: Mercifully, I am not a practising solicitor. Nor am I a shopkeeper.
    Mr. Ian Gow: Perhaps I may point out to my hon. Friend, who is a keen student of these matters, that the offending words "or otherwise" appeared both in the Bill as drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) and in the amendment that has been passed in another place. Therefore, my hon. Friend's criticism of the words "or otherwise" is a criticism of both my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and their Lordships.
    Mr. Body: I am sure that that criticism would be a fair one if it were true that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth had drafted the Bill. As I say, I cannot believe that he was guilty of doing any such thing. He has handled the Bill throughout its progress and we are all convinced that it will be on the statute book, and the sooner it is, the better.

    1983
    2.15 p.m.
    None the less, I must support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral. The Bill contains very sloppy drafting. This is objectionable for many reasons. It should have been quite unnecessary for the other place to produce all these amendments. We have 37 amendments to consider. That is a large number for a Bill which is not controversial and which has the support, as I understand it, of the whole House and of the other place. The Bill should never have been put to us drafted in its present form and requiring so many amendments by the other place.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral made a plea for the codification of the law. That is relevant in relation to this amendment, because the criticism that I make about this amendment can be made about some of the others, namely that consumer law should manifestly be plain and simple. One of my chores in this House is to sit on the Select Committee that deals with the consolidation of law. Every Wednesday we consider a number of Acts being fused into one measure. There is no doubt in my mind that the Acts passed by this House in days gone by are much plainer and better drafted than those that we are now putting before the public.
    This is a matter of importance. We must not have deteriorating standards and sloppy drafting. That is particularly so in matters of this kind, which are so important for the public, for practising solicitors, for shopkeepers, for chambers of trade, for accountants and for all those who have to read this legislation, understand it, and give an interpretation of it speedily, either for themselves or for their clients. If this House is to have its work respected, it is vital that the legislation that we pass be written in plain terms, of the standard that we had some years ago.
    Having had the other chore of being a member of the Select Committee that considers statutory instruments, I think that the figure that has been mentioned was wrong. I think that it is about 3,000. It is a great number. This is secondary legislation. We should not have anything like this number. We shall now have to have more regulations which should never have been necessary.
    1984
    The Bill and this clause should have been so drafted that there should be no necessity for further secondary legislation to be concocted by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection and published in due course without anyone on the Floor of this Chamber being able to criticise its contents or to complain, as I am complaining—and I believe that others share my view—about how badly this is working.
    I make this protest, and I am delighted that someone who is a practising solicitor has been able to make the point that he has made. I have never had the advantage of being a practising solicitor. I practised on the other side, and I know only too well how overworked solicitors are at present. They do not want the task of having not only to look at the main statute to see what the law is there but to delve into regulations.
    We do not know what the regulations will look like. We are in the hands of the Minister of State. We know that he has been a practising solicitor and, no doubt, he will do his job well, ensuring that his officials produce something that is clear. We hope so. We cannot be sure.
    This is a matter of great concern, about which I make my protest. I hope that I have been in order in doing so and I hope that the lesson will be learnt before too many injustices are done to individuals, not only those who have to advise and interpret the law but those who may suffer penalties if they do not conform to the law. Invariably such people wish to conform. I cannot believe that there is a trader or business man who is not conscious of the requirements of consumer safety and who does not wish to act within the law and minimise the risks. This Bill began with an enormous amount of good will. It is sad that any part of that good will should be sullied by the drafting of the Bill. I entirely acquit my hon. Friend of any responsibility for the necessity for these 37 Lords amendments.
    Mr. John Fraser: The words which have been placed in the Bill and which are the subject of this Lords amendment were placed there as a result of an undertaking given to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) on Report. I hope that the House will not quarrel with the sponsor of the Bill for having met wholly

    1985
    and completely the objections raised by the Opposition Front Bench on something which, I agree, is not a party matter.
    To get this into context, I should explain that clause 1 is the regulation-making part of the Bill while clause 2 creates the substantive offences. As a result of discussions in Committee, it was thought desirable that the nature of substantial offences should be spelt out in the Bill and not in regulations. The words we are discussing are part of the cross-reference in the offences provisions in clause 2 to the regulation-making power in clause 1. They are a shorthand reference to the type of regulations that could be made.
    Three other points have been raised. The first is that the law ought to be simple and, as far as possible, codified. I agree completely. In so far as we can have simple and codified regulations and not those which contain a mass of amendments, that is desirable not only for solicitors but for the general public. The second point made by the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) is that it should not be necessary to legislate by way of statutory instrument. In Committee and on Report it was accepted by the sponsor, and I support him in this, that regulations of this nature should be subject to a detailed consultation procedure with industry and, secondly, to the affirmative resolution procedure of the House. There is no question of any regulation coming into force unless it has been preceded by consultation and sanctioned by affirmative resolution. There is no question of annulment proceedings for substantive regulations made under this measure.
    The alternative to having regulations is to place a general duty of care on all manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers not to do anything which is dangerous or which could cause the possibility of physical harm to a member of the public. If we placed that general duty of care in a statute, it would be simple but it would not be certain. There would be a simple duty, and if that were breached there would be a criminal offence. The reaction of industry would be to say "We do not know where we stand".
    Mr. David Hunt: May I put a further possibility to the Minister? It is that in the
    1986
    Bill there should be set out clearly all the law relating to this subject, including that which will be contained in regulations. I do not for a moment accept the Minister's argument that the regulations have to be dealt with at a later stage. Why cannot they be comprehensively included? As a result of the average 6 per cent. swing in the by-elections last night, the Minister will soon be returning to work as a practising solicitor. As such, he will find that one of the greatest difficulties with legislation of this kind is the necessity constantly to refer to additional documentation in addition to the primary Act which it is sought to interpret.
    Mr. Fraser: That is as may be. I am making the point that if we tried to put a general duty into the Bill it would be too vague and not sufficiently pointed.
    The third reason for having regulatory powers, not only in this legislation but in much other legislation, is that the world is changing rapidly, particularly with respect to consumer products and technical advance. It is important that we deal with an area product by product, looking at the danger that may occur for the consumer, and have a clear, certain set of regulations which prescribe safety characteristics and requirements, this process being done after consultation and, as a result of this Bill, largely by reference to British standards.
    This is the serious point. The hon. Gentleman can utter high-flown phrases about the simplicity of the law. What I ask him to do is to put himself in my shoes—with a 6 per cent. swing I know that that is what he wants to do—and consider some of the cases which would come to his attention. There are cases when a child has died horribly as a result of eating a cosmetic. There are other cases when a whole family has been horribly maimed or burned to death as a result of the inadequate construction of an oil stove. There are other cases when a child has choked to death in its cot because the synthetic materials used in children's shawls tend to tighten rather than to stretch as the child twists in his cot. There are cases of young babies swallowing dummies and choking to death. There are instances of prams which career down the pavement and run in front of a heavy vehicle, with the result that the child is killed.

    1987
    We face a changing technology in consumer goods. It is necessary to have the power to be flexible, to do things after consultation and, as far as possible, by reference to standards. The choice between generalised legislation, which the hon. Member for Wirral wants, and specific regulation-making powers is not one of principle. What is at issue is the ability to save people—often young people or those over the age of 65—from death or injury, sometimes in the most horrible circumstances. I assure the hon. Member, after some years of experience, that the degree of flexibility is essential because the health of the citizen is the highest law.
    Mr. Gow: We have listened to a compelling speech from the Minister of State, to which I shall be returning a little later. I begin by giving a warning to myself. Legion are the virtues of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt), but I remind him, as I remind myself, that he was rebuked by Mr. Speaker for a misunderstanding as to which amendment was under consideration. To put the matter beyond doubt, I wish to make it plain that I am seeking to speak to Lords amendment no. 6 and that I shall be directing my remarks to clause 2(3).
    We need to look first at the clause upon which clause 2 is dependent—namely, clause 1. Clause 1 gives to the Secretary of State the power to make safety regulations. Lords amendment no. 6 concerns whether we believe that the other place has improved the language of clause 2(3) or whether we believe that the other place has made the language more difficult to comprehend. That is one of the issues, and it is the issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral addressed his remarks.
    Frequently we get into trouble in this place because we are members of the legal profession. Today we have heard the Minister of State, himself a solicitor, who was preceded by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), who is a barrister, who was preceded by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, whose predecessor was a distinguished QC. We have had a number of lawyers addressing the House. Indeed, I see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) is in his place. Mercifully, we hope to have
    1988
    a contribution from him if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "mercifully" in that context.
    2.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gow: I was merely indicating that it would be a mercy to the House and to the Bill if we were to have a contribution from my hon. and learned Friend.
    I do not want to become obsessed with the contributions which have been and which are to be made by the legal fraternity. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral was right to remind us how great is the volume of legislation which pours forth from this Parliament and how important it is that we pass laws which it is easy for the citizen to comprehend.
    I declare an interest. In one sense, the greater the complexity of the laws that we pass, the more lucrative is the practice of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, not to mention the practice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. So it might be said that the lawyers have a common interest. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) beside me. It might be thought that the lawyers have a vested interest in passing the most complex legislation so that the citizens will seek guidance from the lawyers as to the meaning of legislation passed by Parliament.
    I do not subcribe to that view. I believe that, on the contrary, we have an overriding duty to pass legislation which can be understood as easily as possible. If we are forced to choose, as apparently we are, between my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and another place, I find it extremely difficult to decide which is the more incomprehensible of the texts offered to us.
    Therefore, if it were in order, I should now be proposing a further amendment to leave out not only the words proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth but also the words suggested by another place. However, I understand that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not accept a manuscript amendment to that effect. So we are not able to read, mark

