Sitting of 6 July 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITIONS

  Proportional Representation
  9.34 am
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition about proportional representation drawn from the four Croydon constituencies, one of which I have the honour to represent. I present it today on behalf of all four Members of Parliament for Croydon.
  The petition says:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that Parliament should prepare a Bill for future elections to be held by proportional representation and should hold a referendum to give the people a choice between this Reform Bill and the preservation of the present system.
  To lie upon the Table.
  9.35 am
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to present a similar petition:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the registered electors in the Borough of Stockton on Tees.
  Sheweth that they believe that the present system of elections to the House of Commons is unjust and unrepresentative.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Parliament should prepare a Bill for future elections to be held by proportional representation and should hold a referendum to give the people a choice between this Reform Bill and the preservation of the present system.
  That petition has been presented to me by Mr. Ken Peace of 1, Hillcrest avenue, Fairfield, Stockton, in my constituency. He is the organiser of the Fair Votes Campaign in the Stockton and Teesside area and he has collected the signatures which I am presenting to the House today.
  I strongly support the petition because the last election showed that there is gross under-representation in the House of large sections of opinion, and, as was even more strongly demonstrated in the European elections, the system of voting in Britain today leads to vast numbers of people and vast areas of opinion not being represented at all.
  It gives me great pleasure, therefore, to present the petition to the House his morning.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Video Recordings Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Clause 2

    EXEMPTED WORKS
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 19 leave out subsections (3) to (5).
    9.37 am
    Mr. Graham Bright: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9.
    Mr. Bright: As hon. Members will see, many amendments have been made to clause 3 in another place. Although I am moving this large groups of amendments en bloc it will be convenient if, in speaking to them, I break them down into four groups. I apologise for taking a little time on the first group of amendments but they are technical and I need to explain them to the House.
    Amendments Nos. 1 and 9 alter the way in which the Bill deals with exemptions for medical purposes. Most medical video works will, of course, benefit from the exemption in clause 2(1). However, some bona fide medical material will fall within the scope of clause 2(2); that is why on Report I asked the House to accept amendments to add subsections (3) to (5) to the clause.
    Those subsections provided an exemption for works designed for use in training for, or carrying out, the medical or related occupations specified in subsection (4) or for carrying on the occupation of a clinical psychologist, as defined in subsection (5). It became apparent, however, that there was a loophole in the new provision. Subsections (3) to (5) of clause 3 would have exempted video works designed for certain medical personnel. Such works, particularly in the case of clinical psychologists, may well be of an explicit sexual nature designed for use in treatment. of patients. The danger was that pornographers could have latched on to that.
    Under the Bill as it stood, material exempted under clause 2 could of course be supplied without restriction to anyone. We are well aware of the guile and deviousness of pornographers. It was, I suggest, not unreasonable to have expected them to seize on that. After all, they would simply need to dress up a pornographic work so that it appeared to be designed for clinical psychologists and they would have been at liberty to supply recordings of that work to the public at large. There could be great difficulties for the courts; one blue movie is, I suppose, much the same as any other and it would be difficult to assess which of them had been designed for clincial psychologists and which had been designed for less worthy purposes.
    That would have seriously undermined the purposes of the Bill. These two amendments are designed, therefore, to deal with videos required for bona fide medical purposes by deleting subsections (3) to (5) of clause 2 and substituting new subsections (10) and (11) in clause 3.
    The proposed new subsection (10) will exempt the supply of a video recording for training for or carrying on the medical or related occupations defined in subsection

    591
    (11), or for the purposes of health services provided in pursuance of the main National Health Service legislation, or in training persons employed in the course of such services. In switching the exemption from clause 2 to clause 3 the opportunity has been taken to widen the definition of health personnel so that, besides doctors and nurses, it now embraces, for example, ambulancemen, whose training includes assisting women in labour, and health education officers, who may need to use material that depicts human organs.
    I believe that these are sensible amendments. They close the worrying potential loophole that I described, but they also ensure that the supply of a video recording to medical personnel, as described in amendment No. 9, will be exempted.
    Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and new subsection (12) in amendment No. 9 deal with "reverse supplies". In the form that it left this House, clause 3 was concerned essentially with supplies in one direction. For example, clause 3(4) exempts the supply of a video recording to a person who makes or supplies videos in the course of a business and clause 3(8) exempts the supply of a video to the broadcasters. But what of the persons who made these supplies? If, for example, the BBC wished to return a video submitted by an amateur producer, that would not have been an exempted supply, since the supply would not qualify under clause 3(4) or under clause 3(2), because the BBC would itself be returning it in the course of a business.
    9.45 am
    New subsection (12) deals with that problem by ensuring that the supply of a video recording for the purpose only of returning it to a person who had previously made an exempted supply of the recording is also an exempted supply. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 make the necessary consequential changes to clause 3(4) and, I think, improve considerably the drafting of the subsection.
    As regards amendments Nos. 4 to 6, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will recall that on Report he tabled an amendment designed to exempt supplies of video recordings between the various broadcasting interests. That amendment surfaced again in another place in the form of an amendment tabled in Committee by Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It was recognised that certain supplies among the broadcasters were not covered by the existing exemptions in clause 3.
    Under clause 3(8) as it stood, the supply of a video recording was exempted if it was for the purpose only of the broadcasting of any work that it contained by the BBC or IBA or for its distribution by a licensed cable system. But there are supplies within the broadcasting world that are not for the purpose only of broadcasting. For example, the IBA or the BBC may require to see a video work to decide whether it is suitable for broadcasting, or perhaps after it has been broadcast; or a prospective programme maker might supply a television company with a recording either of his past work or of rough cuts of a programme that he is making. Such a supply may not be for the purpose only of broadcasting.
    Of course, many of the sorts of supply that I have mentioned would be exempt under clause 3(4). Hon. Members will be aware that the ITV companies and the BBC make video works in the course of their business.
    592
    Thus, the supply of a video recording to an ITV company — even if it is not intended for broadcasting — is exempted under clause 3(4), provided that the tape or disc is not intended for onward supply to members of the public. Supplies to the BBC will be similarly exempted. But supplies to the IBA, which I understand does not make or supply video material in the course of business, would not be exempted under clause 3(4). Nor would supplies to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
    Some helpful discussions took place with representatives of the broadcasting authorities, and as a result my noble Friend Lord Nugent move amendments on Report which get round these difficulties by widening clause 3(8) to exempt the supply of a video recording with a view only to its use for or in connection with broadcasting services provided by the BBC or the IBA or a cable service.
    I am satisfied that the amendments will cover the supplies within the broadcasting world that gave rise to concern in the first place. The BBC, the IBA and the Independent Television Companies Association have been consulted about the terms of the amendments and they have welcomed them.
    Amendments Nos 7 and 8 deal with supplies to the designated authority. As it left this House, clause 3(9) exempted the supply of a video recording for the purpose only of submitting a work contained in it for the issue of a classification certificate. But the British Board of Film Censors pointed out that supplies are sometimes made to it for other purposes. For example, the board may ask to see a video in order to view the version given a classification by a foreign board of classification. In some circumstances, such a supply would not have been exempted and my noble Friend Lord Nugent therefore moved amendments on Report to get round that difficulty.
    I apologise to hon. Members for the fact that my explanation of the amendments has necessarily been long and rather complicated. The amendments clarify and supplement the exempted supplies provisions and represent, I believe, a considerable improvement to the Bill. They will also be of considerable benefit to those involved in the production of video recordings.
    Mr. Tim Brinton: I declare an interest in the British Videogram Association. The BVA has criticised the Bill, but it welcomes its main provisions, which it has always believed to be right. It has always wanted a classification system and to ban video nasties. As the clear view of the majority in both Houses is that this is the way to go ahead, the BVA will endeavour to make the provisions in the Bill work.
    Sir Bernard Braine: We should be clear from the beginning. I am relieved to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) says, but can he explain why the secretary of the BVA keeps calling the Bill a dog's breakfast?
    Mr. Brinton: I take the point. Perhaps the word "welcome" is too strong. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friends who have worked so closely on the Bill will know, the BVA was organising a voluntary system of classification, similar to that provided in the Bill, which would have been started by last September and would have been well on the way to sorting out the problems, when its plans were overtaken by events in this House.
    The Bill will cause problems, and I shall deal with them later. In a spirit of reconciliation I am trying to make it

    593
    clear that the BVA wants to try to make the Bill work. I used the word "welcome", but if it is too strong I readily withdraw it. I hope that I have reflected accurately what the BVA now believes.