    1989
    and learn the gospel according to Eastbourne. We must have the gospel according to Tynemouth or the gospel according to another place.
    Therefore, the task which falls upon my hon. Friends and upon the serried ranks on the Government side of the House is a very difficult one, for reasons to which I shall come. I mean no discourtesy either to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth or to another place when I contend that the words in subsection (3) as they stand and the words in subsection (3) as they would be if we were to accept the suggestion of another place are extremely difficult to construe.
    Let us see what the difference is. The original words were:
    "of inappropriate information relating to goods either by means of misleading marks or otherwise".
    It was the last two words, "or otherwise", which sprang to the alert and vigilant mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston. The other place says that it does not like the words of my hon. Friend and wishes to insert the following words:
    "by means of a mark or otherwise, of information of a particular kind in connection with goods".
    I do not believe that the recommendation of another place would be an improvement to the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, when he addresses us again, will tell us that he believes that his suggested form of words is superior to that of another place.
    I do not think that it would be right for the elected House to assume always —I do not know whether I shall carry my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield with me on this—that there is superior wisdom in another place. I think that my hon. and learned Friend thinks that on most occasions there is superior wisdom in another place, but I do not subscribe to that view. I do not think that the other place is always wiser than we are.
    When we are debating these issues, when we are debating the detailed wording of a subsection in a new measure which will grant additional powers to the Secretary of State, we often forget the practicality of how this will work. Who
    1990
    will make the regulations? What kind of situation are we actually envisaging in the real world outside?
    I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth or to my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) or to myself when I say that often we fail to understand how laws that we pass in this place will actually work out in the real world. We can pass laws; we can introduce complex provisions. We can find things difficult to understand. Ah, the Lord President of the Council has joined us. He is an expert in these matters. He is in many ways a populist. Indeed, I should like to walk humbly and deferentially and several miles behind him along the populist road. I therefore know that I shall carry him with me in the remarks I am about to make. [HON. MEMBERS:" Where is he?"]
    It is one of the strangest ironies that the Labour Party, which claims to be the champion of the consumer and which claims to be the protector of the customer against those who are trying to sell to him, should be represented today by one solitary Member of Parliament—that is, the Minister of State, who is without even his Parliamentary Private Secretary. Perhaps all the others are in Penistone or some other place picking up the pieces.
    What I was inviting the House to consider was this. How will the regulations actually work physically? The Minister of State gave us an insight in his—I hope he will allow me to say this; I do not want to damage his future career—excellent speech. His speech was delivered, as his speeches are so often delivered, without a note. I hope that he will not think it presumptuous of me when I say that, and I hope that it will not damage his glittering prospects on this side of the House.
    In his illustrations the Minister of State referred to a cot, a pram and a dummy. We are all gravely concerned about accidents. The Minister's examples all concerned deaths which occurred to children. Such examples might not occur if the Bill becomes law. He was therefore extolling the virtues of safety regulations to be made under clause 1(1).
    I take a different example. Although, of course, Parliament has a special duty to protect children, I am sure that the

    1991
    Minister of State would not wish to argue that the Bill is not designed to protect adults as well. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth had in mind the need to protect not only children but adults also. As the Minister dealt with children, it is not inappropriate that I should deal with adults.
    I want to deal with the matter in the specific context of subsection (3) of clause 2, the wording of which is:
    "if a person contravenes a provision of safety regulations"
    and so on. These are safety regulations which would have been made by the Secretary of State in accordance with powers conferred upon him by clause 1, and they have to be approved by this House and by another place. Those regulations having been made, if a person contravenes a regulation which
    "prohibits the provision of inappropriate information relating to goods either by means of misleading marks or otherwise",
    an offence will have been committed.
    Let us suppose that razor blades are on sale. Razor blades are not of interest to every adult. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and, I suppose, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) are not keen users of razor blades. It may be that those of my hon. Friends who are more opulent than I have electric razors, but there are still some of us who use razor blades.
    Mr. Body: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston assents to my proposition. But suppose that safety regulations were made governing the packaging or the warning signs which should be put upon razor blades. What is meant in this context by
    "inappropriate information relating to goods either by means of misleading marks or otherwise"?
    Could it be that there might be in these safety regulations an obligation on the manufacturer of razor blades to give a warning that they were sharp? Would that be something that could arise in this context? Or could it be said that razor blades must not be made too sharp in case, when we are shaving in the morning, we cut ourselves? Would it be misleading if it were not stated on the packet
    1992
    of razor blades that they were extremely sharp and liable to pierce the skin unless care was taken?
    Frankly, I believe that the words in the Bill are better than the words in the amendment suggested by another place. But let us not confine ourselves to razor blades. I suppose that it would be possible to manufacture a toothbrush which, if used without skill, could get stuck in the throat, thereby causing death. If we have these new safety regulations, are we to have the Secretary of State coming to Parliament and saying that a warning must be issued by all manufacturers of toothbrushes that we must not use a toothbrush in such a way that it gets stuck in the throat?
    I return to the words
    "inappropriate information relating to goods either by means of misleading marks or otherwise"
    and ask what the words "or otherwise" mean. What is so extraordinary is that those words "or otherwise" have been selected both by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and by another place. The other place left in the words. I believe that my hon. Friend owes it to the House to explain exactly what the words "or otherwise" mean. I think that he tried to explain them to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, but, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth did not satisfy either my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston or my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South, who was paying particular attention to that exchange between my two hon. Friends. Indeed, it is very clear that the words "or otherwise" are causing very great trouble to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), so much so that he is writing me a note at this very moment in case, he does not catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    2.45 p.m.
    Why did the other place seek to substitute the words of the Bill with words of its own choosing? It is not given to all of us to comprehend the reasons for action. The Under-Secretary of State for Industry has arrived, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and his arrival reminds me of what I was saying earlier to the effect

    1993
    that not all of us are in need of razor blades. However, I do not want to get further drawn into that aspect because I have now moved on to toothbrushes. But it is nevertheless the case that the regulations which could be made, and which are very directly apposite to the provisions of subsection (3) of clause 2, could, I believe, cause total consternation and a total inability on the part of members of the public to follow what we are trying to say.
    I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth to remain resolute. I do not believe that we ought to be in terrorem of the other place. I know that in that respect I shall carry with me Her Majesty's Ministers, and, I am sure, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Hafer). I am saying that we ought not to agree with their Lordships. If we agree with the words suggested by another place, I believe that we shall find that this legislation will be even more confusing than it would be if we accepted the wording of my hon. Friend.
    We have so far examined only the specific cases of razor blades and toothbrushes. There are other items which can be purchased in the shops. It may be that I do not have much need for hairbrushes, and I would not dissent from that proposition. I shall leave these other items to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who has been writing and toiling so assiduously during the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston and myself.
    One might have thought that particularly on the Labour Benches there would be a readiness to agree with the superior virtues of this place as compared with another place. Yet, if I understood the Minister of State's most cogent speech correctly, he was advising the House to agree with another place.
    Mr. John Fraser: The other place agreed with the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and with the Opposition that these words are better than the words which were first in the Bill. It is very difficult when we have a debate and an amendment is withdrawn and the House then quarrels with a generally expressed wish to have more restrictive words. It is a great pity.
    Mr. Gow: Genius though my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) is, the Minister of State must not say that because my hon. Friend thinks that the wording of the other place is superior, or believes that the amendment of the other place is right, that can be said to bind this House. None of us wishes to do other than pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. Indeed, Pudsey is a very distinguished place. Sir Leonard Hutton was born there, as was Herbert Sutcliffe. I am sure that the Minister of State will know that it was Hutton who made 364 runs in 13 hours 20 minutes before being caught—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Bryant Godman Irvine): I doubt very much whether he had this amendment in mind.
    Mr. Gow: I was saying that, great though the virtues of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey are and great though the historic qualities of Pudsey are, I do not think that we should be told that we are not allowed to favour the original Bill because my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey thinks that we ought to do something else. That is why I hope that this House will take its courage in both hands and will say that, whatever our respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey and whatever our respect for another place—and I know that the hon. Member for Walton has great respect for it—on this occasion we shall back the superiority of the judgment of this elected Chamber.
    Mr. John Farr: We have heard some interesting arguments from hon. Members on both sides of the House, though mainly from my hon. Friends, and, on reflection, I do not think that the amendment is a marked improvement. However, I think that the House should bear in mind when we consider this clause, especially subsection (3), one lesson to which we cannot be blind, because subsection (3) probably is the most relevant and important provision in the Bill.
    Clause 2 generally deals with offences against the safety regulations. Subsection (3) deals with people who contravene the provisions of safety regulations. However, before proceeding I think that the House should take cognisance of what has been one of the worst ever disasters

    1995
    involving safety just of the type dealt with by the Bill—namely, the accident which occurred on Monday at San Carlos de la Rapita in Spain, when a tanker load of liquefied propylene gas exploded.
    A great many pertinent questions have been asked since that explosion, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing, I am sure on behalf of all right hon. and hon. Members, the deepest concern and sorrow for the relatives of the 200 or so people who so far have died as a result of this horrifying accident. I understand that Her Majesty's Government are taking action to provide assistance where possible.
    The explosion occurred in a way which, I am sure, is not likely to happen in this country. In Britain, propylene gas is mostly carried by rail. However, a certain amount is carried by road tanker, which is when the critical importance of subsection (3) comes into effect.
    With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), razor blades can affect an individual. It is rare for one person to administer a razor blade other than to himself, so probably it could be said that he has only himself to blame if he has an accident with a razor blade. The same applies if he happens to swallow a toothbrush, which my hon. Friend seemed to envisage was quite possible.
    The dependants of the people killed in Spain the other day do not think that way. The people who died were in no way responsible.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are discussing marks which are put on articles. I think that the hon. Member is not in order in what he is saying at the moment.
    Mr. Body: "Or otherwise".
    Mr. Farr: I am pointing out that the 230 people who lost their lives so tragically in Spain the other day were affected probably by the inadequate observance of safety regulations. The safety regulations there, as here, include a requirement for appropriate markings and information. It is questionable now whether they should not also include, whenever explosive chemicals of this nature are involved, instructions about the route that a vehicle carrying substances of this kind should be permitted
    1996
    to take. Even if safety regulations are observed to the letter, even if the markings referred to in the amendment are placed on the relevant goods and even if there is no human error, it may be that by some mechanical fault a terrible accident could occur. The accident in Spain occurred on a road adjacent to a very busy holiday centre. If the driver concerned had had instructions to take a motorway going nowhere near busy population centres, many hundreds of people would not be mourning their dead today.
    Important though the prevention of accidents involving razor blades, toothbrushes and what I might describe as the other impedimenta of toiletry may be, when we are considering this Bill relating to consumer safety I think that the House should cast its mind beyond mundane day-to-day matters and take the opportunity to see whether this proposed legislation measures up to the requirements of the international situation which has arisen since their Lordships passed these amendments.
    I hope that this debate will give the Minister the opportunity to comment on that disaster. So far as I am aware, it has not been referred to in the House this week, although one or two British lives are believed to have been lost. In my view, the Minister should tell the House whether, in the light of this latest disaster, he believes that these few words in subsection (3) are adequate, whether he believes that our consumer safety legislation is adequate, whether sufficient mention is made of the responsibilities of the carriers of these frightfully inflammable and explosive materials, and whether it is not necessary now to reconsider the regulations.
    3.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I am at a disadvantage in not having heard the Minister's speech. I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber when he was explaining why the Lords amendment should be accepted. I regret that, because I would have been interested to hear the reasons why we should prefer these words to those originally in the Bill.
    The Minister suggested that we should agree to the change because these words had been called for by the House in the past. I wonder whether that was a lapsus linguae. I do not think that this

    1997
    matter has been before the House in the past. Perhaps the Minister was referring to the Report stage.
    I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). He is not here now. He has obviously retired to correct the report of his speech in Hansard. At the end of his speech my hon. Friend lapsed into Latin phrases which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) found so disagreeable that he left the Chamber.
    On reflection, I think that a more appropriate Latin quotation would have been that well-known one from Horace, which is rather more elegant:
    "Rusticus exspectat dum defluat amnis, At ille labitur et labetur in omne volubilis aevum."
    As my hon. Friends will know, this means that the rustic waits for the river to flow past and that it will flow on to all eternity.
    At one point I was a little worried that my hon. Friend's conscientious examination of this Bill might imperil the prospects for my own Bill, which is thirty-eighth on the Order Paper. It is a very important matter, and if reached and passed it will transform the statute law of this kingdom.
    Mr. Ivan Lawrence: It is only down for Second Reading.
    Mr. Bell: That is true, but it could go through all its stages in one day.
    I find this Lords amendment rather disturbing, because it is almost incomprehensible. Clause 2, to which the Lords amendment relates, is the penal clause. It sets out in the various subsections the things that establish an offence. I cannot imagine any part of the law that should be clearer than the penal provisions of any Act. I defy anybody who is not a professional lawyer to read through clause 2 and understand what each subsection means.
    I am particularly concerned about subsection (3). I pay tribute to the ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) who sponsored the Bill. However, subsection (3) is, to start with, a little inelegant, especially for a penal clause. It says:
    "If a person contravenes a provision of safety regulations which prohibits the provision"
    1998
    Therefore, we have the word "provision" used in two completely different senses in two adjacent lines, which is not a very auspicious start for a penal clause.
    The Lords amendment proposes that the words after "provision" in the second line of the subsection should be left out and replaced by the words on the Order Paper. They are:
    "by means of a mark or otherwise, of information of a particular kind in connection with goods."
    If one compares the original text with the proposed change one sees that it is not just an improvement of words, or even a decline in the elegance of words; it changes the whole drift of the subsection. Without the Lords amendment, the subsection deals with a provision of safety regulations which prohibits the provision of inappropriate information relating to goods, either by means of misleading marks or otherwise. Therefore, it is striking at misleading marks or inappropriate information.
    The Lords amendment changes the whole thrust of the subsection to a prohibition by means of a mark or otherwise—it need not be misleading—of information of a particular kind. In other words, it refers to specified information. It is a totally different provision.
    I am not expressing comparative opinions on the merits of the two things. I have not followed the Bill as carefully as I should have done. We have had a hectic Session, and that is certainly an apt description of the week that lies ahead of us. I wish that I could have given detailed attention to all the legislative provisions that have been poured out in front of us, but that has been impossible.
    I make no apology for the fact that I have not followed this Bill as closely as I should have done. I offer no judgment on the respective merits of the matter, but I question whether a Lords amendment should be used to change the general direction of a subsection in a penal provision. One expects Lords amendments of this drafting kind to tidy up or to comprise a more felicitous ex-expression of a generally understood intention; it is a change in what is being expression of a generally understood intention; it is a change in what is being struck at in the nature of the offence. I am not happy about that.

    1999
    I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was happy about the situation. He was unhappy about a number of things, and it was a little difficult to isolate the exact outline of his discontent. I hope that the Minister will direct his mind to this point. Although I do not think this is the way in which a change of this character should be made, I feel that, if it is made, it should be explicitly made.
    I should be happier in a case such as this if the whole of the subsection were struck out and a new subsection put in its place. One would then be on one's guard and realise that that part of the Bill was being rewritten in intention as well as in language. That is not the case, and here we are at six minutes past 3 o'clock on a Friday in July, the last day of private Members' time, considering virtually a cloud of Lords amendments to varying Bills. That is not a very satisfactory state of affairs.
    I know that on the last day of private Members' time there is sudden death for a number of admirable proposals. In that respect this Friday is not unique. But if it is not unique, it is certainly in a small category in respect of the number of Lords amendments that we have been asked to consider to various Bills on a single Friday between 11 am and 4 pm. I do not see how one can give proper attention to this mass of stuff.
    I say without hesitation that it is the Goverment's fault, because they set such a bad example in clogging up the legislative machine, and it is not surprising that that bad example flows into private Members' days.
    The Minister of State is not the man to set aside bad example. Although he is an agreeable person, he has kept bad political company for so long that I fear he is now beyond redress. However, I am giving him an opportunity to answer some of these objections.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will my hon. and learned Friend be good enough to assist the House and the Government with an observation that comes from his unchallenged superiority as a lawyer of worth and standing in this place? He has drawn attention to the lack of elegance of the clause as drafted and to the absurdity of the use of words and the
    2000
    slackness of meaning of subsection (3). Will he say something about the conclusion that must be drawn from this state of affairs and the action that needs to be taken? Is he aware that the pressure which this Government and, for all I know, successive Governments have loaded on the shoulders of that trained and experienced, but alas too small, body of men, the parliamentary draftsmen, has now become so unbearable that they allow the passage of rubbish such as this to be included in legislation coming before the House?
    Is it not time for us, as legislators, seriously to consider increasing the size of the parliamentary draftsmen's office and giving them assistance so that those erudite and extremely wise people can spend more time considering such clauses so that they make more sense, are more elegant, and can be more easily understood by the layman, who, after all, has to understand them?
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I sat for 18 years on the Statute Law Revision and Consolidation Committee and developed considerable respect for the skill of the parliamentary draftsmen. The problem is the volume of work flooding their office and making it difficult for them to draft Bills with the care that we should like.
    It has been said of the speeches of politicians that it takes a lot of work to make a short speech but it is quite easy to make a long speech. Having said that, I must be careful not to make a long speech. The same principle is true of the drafting of Bills. This Bill is flatulent. It goes on and on, and rambles. It says that certain actions shall be an offence unless other conditions are fulfilled, and when one examines those conditions one finds another "unless" referring back to the first "unless". It is full of parentheses within parentheses.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall be obliged if the hon. and learned Gentleman will direct his remarks exclusively to the amendment under consideration.
    Mr. Bell: I am doing so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment is a good illustration of what I am saying.
    Mr. Body: The parliamentary draftsmen have been severely criticised in general terms. Does my hon. and learned