    The amendments illustrate all the hesitancy with which I have approached the process. If I understand Lords amendment No. 9 correctly, a video recording supplied for use only in training in connection with any medical occupation is exempted. The second paragraph of the amendment covers the NHS, but the first stands on its own. The provision is so wide that skilful pornographers could claim that a recording was being used for genuine medical training, which need not be tied to a proper degree. I do not necessarily object to that. I am not, in spirit, a man who believes in censorship for the adult in the freedom of his own home, but that amendment and others illustrate the morass into which the Bill will lead us.
    The Bill provides exemption for broadcasters when passing tapes back and forth among themselves. I am delighted that the broadcasters have welcomed that quarter loaf of bread towards solving their problems but where will it all stop? There will be a free flow of tapes in the inevitable black market which will operate as a result of the Bill. Tapes will be offered to broadcasting organisations and will therefore be exempt.
    A simple notion that we must get rid of between 40 and 60 video nasties started last year and has been elaborated to cover 18R porn and all sorts of areas. That is highly dangerous. In effect, we are going back to the world and time of the Lord Chamberlain, when entertainments were investigated by an authority designated by law and pronouncements made on their suitability for the public.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): With respect to my hon. Friend, his welcome seems somewhat cold. It might have been better if he had not said that he welcomed the Bill. At least then we would know where we stood. What my hon. Friend has just said cannot be right. He knows that under statute the board of governors of the BBC and the directors of the IBA are obliged to observe standards of taste and decency, which gives them the right to determine what should and should not be shown on their channels.
    My hon. Friend also knows that for 70 years, under an Act of Parliament, the British Board of Film Censors has exercised a statutory power delegated to it by the local authorities in respect of the cinema. The arrangements which we propose exercise the same light hand of censorship on the video market which, had it existed 70 years ago, would have been dealt with then. The video business is a new development.
    Mr. Brinton: The position is different today. The Minister says that the British Board of Film Censors is established by law. That law covers safety in cinemas; it does not enjoin the film censor to look at all films and to give them a certificate. Film censorship is done voluntarily and it works well.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that the BBC and the IBA have a huge responsibility in controlling what goes out on television screens, but they are not obliged by law to preview every script or programme that goes out. It would be impossible to do that, because many programmes are live.
    Under the Bill, for the first time, Parliament is saying that a body that it is setting up has a duty to preview every
    594
    videogram, from every source, that is sold to the public. That is the difference, and I maintain that it is a big difference. As Lord Houghton said, this is the first time in more than 100 years that censorship has been brought to bear on the individual to control what he may enjoy in his own home. Earlier, I was reflecting the BVA view in what I hope was a constructive way. I am now putting my own views and my own cautions before the House. It would be wrong not to do so.
    Mr. John Powley: My hon. Friend rightly mentions the possibility of a black market. I should regret that, but does he agree that whenever such legislation is enacted, by the nature of life these days, someone will always seek to benefit from it and to get round the law? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a good attempt to correct something which is going wrong, and that inevitably some will seek to manipulate their way around the law?
    Mr. Brinton: Of course I accept that. At the same time, I reflect that 12 months or 18 months ago we successfully introduced a private Member's Bill to get rid of video pirates. As the Bill bites, that legislation will become less effective because of the temptations described by my hon. Friend. We must accept the realities of life.
    10 am
    This is my last opportunity to express my fears and to echo those of many in the industry as well as those of certain of their Lordships. As I have said, I am not trying to destroy the Bill.
    Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has no chance of doing that.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Oh yes he has.
    Mr. Brinton: I am not attempting to ascertain whether there is a chance of destroying the Bill. That is not the point. I wish to put on record the fear that the Bill has changed from what was a simple idea — it had my support and that of many others—into something more complicated. That is the problem. I shall not seek to vote against any of the amendments, because I feel that we must now enact and implement this measure. We must try to make it work smoothly and as well as possible, but I feel that I must enter my reservations.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I take up the courageous remarks of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) with some trepidation. I agree very much with what he said. The amendments illustrate the fundamental problems that surround the Bill. The general principle underlying the Bill is easy, straightforward and natural and it is easy for us to assent to it. It is when we come to implement the general principle that we find the detailed problems that are highlighted by the amendments. For example, there are problems for those involved in health education and for the broadcasting authorities. The problems are posed by the Bill and the amendments are attempts to circumnavigate them.
    The amendments must be seen in the context of the Bill, and I take up the note of dissent which has been uttered by the hon. Member for Gravesham, with which I agree strongly. I shall be brief in echoing his comments.