    2001
    Friend, from his considerable experience, agree that it is inconceivable that any parliamentary draftsman was responsible for this drafting?
    Mr. Bell: That is a fair point. I was earlier merely accepting what was put to me. It may be private drafting. An hon. Member has a very difficult ask if he is drafting a Private Member's Bill. He may even have the disadvantage of departmental help.
    Clause 2 is drafted in exactly the manner that I have described. It establishes offences and then reduces them by defeasance clauses. Subsection (3) is in the middle of the process that I was describing. We cannot understand subsection (3) except in relation to subsections (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8). They must all be understood by the same person for him to know whether he is committing an offence under subsection (3).
    In a way, the difficulty of comprehending subsection (3) is compounded by the fact that under the following clause, the Secretary of State is empowered to make orders to prohibit the supply or the offering for sale of goods specified in the order as being the sort of goods to which the prohibitions in clause 2 would apply. Unlike the safety regulations in clause 2, the prohibition orders are not subject to the affirmative resolutions procedure. That is an astonishing state of affairs.
    3.15 p.m.
    This sort of amendment must be considered with great care because of all that is geared on to it. For example, in the context of clause 12(2) a prohibition order is subject to the negative procedure. We cannot take these drafting points in quite the confident manner that I assume was taken by the Minister of State. I must safeguard myself, because I did not hear his speech. However, I heard his intervention, in which he seemed to imply that because on Report there had been a request for rephrasing we should not look a gift horse in the mouth but should accept without undue examination what their Lordships have done.
    I was accused by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne of having exaggerated respect for another place. That is not so. In its judicial capacity I accept that it is supreme, but in its drafting
    2002
    capacity it is a part of the political legislature and not the supreme court of appeal. I have not the slightest reason to believe that any of their legally qualified Lordships, who constitute the ultimate court of appeal, had any hand in drafting the amendment.
    I regard the amendment as a straightforward political amendment to a normal Bill that must be judged in the light of our own common sense and our estimate of its value. It is upon that estimate that I invite my hon. Friends to consider carefully whether it is an amendment that they can support when the time comes.
    Mr. Roger Moate: It is a rare occasion when I find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). It is an even rarer event when I find myself in disagreement with both my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). I agree with them so often that I have great respect for their wisdom and judgment in these matters. If ever I am in doubt whether I am right or wrong, I am led to feel sure that I am pursuing the right course if I find that the Minister of State is in opposition to me.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend will probably find himself in agreement with me on the 38th Order of the Day, which proposes to repeal the European Communities Act. I hope that he will not talk out that Order of the Day.
    Mr. Moate: I look forward to an extended debate on that issue. I sense that my hon. and learned Friend and I will be in total agreement with that modest proposition.
    On this occasion I feel that the Minister of State is right and my hon. Friends are wrong. It is not a matter of challenging the wisdom of an amendment produced by their Lordships. The Minister is right to say that the amendment was produced in another place because there was a widespread feeling on Report in this place that the present wording was wrong. It is clear that the amendment was produced by another place to meet the genuine fears, anxieties and doubts expressed in this place.

    2003
    Some of us are rather puzzled that it was the Minister who, on Report, persuaded us that the Bill was right. I missed some of his speech today, but it seems that he has changed his mind. On 28th April he said:
    "I was asked whether the word 'appropriate', which has been chosen, was in the law already. It is not, but I hope that it will be in future in this Bill. The word 'appropriate' is rather wide, but it is necessary."—[Official Report, 28th April 1978; Vol. 948, c. 1842.]
    The hon. Gentleman went on fairly to say that he would consider the arguments that had been advanced. However, he put forward a strong case for the inclusion of "appropriate". He is now being supported in his original argument by my hon. Friends, who are saying that he was right in the first place. He has changed his mind now and is supporting the amendment that seeks to delete "appropriate" or "inappropriate". I take the view that the amendment is right and that the Minister's original argument was wrong.
    Our concern was that the words "inappropriate information" were meaningless and so imprecise as to be misleading. We were concerned that they would cause more confusion in the law.
    In the debate only one example was given of the kind of misleading information that could be used. That was the strange example of Christmas crackers, which could have on the box "These have been approved by Her Majesty's Inspector of Explosives". That struck most hon. Members who took part in the debate as an unlikely area of danger. The words "inappropriate information" were still far too wide.
    The argument then proceeded on whether the words "inappropriate information" would be included in the regulations. It was not clear whether they would or would not be included. It was possible that "inappropriate information" could be used in the regulations. As a matter of law, that struck the House as very bad phraseology. I think that we were right to ask that those words should be deleted and that we should have much more specific phraseology. The new phraseology in the Lords amendment meets that requirement. It takes out the words:
    2004
    "inappropriate information relating to goods either by means of misleading marks or otherwise".
    The wording proposed in the amendment is better than the wording in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will decide finally to accept the amendment as a distinct improvement on the Bill.
    I also disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield on the general point in subsection (3), as amended, if it is to be amended. He said that clause 2 was the penal clause and that it was wrong that it should be dependent upon regulations.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: No, I did not say that; I said that it was wrong that it should be virtually incomprehensible.
    Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that correction. That brings us back to the question whether it is right or wrong to introduce safety regulations of this kind by statutory instrument. Having considered this matter, and disliking the whole welter of statutory instruments that we are getting, it seems to me that there is no other way to introduce safety regulations than by statutory instruments. They are essentially of a technical nature. They are likely to change fairly frequently. Therefore, the only way that this can be done is by a series of regulations subject to parliamentary procedure.
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend misunderstands the point that I made. I did not criticise that aspect. The safety regulations under clause 2 are subject to the affirmative procedure. We cannot complain about that. I mentioned in passing that prohibition orders under clause 3 were subject to the negative procedure. I made a small point about that in passing.
    Mr. Moate: The point is that the parent statute must of necessity be fairly widely drafted, because the regulations will be specific. Subsection (3) may be somewhat confusing and imprecise, but that does not mean that the regulations, when they emerge, will be imprecise. Of course, they could be imprecise, but that is the situation which we always face with legislation of this kind. The fact that subsection (3) is imprecise and perhaps confusing does not mean that the regulations will be confusing. I have come

    2005
    round to the view that it is right to have the regulatory power.
    I make this brief intervention to say that the Minister has carried out the wishes of those hon. Members who spoke on Report. Of course, they are not necessarily the views of the House as a whole. But I believe that the new wording is rather better than the wording in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree with their Lordships.
    Lastly, I should like to make a slight criticism of the new wording. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that the drafting is poor. It is needlessly confusing. Why could we not have made it clear that the regulations could prohibit misleading information? That is all that we need to have done. That has not been done. The word "inappropriate" is used in the first instance. If the amendment were accepted, the clause would prohibit the use
    "of information of a particular kind".
    Why do we use the words "particular kind"? Why cannot we say that we will ban misleading information? If the regulations say that information which is misleading should be banned, that should be enough. When one uses words such as "particular kind" one asks the question—what particular kind? If we mean misleading, why do we not use that word?
    Mr. John Fraser: If one created an offence of providing "inappropriate information" the provisions in the regulations would then be so broad as to give an undue discretion to Ministers, and expose people to risk. The words "of a particular kind" mean that there must be a degree of accuracy and precision in regulations relating to an offence. That is right.
    Mr. Moate: I shall not pursue the matter. It seems an unnecessary phrase to me. Phraseology which would ban specific information that is undesirable would be sufficient and make the clause clearer. The amendment represents an improvement in the original wording and I hope that the House will agree to it.
    Mr. Trotter: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) I have another Bill on the Order
    2006
    Paper, which is no. 32 and slighly ahead of his. I am therefore also keen to see progress.
    There has been considerable discussion about the drafting of the Bill. For nearly a year it has been an interesting experience for me to be involved in it. My aim was to produce legislation which was manifestly plain and simple, but it soon became apparent that although the concept of consumer safety is simple, to strike a balance is extremely complex. It became apparent that if we were to be fair we had to produce a wide-ranging Act with all the details spelled out. That made it necessary to introduce complications. My aim has been to keep those complications to the minimum.
    I believe that the regulations will be simple. Regulations were made under the 1961 Act. I have in my possession the children's clothing and footwear regulations to which the Minister of State referred earlier. It is a simple document of just over one page, which is written in a style which I. as an accountant and not a lawyer, find comprehensible. It has been distributed widely with a one-page letter which is also written in simple and clear language. I believe that that practice will continue in the regulations made under this Bill.
    Consultation has been a feature of the Bill. It took place over a long period because of the difficulties encountered by other private Member's Bills. More than 300 bodies and individuals were asked for their views on the Bill in its original form. As a result a great deal of discussion and consultation took place. No fewer than 178 amendments were tabled. They were not all taken into the Bill, but there have been many amendments to the Bill. I see nothing but good in that. Many of the amendments were made in the Lords, partly because the consultation on the drafting was not practicable before the Bill left the Commons.
    Some of the comments on the clause that we are discussing have gone wide of its content. The clause is straightforward. I can see no difficulties about the wording. The change is a result of the persuasive arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) on 28th April. It is a pity that my hon. Friends who have come to support the Bill this afternoon were not able

    2007
    to be present on that occasion, no doubt because of constituency commitments. If they had heard my hon. Friend's persuasive arguments they would have understood the reasons for the amendment.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I hope that my hon. Friend does not feel injured or aggrieved about the length of the debate this afternoon. Lord Morley once said to Phillip Cunliffe Lister "If at the end of a long public life you have done one good thing, stopped two bad things and compromised on the rest, you will have done well." My hon. Friend might find that today's long debate will have done one good thing, stopped two bad things and compromised on the rest.
    3.30 p.m.
    Mr. Trotter: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. The debates at all stages of the Bill have been helpful. It is beneficial for proposals that are put before the House to be subject to the maximum of discussion and comment, and I welcome the comments that have been made this afternoon, even though some of them may have been a little long winded.
    I appreciate that time is passing, and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has spent a great deal of time preparing himself for his participation in the debate, so I shall be brief in order not to deprive him of the opportunity of enlightening us on the results of his researches.
    There has been a controversy over the word "mark". The point is straightforward, however. If we forget for one moment the word "mark", the regulation will simply provide specifically that certain types of information may not be portrayed in connection with certain goods. For instance, it is possible for paint to have a very high lead content. It may be necessary therefore for information to be banned from a tin of that paint if it suggested that the paint was suitable for use on children's furniture which the children might lick or even chew. It would be wrong for a tin of paint to bear any indication that it was suitable for such use if it was not.
    The regulation would spell out what was prohibited. There would be no
    2008
    vagueness. The actual wording would be spelt out.
    Mr. Moate: If it is to be spelt out, how will that be done in the regulations? Why does one need to have in the amendment the words "of a particular kind"? Surely it is not necessary to import that general statement if the regulations are to be as precise as my hon. Friend suggests they would be—and he is right to pursue such precision.
    Mr. Trotter: I take my hon. Friend's point. I had not read the wording in that light. I believe that the words lend emphasis and stress to the word "information". I accept that the Bill could well have said
    "which prohibits the provision of information in connection with goods".
    The emphasis was on the particular nature of the information. It indicates a desire not to have generalised information. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) addressed the House at considerable length on Report about the inadvisability of a general ban. It is for that reason that the words "of a particular kind" have been included. But for the debate on Report, the words would not have been before us now.
    Let me deal with the question of the mark. It could be that a product was put on the market wrongly bearing the sign of the British Standards Institution. It is possible for misleading information to be in the form of some well-recognised symbol, and it was to spell out the need to include the misuse of such a symbol that the words were added to the subsection. The matter is fairly straightforward when seen in that context.
    How will the Bill work in the future? I believe that it will work on this point as in the past, with regulations made with clarity and infrequently, as under the 1961 Act.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 4

    POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
    Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 7, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("except") in line 10 and insert:
    ("No information obtained by virtue of this section shall be disclosed").
    Mr. Trotter: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may discuss Lords amendments nos. 8 and 10.
    Mr. Trotter: Lords amendment no. 7 makes it clear that disclosure of information that is obtained under clause 4 by anyone who receives it otherwise than for one of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) to (e) is prohibited.
    It is important to ensure that the prohibition in subsection (3) of the disclosure of information provided in response to a notice served by the Secretary of State applies not only to the Government Department officials who first receive that information but to any other person to whom that information is made available.
    Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Will my hon. Friend explain why the words "to another person" have been omitted in the Lords amendment? Subsection (3), as originally drafted, read:
    "shall not disclose the information to another person except".
    The amendment simply states that
    "No information obtained by virtue of this section shall be disclosed".
    It does not state in what circumstances disclosure could be made, or to whom, so I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will explain why those words have been left out.
    Mr. Trotter: My hon. Friend has raised a question of the detail of the wording rather than the principle behind it. If I understand it correctly, he is saying that we are now widening the scope of the disclosure. Is that correct?
    Mr. Rhodes James: No. I apologise to my hon. Friend. As I understand it, the result of the Lords amendment would be to make less precise the wording as it was originally, namely, "to another person". What we have now is the word "disclosed"." "Disclosed" could mean disclosed in terms of publicity. It could mean something disclosed to a group, or disclosed in a considerable number of ways. The original subsection (3) was fairly precise. I assure my hon. Friend that I am not making a major point about this matter, but I should like to know why this was done.
    Mr. Trotter: I think that the opportunity has been taken, in perhaps the tightening of the drafting here, to widen the scope of the constraint. I hope that my hon. Friend takes that point.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Yes.
    Mr. Trotter: It would be possible to have a general disclosure rather than a disclosure to an individual. I believe that that was the substance of that amendment.
    Mr. Body: There may be another explanation, because a Government Department is not a person. In considering Lords amendment no. 8, we are considering the insertion of the phrase
    "or a Northern Ireland Department".
    If that must go in, quite obviously it would be even worse drafting if the subsection were to begin with the words "A person".
    That brings me to a criticism of Lords amendment no. 8, which I really do not like. I hope that we shall have an explanation of it from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). As matters now stand, paragraph (d) creates an exception. The exception is phrased in this way:
    "for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to fulfil a Community obligation".
    My first criticism is that I think that this whole thing is totally misconceived. It illustrates how in high places Community law is not yet understood. I should have thought that the Minister of State, who has had considerable experience of this matter in the last year or two, would know at once that article 189 of the Treaty of Rome is the only article that could create a Community obligation. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is well aware of the meaning of article 189, but I sometimes wonder whether my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and Tynemouth quite understand the full effect of that article. It prevails over anything that we may do.
    Mr. John Fraser: May I explain? There may be a provision of the Community allowing for general circulation of goods throughout the Community and carrying with it the implication that those goods are safe. However—I am sure that this appeals to the hon. Gentleman—if we wish to prevent the circulation

    2011
    of those goods because we believe them to be dangerous and unsafe—if we wish to act in contravention of a permission for circulation given by the Community—we are empowered to do so. The Community obligation is simply to tell the Commission what we are proposing, that we intend to prohibit the goods. It is not an inhibition upon our powers. We can exercise our domestic powers notwithstanding what the EEC may say.
    Mr. Body: I am graeful to the Minister for that explanation, but I do not think that it detracts from the point that I am making. In accordance with clause 4 the Secretary of State is given considerable powers to obtain information from individuals and companies. Obviously much of this information would be confidential, or at least those giving it would wish it to be so. For that reason we go on to subsection (3), which makes it a criminal offence for the person receiving the information—the Secretary of State—to disclose it to anyone else. If the Community requires that information, it can be given it only by regulation, and the Secretary of State or anyone acting on his behalf will be bound by the regulation. That must be within the knowledge of the Minister. In my opinion, clause 4(3)(d) is unnecessary. However, it is there, and we must accept it.
    I would like to know why we have what appears to be an example of bad grammar. In Lords amendment no. 8 we are invited to insert:
    "(`or a Northern Ireland Department')"
    after the words "Secretary of State". I hope that we shall have a fairly clear explanation from the Minister why those words should be inserted.
    Mr. Moate: I wish to make a brief intervention, primarily to ask for further information from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) or the Minister. My hon. Friend gave us an explanation about Lords amendment no. 7, but I am still not clear whether the amendment introduces a significant difference. My hon. Friend did not explain why we should accept the amendment. It states that
    "No information obtained by virtue of this section shall be disclosed."
    2012
    This replaces the existing words, which are not unfamiliar. One wonders whether the normal disclosure provisions that we often find in legislation are inadequate. Reading the alternative wording, I cannot detect any significant difference. I am afraid that my hon. Friend did net explain clearly why the amendment was necessary and should be accepted.
    My particular inquiries relate to Lords amendment no. 8. I do not believe that my hon. Friend has explained why that amendment, or Lords amendment no. 10, is necessary. Dealing with Lords amendment no. 8, may I ask him to explain the point about the Community obligation and the Northern Ireland Department? The first question that comes to my mind concerns devolution in Scotland. If we are including the Secretary of State for a Northern Ireland Department ought we to consider whether it is necessary to include a provision dealing with a devolved Scottish body?
    I am concerned about the reply that the Minister gave on the question of the Community obligation to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). He seemed to suggest that it was necessary to have this proviso if we wished to furnish information to our Community partners to enable them to deal with dangerous goods that might be travelling round the Community. If that is so, I am sure that no one would wish to prevent the Government from imparting such information to assist in preventing the transport of dangerous goods.
    3.45 p.m.
    I am worried, however, by the Minister's suggestion that he would not have such powers were it not for this provision. The need to control the transport of dangerous goods extends far beyond the boundaries of the European Economic Community. Surely we are concerned with all international transit. Would we not have power, even under this Bill, to give the information to other international organisations? I hope that we would have such power and that it would not be restricted to the European Economic Community, because that would not be logical. We are entitled to a wider explanation on this point and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to help us.
    Mr. Trotter: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to that point. The effect of devolution on the provisions of this Bill will have to be considered when devolution comes about, if it ever does. Some amendments may well be necessary, together with other very tedious consequences of that legislation.
    I think that the situation is clear regarding the Common Market. I appreciate the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) about further international bodies. As I understand it, there would be problems about our giving information to them under this legislation, but we may have to consider the point for the future.
    I believe that if a British firm gives information, in confidence, to a Government Department, there should be a strict limit to how far that information can be passed on. I do not believe that the information should be bandied about the world merely because it has been given to one Department in Whitehall.
    Mr. Moate: It is not logical to suggest that it would be right to give certain information to Brussels but not right to give that information—say, concerning dangerous chemicals—to Spain.
    Mr. Trotter: The answer to that is that Spain will shortly be joining the Common Market.
    Mr. Moate: Not for a few years.
    Mr. Trotter: Under the constitution in Northern Ireland, the Department itself in Northern Ireland has the power to act rather than through its Minister. That is the explanation for the perhaps rather peculiar English in that regard.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments nos. 8 to 37 agreed to.