    The Bill is being passed in a fit of inattention by the House. When Divisions have taken place, few Members

    595
    have voted. The Bill has been considered at times when most Members, for good reasons, have not been present and have not been able to participate in the debates.
    Mr. Mellor: What rubbish.
    Mr. Mitchell: It is not. The Bill has not received the sustained attention of this place.
    I must utter a mea culpa. I began by strongly supporting the Bill, especially its avowed intention. I became aware of the exact repercussions of that support only at a late stage in the proceedings. We all have our interests to follow up and specialised subjects with which we are most concerned. We all have pressures on our time. That makes it all the more important that the mistakes that are made because of inattention on the part of Members like myself are followed up by a note of protest at this stage in a Bill's passage through the House.
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman takes a great deal upon himself by trying to excuse his own failure to realise that for eight months this extremely well-publicised Bill has been passing through the House by suggesting that those of us who have considered it have been guilty of inattention. Is he aware that more than 100 Members have voted in a number of Divisions on Fridays? The mere fact that he finds reasons not to be in the House is not a reason to attack the professional competence of his colleagues. He should withdraw his comment.
    Mr. Mitchell: I did not assert that the Bill was being passed in a fit of inattention on the part of those present. The Minister might be aware that there are 650 Members of this place. If about 100 Members have been voting in Divisions, that reflects a degree of inattention on the part of other hon. Members. The Minister has made a clever point, but he should remember that the House has been dealing with other legislation while the Bill has been passing through the House. One example is the Finance Bill. There has been a great deal of other legislation. If the Minister thinks that Members can devote their whole attention—it is necessary to give one's full attention to the problems that will arise from the Bill's presence on the statute book — to every Bill that comes before the House, he must enjoy a superhuman intellect and activity that is not given to many. I congratulate him on possessing those qualities.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I have allowed the exchanges to take place, but we must not have another Second Reading debate. We must direct our attention to the amendments.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are absolutely right. The Bill has not been in its present shape throughout the time that it has been before the House. It has been cobbled together, especially at the latter stages of its consideration. I have read assiduously the report of the proceedings in Committee and it is clear that fairly dramatic changes were made at the end of those proceedings. Further sensible changes and suggestions were made when the Bill was considered in another place. Those proposals were not given the attention that they merited because of the pressure on another place not to alter a private Member's Bill and open up a can of worms for this place to deal with when it came to consider their Lordships' amendments.
    596
    We are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We are conceding excessive powers and regulations in dealing with an admittedly real and important problem from which children and, in my view, adults should be protected. The powers to deal with the problem are already adequate. Under pressure from the Home Office, the trade was moving towards a system of voluntary regulation of the kind that operates effectively in the film industry. That would have been adequate to deal with the problem. By passing the Bill, which is going through Parliament in a pattern of collusion——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with the amendments, not with generalities.
    Mr. Mitchell: The amendments illustrate the problems that will be caused by the Bill, specifically to those involved in health education. Lords amendment No. 9 places a restriction on those who can participate in the processes of health education. The exemption is not as wide as it needs to be adequately to provide for the purposes of health education. The Bill and the amendments seem to restrict the activities of broadcasting organisations.
    I shall conclude my remarks by reasserting my dissent to the amendments and to the Bill itself. We are introducing censorship into the home. The amendments are a consequence of the difficulties which that introduction causes. We are forcing others—the British Board of Film Censors—to do what the House itself cannot agree to do. The amendments fail to tighten up the provisions of the Bill and leave them impossibly wide.
    Under clause 2, exempted works are not to include those
    "designed to any significant extent to stimulate or encourage anything falling within paragraph (a)"
    which is
    "human sexual activity".
    That is an impossibly wide definition. We are encouraging the nanny state. We are giving power to the Mrs Grundies of this society to intrude into our domestic affairs. They will be able to involve themselves in what goes on in the houses of individuals. I should not want them to censor the books in the library. I accept that we want to protect children from harm, but that should not be the basis for determining what I am allowed to see.
    Mr. Bright: The hon. Gentleman has referred to clause 2, which deals with exemptions. We have tried to exempt as much material as possible, including material for education processes, sport, recreation, religion and the arts. The reference which the hon. Gentleman made to subjects which should not be shown are those which are exempt and need no classification. The Bill is not spelling out that they should not be featured on video recordings. They can be shown on videos, but there is a need for classification. We are not barring these things from being shown on video recordings.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point, but clause 2 provides that a video work is not exempted if it is designed to any significant extent to stimulate or encourage human sexual activity. That seems a dangerous intrusion.