HEARING AID COUNCIL ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
HEARING AID COUNCIL ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Clause 1

    AMENDMENT OF 1968 ACT
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I beg to move amendment no. 1,
    2014
    in page 1, line 11, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take the following amendments:
    No. 2, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'any means of'.
    No. 3, in page 1, line 15, after 'advertisements', insert:
    in national and local newspapers and periodicals'.
    No. 4, in page 1, leave out lines 18 to 22.
    No. 5, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'practice or business' and insert:
    'hearing aid dispensing practice or hearing aid dispensing business'.
    No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 1 to 12.
    No. 7, in page 2, line 6, leave out from 'aids' to end of line 12.
    No. 8, in page 2, leave out lines 13 and 14.
    Mr. Bottomley: I should like to make three preliminary points. First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) for the work that he has done for the deaf and those with hearing difficulties during his time in the House. The House will know that it was he who promoted the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968.
    The second point is that no one in this House would want to support reprehensible practices by anyone involved in the industry. It is very important that these points should be put on the record at the beginning of the debate.
    The third point—this became clear in Committee—is that the positions adopted in the industry over some of the proposals affecting it are not diametrically opposed, in terms of intent. There may be some people who totally object to any provision for private dispensing in the industry, but in Committee very few speeches were made putting forward that point of view. It is accepted that at the present time there is room for private dispensing of hearing aids, and the question is how best to regulate the industry.
    As the House will know, for the last 10 years there has been regulation through the Hearing Aid Council. The question concerns the degree to which further changes should be made—whether it is

    2015
    appropriate to make them through the precise form of wording in the Bill or whether it should be done through the provisions and under the guidance of the advertising standards. In other words, there is doubt about the best way to go about it.
    Those are the matters to which my amendments are addressed.
    In Committee there was disagreement on the question whether the amendments that had been accepted by the Bill's sponsors had not already wrecked the Bill. It was said, for example, that by including a provision that the Hearing Aid Council shall have power to bring forward a code of practice, the Bill was already wrecked. This refers, of course, to the point about "shall" or "may", with which my first amendment deals.
    My view is that that was an incorrect point of view and that the Bill has not been wrecked. Nor would it be wrecked by any of the amendments that I am now proposing.
    Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The hon. Member has made it clear that he is not opposed to the principle of trying to help deaf and old people but that he is moving a number of amendments to improve the Bill. If I give him the assurance that I accept all those amendments, may we proceed, because by so doing the Bill will be preserved? If we do not accept those amendments and proceed immediately, I am afraid that under the timetable the Bill will fall. I give the hon. Member the assurance that all his amendments will be accepted. That being so, would it not be better not to delay the House further?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful for that intervention. However, there are a number of difficulties. The first is that some of the amendments are mutually exclusive, and that is a very important point. The second, which is also important, is that the advice from the Hearing Aid Council was that the regulations which might be brought forward or the code of practice which has now been substituted for the regulations would have to be brought in over an extended period, and in its view the time scale would be extended at least until 1981.
    2016
    My view is that this House, as part of Parliament, has a responsibility to make sure that legislation leaves it in a comprehensible form. As I say, some of my amendments are mutually exclusive. If they were accepted en masse, it would make a mockery of this House, and we have a responsibility not to do that.
    The other question is one that is very importantly addressed to the Treasury Bench. It is whether the Government feel that this Bill is fulfilling the purpose to which those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee addressed themselves.
    The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): Having dealt with that objection, I hope that the hon. Member will now get on with moving his amendments.
    Mr. Bottomley: I am afraid that I did not catch that intervention. If the point is that the Government believe that the provisions in the Bill and the amendments which the hon. Member for Brent, South now says that he is prepared to accept—some of which were put forward in Committee, especially amendment no. 1, changing the word "shall" to "may"—are acceptable, I believe that there will be no difficulty either in having a presentation Bill if this Bill fails to get through this Session or in the Government's bringing forward the non-controversial measure which this Bill, together with the amendments, would make it.
    I turn now to the amendments themselves and use one example—
    Mr. Pavitt: Does the hon. Member agree that he has now made it quite obvious that he does not want to improve the Bill? He is trying to block the Bill. If he really wants to improve the Bill he can have all the improvements that he seeks immediately. Is not the hon. Member quite insincere when he says that he is seeking only to improve the Bill? He is trying to block the Bill, and he appears to be succeeding.
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Brent, South is sufficiently experienced in this House to recognise that allegations of insincerity are not appropriate. I shall not pick up that point.

    2017
    I should like now to go through the amendments, because I believe that they are important.
    Amendment no. 4 seeks to leave out that part of the Bill which says that the Council shall draw up a code of practice regulating
    "the carrying on of practice or business by persons registered as dispensers and persons employing such dispensers under names other than those under which they are registered;"
    We know that the members of certain professions are prohibited from taking part, or can have their right to take part, in other businesses outside the profession regulated by a professional body. Reading this clause, one assumes that the same thing would apply to the dispensers of hearing aids. That is the kind of sloppy drafting that should be examined very carefully.
    A second point concerns the whole question of advertising. It is not clear from the Hearing Aid Council whether it has a considered view on this aspect or whether—
    It being Four o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Further consideration what day? No day named.

  CIVIL LIABILITY (CONTRIBUTION) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

POST OFFICE WORKERS (INDUSTRIAL ACTION) BILL
Order for consideration (not amended in the Standing Committee), read.
Hon. MembersObject.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Further consideration what day?
Mr. Norman Buchan: Now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not possible.
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like some guidance on this matter. This Bill passed its Second Reading in this House by a majority of 20 votes to 1—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is now opposed business.
Mr. Buchan: I question that because—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot take a point of order now.
Mr. Buchan: At what point may I put a point of order? We have had shameful treatment of some important Bills today—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may be, but not by the Chair.
Mr. Buchan: At what point may I make a point of order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There cannot be a point of order at this moment. If the hon. Gentleman persists in saying "Now" for further consideration, I am unable to accept that.
Mr. Buchan: In that case I withdraw "Now" and look for your guidance as to how far we may proceed with this Bill. It is a measure which, when it went into Committee—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must name a day. He may choose his own day.
Mr. Buchan: Tomorrow, Mr. Deputy Speaker and may I explain why—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Tomorrow is a non-parliamentary day.
Mr. Buchan: Monday next.

POST OFFICE WORKERS (INDUSTRIAL ACTION) BILL

  CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION BILL
Order for further consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee), read.
Hon. Members: Object.
To be further considered upon Monday next.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for further consideration (not amended in the Standing Committee).
Hon. Members: Object.
To be further considered upon Monday next.

ESTATE AGENTS BILL
Order for consideration (as amended In the Standing Committee), read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Further consideration what day? No day named.

ESTATE AGENTS BILL

  IMPORT OF LIVE FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported without amendment.
  Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

CIGARETTE SALES (DISTRIBUTION OF UNSOLICITED PUBLICITY MATERIAL) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

HAIRDRESSERS (REGISTRATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (DEPOSITS AND NOMINATIONS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I should like afterwards to raise a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

INNER CITY (DISPOSAL OF VACANT PUBLIC LAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

DESIGNATION OF REGIONAL BOUNDARIES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

DISABLED PERSONS (MOBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

MOTORWAY NOISE (INSULATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

SOCIAL SECURITY (KIDNEY PATIENTS) (No. 2) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

COMPANIES (QUALIFICATION OF COMPANY SECRETARIES) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

DEER BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

COUNCIL TENANTS' CHARTER BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

TERTIARY EDUCATION INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL
Read a Second time.
Mr. Neville Trotter: I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Hon. Members: Object.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

SERVICES WIDOWS (PENSIONS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

COMPENSATION FOR LOCAL MALADMINISTRATION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. MembersObject.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

FILMS BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I suggest that there has been a slip of the tongue and that the hon. Member who objected did not mean to do so? The Bill is accepted by the whole House. It is a technical Bill to make an alteration. There was no objection to it. I am sure that the hon. Member who objected will allow the Bill to go through if he has another chance to do so.
Hon. Members: Object.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

WATER SERVICE CHARGES (REBATES) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POLITICAL FUNDS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1974 (AMENDMENT) (No. 3) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 27th July.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS ACT 1970 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

MENTAL HEALTH (TRIBUNALS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR THE NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

HOUSEBOATS (RENT ALLOWANCES AND RATE REBATES) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

COMPANIES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

HOUSING (SHORTHOLD TENANCIES) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

LIQUOR PRIZES BILL
Read a Second time.
Mr. John Stradling Thamas: I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Hon. Members: Object.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

PRESCRIBED DRUGS (REGULATION OF PROMOTION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day'? No day named.

AGE OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

AGE OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT BILL

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, & c.)
  That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Coffee Extracts and Chicory Extracts) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. Thomas Cox].
  Question agreed to.

MANSION BLOCK FLATS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Thomas Cox.]
4.14 p.m.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams rose—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I must point out to hon. Members that the points of order that they intend to raise will be taken out of the time which has been given to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) for the Adjournment.
Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I said earlier that I would raise a point of order and you accepted that it would be in order to do so. I hope that it will not be necessary to take up time on my point of order or to take time from anyone else.
We have seen a most peculiar situation developing in the House. I do not speak about the merits of the Post Office Workers (Industrial Action) Bill. We all recognise the merits of the Bill that was blocked—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order that is a matter for the Chair, will he indicate what it is as briefly as possible?
Mr. Buchan: I am trying to say what it is not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not arguing on the merits of the Bill, because they are manifest. I am seeking guidance from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on what has happened. I am, therefore, required to explain the background.
The Bill with which I am concerned was passed in the House by a majority of 20 to 1. It went into Committee and went through all the processes of the Committee. That is because we were informed that the amendments would be withdrawn to let the Bill go through Committee so that amendments might be tabled on the Floor of the House. In good faith we proceeded to the Floor of the House today, only to discover that no amendments had been tabled. On the contrary, a blocking motion had been tabled. It seems to abuse the House when a blockage is used to prevent free discussion and the passing of a measure wanted by about 200 hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What happened in Committee is nothing to do with the Chair. In any event, the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was raising a point of order after 4 o'clock.
Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy
2028
Speaker. It is extremely important. Surely any point of order may be raised at any time. The rule states that opposed business may not be taken after 4 o'clock. It does not state that points of order may not be raised after 4 o'clock.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We were going through the list of Bills, and objections, if there were any, were being taken. That is all that was happening.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was introducing a Bill to the House from another place. I wish only to make the point that an error has been made. The Bill was accepted by the Conservative Party in the House. The Opposition Deputy Chief Whip was in error, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to put the error right.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the procedure is not a matter for the Chair. Clearly the slaughter of the innocent must be raised through other channels and brought to the notice of the Procedure Committee. I wish to raise a separate point. In my view the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) was guilty of a terminological inexactitude in a statement that he made before the House. My ears are not so good as they might be and, therefore, I am not pressing the charge. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman misled the House. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to investigate the matter to ascertain whether he said that there was no intention of blocking the Bill but merely a wish to improve it, after which he succeeded in blocking the Bill. If that is so, I should be grateful to have the opportunity of seeing you on Monday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to learn whether I am correct.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of doing that precisely on Monday.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: I wish to draw the attention of the House, especially that of the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department of the Environment, to an urgent social problem that affects people living in mansion blocks. Naturally it is primarily a matter of interest to a certain number of constituencies in inner London and some other constituencies

2029
outside the centre of London where there are large numbers of such blocks, but it is also a matter of special concern to hon. Members of all parties who are concerned about the rights and problems of those who have decided to live in flats rather than in individual houses.
The problem was brought to my attention with great urgency by a group in my constituency—and others outside—who proved that something urgently needed to be done about it. I accordingly sought the leave of the House under the Ten Minutes Rule to introduce a Bill on 22nd February. I am glad to say that I was permitted to do so and that the Bill received distinguished all-party support. The Bill was not opposed.
Shortly afterwards, I was given encouragement by the Minister for Housing and Construction for my project. He said that he thought it might be useful if I took advice from the Department. Indeed, I did. I should like to pay tribute to the help that officials in the Department gave me, because it undoubtedly improved the Bill.
The Bill was put down for Second Reading on a day in May. Because I knew that it was in line with the Government's policy and, indeed, with the policy of the parties on the Opposition side, I thought that it would receive a Second Reading on the nod. I was appalled when I heard that no one in the House had opposed the Bill, except the Government Front Bench, acting on the instructions of the Minister for Housing and Construction.
The Minister's conduct over the Bill has been most singular. He agreed to meet me on 24th May to discuss the matter. However, without giving any explanation that I could comprehend, he refused my suggestion that he might meet representatives of tenants associations.
Late on the evening of 23rd May I received a letter from the Minister telling me that he was not prepared to see me the following morning. Knowing that he was in the House, because we were both waiting for a Division that might not take place for an hour or so, I knocked on his door and asked whether he could spare a few minutes to explain what had happened to change the Department's attitude to my Bill. He gave me no explanation. He insisted that
2030
he was ahead of me in devising legislation of this kind, and then turned me out of his office.
We know, however, from an interview that the Minister gave on Tuesday 16th May to Mr. Roger Todd in the Daily Mirror that the Government's attitude has not changed. I believe they still intend to do something on the lines of my Bill. We read in the newspaper that the Minister said:
"We want to help tenants by giving them the right to compulsory purchase when they hear their homes are to be sold over their heads. We are sorting out the legal difficulties now."
He is quoted later in the article as saying:
"I hope that new legislation will put an end to tenants becoming the victims of speculation by landlords'.
One way the tenants could become owners would be by forming themselves into a housing association and buying their blocks as co-operatives."
That is precisely the object that is enshrined in my Bill, as I made perfectly clear in the speech that I made on 22nd February. I feel that I and all those who supported the Bill in the House, and, indeed, the people who live in mansion blocks, are entitled to an explanation from the Department regarding its intentions. The Minister has not seen fit to take part in this short debate. Therefore, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State has been empowered to commit the Department to legislation on the lines indicated in my Bill at the earliest possible date.
Since the unhappy clash that I had with the Minister in May, an interesting new development has caught the attention of Londoners—namely, the campaign by people living in Regency Lodge and in Northways to obtain powers to secure their future in their blocks by asking the Camden Council to intervene. This interesting development presents the Government with something of a challenge, because they will have to decide whether to endorse the use of compulory powers for this object.
I do not want to enter into further a matter which is not a constituency interest of my own. I draw attention to it because it shows the intense concern felt by people living in mansion blocks about their future when the policy of the tenants begins to differ from that of the owners or head lessors.

2031
The problem is particularly acute in London. Rents and service charges are rising more rapidly than the incomes of the people living in these blocks and, as far as I am able to glean from the evidence, much more rapidly than the general rate of inflation of prices in the economy as a whole. There is an intense sense of injustice and a fear that the people living in the blocks, sooner or later, will be obliged to move out. That process is being rapidly accelerated by what appears to be a rush of foreign money coming into London for the acquisition of mansion blocks as a speculative venture for the maximisation of profit.
In general, I do not disapprove of people working for profit, but one has to examine the side-effects. In this case the side-effects are damaging to the social fabric of London. Settled communities are being driven out rapidly and the people who are replacing them are those who have only a short-stay interest in London and do not intend to settle here and set down roots. But those people are able to pay whatever rent is asked, because they can draw on company or foreign funds. For them the rents are acceptable, although they are higher than the old fair rents and completely out of range for the native population. Rapid change is taking place in London, which the Department is allowing to continue month by month without making it clear that ultimately it intends to intervene.
If a person has a house which he finds is becoming too expensive he has something which he can sell. He can move out of London or into a smaller place, because he has an asset which enables him to plan for the future to some extent. But if a person is living in a flat with only security of tenure and is then forced to leave, what has he got to provide for his future elsewhere, except perhaps his furniture? That is the problem that is causing such intense concern. I hope that the Minister recognises the need for something to be done at once.
When service charges are used to force betterment of a mansion block on unwilling tenants there is an immediate crisis and the relationship deteriorates between the tenants and the owners or the owners' agents. There is evidence that owners are using the opportunity to raise service charges and to force the tenants to pay
2032
to improve the quality of their blocks, so that when the tenants are eventually forced out, the asset has been improved by the very people who can no longer afford to remain in the property.
When rents rise rapidly many tenants are forced out. That creates vacancies in the blocks which provide the owner with the opportunity to change the character of the block by stealth, by introducing a new and discordant element, usually from overseas. The ways of life and habits of the new tenants often jar on the old tenants and they are increasingly inclined to move out.
Parliament has endorsed the principle of enfranchisement for leaseholders in housing. We stopped short at enfranchisement for the occupants of flats, partly because of the technicalities of the problem which cannot be approached in the same way as we approach the enfranchisement of people living in houses.
We are not held back by political controversy but simply by the Department's inertia and the lack of will to proceed. The Government have adopted the principle of co-ownership and they have endorsed that in their Green Paper. The Opposition parties are devoted to the concept of a property owning democracy and the virtues of home ownership. We want people to be able to own the bricks and mortar in which they live. We want people to have the self-respect which goes with security of tenure. This is not a matter of political dispute.
I draw attention to the signatures to the Bill. One is that of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) who frequently intervenes on housing matters and speaks on housing matters for the Labour Party on the national executive. He has given me the warmest support for my Bill.
Another signature is that of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), the Liberal Party spokesman on housing. I chose to ask only one of my hon. Friends to sponsor the Bill because I wished to preserve an all-party balance. Naturally, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), who represents the same borough as I and who is therefore fully as informed as I am about the problems of inner London.