    My final criticism of the Bill is that it will effectively force people into sex shops. That is the only way in which people who want to see such videos will be able to do so. Even then, they will be censored in a way that does not

    597
    happen in private cinemas. We have no right to impose our tastes on others. If people want to see such videos, they have a perfect right to do so. Who are we to step between them?
    In this country we have a pluralistic society, which is becoming even more pluralistic, in which pluralism is based on choice. It is important that choice be maintained. We may not like the choices that people make, but we have no right to stop the choices made by adults. I support and commend the important objective of the Bill, but I do not like the consequences of widening the Bill in the way that is happening.
    I am concluding, but I believe that the Minister wants to prolong my speech.
    Mr. Mellor: If the effect of prolonging the hon. Gentleman's speech was to ensure that he knew a little more about the Bill when he sat down than when he rose, it would be for the benefit of the House. How does he think it would be possible to categorise and exclude video nasties without considering all the types of videos? Does he regard them as a self-defining category?
    Mr. Mitchell: The Minister seeks to make a clever point, and ignores clause 2. An amendment was moved in the House of Lords to exclude human sexual activity from the scope of the Bill. That would have been a sensible amendment to accept. The violence and horror of video nasties has nothing to do with that dimension. The Bill covers a far wider area than was intended or licensed by those of us who gave our implicit support to the Bill and assumed that on the basis of that implicit support a sensible measure would be developed.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the consequences of doing what he has just suggested their Lordships should have done? Does he believe that small children or adolescents in the privacy of their homes or other people's homes should be able to witness explicit sex, group sex and unnatural sex? Is that what he is suggesting? Is that the kind of liberty that he wants to rage in the homes of this country?
    Mr. Mitchell: Of course it is not; nor would I wish to impose the hon. Gentleman's fevered imagination on my children. Plainly, I should not want my children or other people's children to do that, but that is not part of the argument. We each control our own houses and our own children. I do not want my library or anyone else's to be censored by what is suitable for children. I maintain effective control over what my children see, and I believe that most parents do. The kind of picture which the hon. Gentleman is projecting is being used as an excuse to extend censorship to where it should not go and where it is irrelevant. It is an extension of the Bill's purpose. The Bill was to deal with video nasties—horror, brutality, criminality and all the other matters which I should not want anyone to see—me, my children or anyone else's children.
    10.15 am
    Under the guise of doing that, the Bill is imposing a censorship, about which I am registering a note of dissent. That note of dissent has perhaps been prolonged into a quaver by the interventions. I want to put it on record that I believe the original good intention of the Bill has been extended in a way that I find inappropriate. We may not like the choices that people make, but it is not our
    598
    prerogative to stop the choices made by adults in this way. I do not want such choices, particularly in sexual matters, to be restricted by what we find suitable and appropriate for children.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: We are a little confused about whether the hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to read the Bill or the debates that took place in this place in Committee and in the other place. To illustrate his knowledge of the Bill and its intentions, could he tell the House how many film titles are likely to be banned as video nasties? Could he also explain what classifications are likely to be imposed by the BBFC for those other films which will still be allowed into his home to sit upon his bookshelves, although he as a parent will know precisely what is in those films because of their classification?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a long intervention. If the hon. Member went down that road, he would be straying from the amendment.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not here to sit the amateur schools' examination posed by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). I do not wish to prolong my intervention. I came to register a note of dissent, which I think it is important to register.
    I have read all the Committee proceedings, the proceedings in the House of Lords and in this Chamber. They bear out what I say about the Bill being passed in a fit of inattention by the majority of hon. Members. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will concede that point. I am here to expiate my own sin of not paying the necessary attention. To do that, I am prepared to put up with all the slings and arrows Conservative Members and the Minister care to throw. I believe that it is a necessary process in a democracy to express one's dissent to what has been done in one's name — because I support the general principle of the Bill—even at this late stage.
    Before I was interrupted, I was about to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright). It is a sincerely meant tribute, because he has put a great deal of skill, hard work, effort and balance into the Bill, and because he has resisted the pressures to strengthen the Bin in ways which I should not like.
    It would be wrong to go in for any kind of wrecking tactics, vote forcing or delaying tactics at this stage. I hope that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will. not tempt me into that. It would be wrong, because the Bill is a triumph for the hon. Member for Luton, South. I mean that most sincerely, but it is not a triumph for the House of Commons, nor for our legislative processes. Had the Bill had the attention of the House, we should have had a more narrowly defined and stricter Bill, which would have dealt more effectively with the main issue.