2033
The object of the Bill is to make it possible for tenants to form a co-ownership scheme under specified rules which would be workable and which would empower them to negotiate with the head lessor or with their freeholder with a view to acquiring the proprietorship of their block on terms which were fair to both sides. The Bill does not offer the tenants confiscatory powers—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will be aware that in an Adjournment debate he is not empowered to ask for legislation. He can concentrate on the administrative action which the Minister might take, which would be of assistance to him in dealing with the problem in his constituency.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In suggesting to the Department what I feel it ought to do I should like it to look at the solution adopted in my Bill, because it appears to be floundering without knowing what it should do.
I implore the Under-Secretary to make a statement here and now to confirm that it is the Government's intention to act, that they intend to introduce legislation or to find some other method of proceeding. I do not mind what they do, but I want them to do something as quickly as possible. With the prospects of a General Election arising, perhaps before fresh major legislation can be introduced, it may be difficult for the Minister to give a commitment beyond saying that the Government are determined to act. That would be useful, and it is all I ask.
I want to reach the people who advise the owners of Euro-dollar funds and other assets which are likely to be invested in these blocks in central London. I want them to realise that the glitter has gone out of the opportunities for quick profit at the expense of people living in flats in central London because Parliament is united and determined to act. That is what we seek. We want an assurance that legislation is planned—or some other administrative measure which would have the same effect—and that the Government are determined to act quickly.
It was a decided set-back for all the people who support my campaign and for parliamentary colleagues who think as I
2034
do that the Department chose to have my Bill blocked officially from the Government Front Bench. However, in this short debate I have provided the Department with the opportunity to undo the damage that it did, and I hope that the Minister will not fail to take it.
4.34 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me a moment of his time to comment specifically on the tenure of mansion flats. Regency Lodge and North-ways are in my constituency. The phenomenon that we are seeing today is no longer the Freshwater-Stern syndrome. Today we see companies coming in which are registered in the Channel Islands with Luxembourg directors and are answerable to no one. I certainly support the attempts of the tenants there to find a way of buying their own flats.
I want to ask the Minister to read the Committee and Report stages of the Housing Act 1974, when several issues of major importance to tenants were raised. These included the questions of service charges, consultation and specific performance of landlords' covenants. On all these matters the then Ministers, the right hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr Freeson) and Manchester, Ardwick (Mr Kaufman) made noises. Today I ask the Minister to look at those proceedings to see whether, four years later, something can be done to make some progress in the interests of tenants.
4.34 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I give the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) the assurance that I shall look very carefully into the matter that he has raised, and I shall write to him if that is necessary.
I think that the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) was rather unfair to my right hon. Friend. However, I do not want to go into the procedures that occurred. My right hon. Friend is always ready to meet hon. Members. However, sometimes it is inconvenient when a person bursts into one's room, and one is not able to give him the consideration that one would like to give.
The other thing is that certainly no one can accuse my right hon. Friend of being

2035
anything other than enthusiastic about finding a variety of tenures. He is very keen indeed. When, however, the hon. Member talks about taking action now, he should remember that the nearest parallel to the kind of legal procedure that he wants to go through now is the Leasehold Reform Act. That contains some 100 pages. As the hon. Member mentioned when he introduced his Bill, it is really a minefield of technicalities. It is more than that. There are various legal matters that must be gone into very carefully. We are pursuing them very urgently. We are having a review concerning mansion blocks and so on. There is no question of the Government dragging their feet concerning that matter.
I am as concerned as everyone else about rising rents and about any tenants who are in difficulties. I want to deal with what the hon. Gentleman has said about rents and, in particular, the working of the fair rent system.
We can all agree that no one in this world likes his rent to go up. There are no votes in putting up rents. So I can well understand why those who are not in office take up the complaints of their constituents on the subject of rent increases. Nevertheless, as a result of very biased articles which have appeared in parts of the press, there is a highly distorted picture of the situation. I want to put the facts on record.
I reject emphatically the notion that private tenants in London, for instance, or in some particular part of it, whose rents are fixed in accordance with the Rent Act 1977 are on average suffering higher levels of increase than tenants generally either in the private or in the public sector.
To put the matter in perspective, I should explain that once a rent has been fixed by a rent officer or a rent assessment committee—I know that the hon. Member was referring to service charges, and I shall come to that matter shortly—three years must elapse before a re-registration can come into effect. To see how current increases in fair rents compare with other increases, we have to look at the percentage increase in rents previously registered between three and four years before.
2036
On this basis, taking England and Wales as a whole, unfurnished private rents re-registered in 1977 showed an average increase of 47 per cent. over three years. Breaking this down into areas, increases in 1977 were 50 per cent. in England and Wales, outside London; 39 per cent, in London as a whole; and 40 per cent. in Kensington and Chelsea. This last figure is less than the increase in council rents throughout the country between October 1974 and October 1977. It is significantly less than the increase in average earnings, the retail price index and the index of repair and maintenance costs.
On this basis of comparison, Kensington and Chelsea does not seem to have much to complain about, although I well understand that when we talk about Mr. Average there are obviously genuine cases of individual hardship, but this in no way justifies any attack on the fair rent system. Individual cases are alleviated in other ways, as the House well knows.
I want to make a brief comment on the effect of market rents in London. While it is true that the market for rented property in parts of London has been subject to an increase in certain types of demand and that some very high rents are being paid on the open market, I cannot see any evidence that this has artificially increased the level of fair rents. Indeed, all the statistical evidence I have already given suggests that it has had virtually no influence at all. Nor can I see how investment in rented blocks by overseas purchasers can have any effect on rent levels under the fair rent system. The personal circumstances of the landlord and the tenant play no part in the fixing of a fair rent. The hon. Member is totally mistaken if he imagines that Arab or any other investment can affect fair rents.
I want to make a brief comment about those who are in special difficulty, particularly elderly people who are on fixed incomes. I am concerned about those. But I remind the House that if one takes the case of a married couple paying the average fair rent in Kensington of £16 a week, supposing that their income is £55 a week, derived perhaps from pensions and investments, they would currently be entitled to £9·62 a week off their rent by way of allowance.

2037
I turn now to the question of tenants or leaseholders of flats in mansion blocks who are dissatisfied with the standards of management and maintenance and who feel that they are not getting value for the money they pay in service charges. The Government are conducting a special study on this. We are not in any way dragging our feet. We want to get it right, and everyone knows the technical and legal difficulties of framing rent legislation. We are aware of that in our review of the Rent Act.
Part of the trouble arises simply from the age of many mansion blocks and the way that they are designed. I make no criticism of that, but blocks built around the turn of the century are now beginning to need very expensive renewal of features such as boilers, roofs and lifts. Some traditional landlords neglected their responsibilities for timely maintenance in the past, not through avarice but out of a misplaced readiness to keep rents down. When the burden of repair began to accumulate and the wherewithal was lacking, they were only too glad to cut and run by selling out to the speculators and the asset strippers of the property boom years.
These people had not the slightest interest in performing the normal functions of a landlord but were after a quick capital gain. The hon. Gentleman has said that that is happening now. It is nothing new. It is a continuing problem, and we want to deal with it. The method they adopted was to go for sale of individual flats on long leasehold in the type of operation known as "break-up".
There is nothing objectionable about the sale of long leases as such, where the buyer is willing and able. As the hon. Member has pointed out, it gives the occupier a stake in the equity value of his home in contrast to renting, which does not. But the methods by which many of the asset strippers have sought to achieve such sales in some of the older blocks have been highly questionable. They include deliberate failure to repair lifts and boilers and to provide services contracted for, the keeping of flats empty when renting tenants leave and incessant
2038
offers to tenants to purchase with threats of increased prices failing an immediate decision. When people have become leaseholders, they have too frequently found themselves saddled with very onerous leases about which they had little chance to negotiate and on which they seem to have received scant professional advice worthy of the name.
In this atmosphere it is not surprising that residents, be they tenants or leaseholders, should increasingly wish to have much greater control over the blocks in which they live. I am pleased that there are already a number of places where tenants have negotiated to purchase the freehold of their block and set up a management organisation under their own control to look after all the common parts. Where such schemes have a mixture of leaseholders and renting tenants, there is a need for possible conflicts of interest to be resolved, but the problems are not insuperable. There may be cases where purchase of the freehold is not felt to be necessary. Residents may simply feel that they want fair leases, more information about the costs incurred in providing services and more control over the appointment and functioning of managing agents.
In the Green Paper, we said that we would consider the scope for enabling private tenants to purchase their homes collectively where blocks were up for sale. We are currently giving urgent study to the legal and financial problems—and they are many—associated with this concept as well as to the other possibilities I have mentioned for improving the position of residents of mansion blocks. We are determined to take whatever action is necessary and possible, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not disagree with me when I say that extending compulsory powers in an area of such legal complexity needs thorough analysis if we are to achieve the desired results. I look forward to his support for our proposals when we bring them forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Five o'clock.