    I am not expressing support for video nasties. I am expressing total horror. They should be banned. Children should not be allowed to see them, and I should not want adults to see them either. However, in the guise of doing that, I do not want to see the extension into other spheres which has taken place. It is not a measure which reflects any credit on our legislative processes or on the attention paid by the House. The Bill was based initially on a survey, which its authors have disclaimed, and pressure stimulated by "Grundy groups" outside the House, and it was passed by collusion between the Front Benches

    599
    because of the inattention of hon. Members. I hope that the implementation of the Bill will not be a blot on freedom, nor a return to Mrs. Grundy-type censorship. The Bill provides a potential for that.
    These amendments do not give much meat for opposition, if one wanted to oppose them. I end, not with a bang, but with a whimper. I do not want it to be a prelude to a censorship bang in the way that it could. I felt it right and necessary to make my protest at this stage at that possible consequence.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I am by nature a charitable and kindly person and I do not wish to be uncharitable and unkind to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who—whatever one might say about other hon. Members—takes his seat regularly in this place and frequently contributes usefully to our debates. But I hope that he will not mind if I say that, well intentioned though his late intervention may have been, he has demonstrated that he does not really understand the Bill or, indeed, the evil that it seeks to remedy.
    When this House has enacted legislation for the protection of children, that has not meant that the overwhelming majority of parents have had to have the law forced down their throats. The overwhelming majority, like the hon. Gentleman, care about their children and try to ensure that they are protected against anything that is detrimental to their physical or moral well-being. One accepts that. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's protest was wholly irrelevant to the debate.
    I pay my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), and also to Lord Nugent in another place, for the able way in which they have steered this important measure through both Houses. It will not be beyond the bounds of propriety if I also praise the helpful attitude of the Home Office and the skill and patience of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. My hon. Friend did not have an easy time in Committee but, whatever our views, we were all impressed by the trouble he took to meet every point of view and to remove our fears and anxieties. He showed throughout a flexibility of mind—but not of purpose—that was wholly admirable.
    There is no doubt in my mind that the Bill—which I think has been improved somewhat in its passage through the other House — is long overdue. I agree with the amendments, although perhaps one or two opportunities to tighten the Bill have been lost. I shall mention one of them at the conclusion of my remarks. Generally speaking, however, I think that the Bill has fared well in both Houses and should now have an unopposed passage to the statute book.
    There is also no doubt that the evil that the Bill sought to remedy was growing and was having a disturbing effect on an increasing number of young people — and particularly young children. It is disgraceful that, with the wonderful opportunity opening up for the trade, with the video revolution developing so rapidly, it did not grasp the opportunity to put its own house in order long before the move to self-regulation that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton). I hasten to say that I refer to a minority in the trade who were concerned with evil practices—but, of course, that was
    600
    always so. I was astonished by my hon. Friend's claim in his opening remarks that the trade association welcomed the Bill. What was his authority for saying that?
    Mr. Brinton: I hesitate to remind my hon. Friend that I did, after his intervention, try to withdraw the word "welcome", which I thought was possibly too strong.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I was aware of that. I have the ears to hear. I thought it was one of the most astonishing statements made by a Member of this House at any time, Within seconds my hon. Friend withdrew his remark about warm support for the Bill, saying that he thought that perhaps he had gone too far.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is perhaps the kind of welcome that one gets on opening a French door.
    Sir Bernard Braine: No doubt, but my remarks were addressed to the trade association, whose secretary has gone on record from the beginning as opposing the Bill, and who has described it as a dog's breakfast. In those circumstances, how can any hon. Member have the gall to come to this House and say that the trade has welcomed the Bill from the beginning? We should be careful of the company we keep. The fact remains——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to try hard to relate what he is saying to the amendment before the House.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think it is relevant to say in this connection that, before the trade started thinking about self-regulation, the Lord Chief Justice, the Magistrates' Association, teachers' organisations, social workers and large numbers of parents were expressing their deep concern and anxiety about what was happening. The evil of video nasties was clear, and I remind the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that when I intervened I did not do it in an unkindly way; I thought it would help. I simply wanted to remind him that there have been cases before the courts where parents who do not share his sense of responsibility have used film videos where indulging not only in sex themselves in front of their children — [Interruption.] Yes, indeed, there was the case that I mentioned to the Committee — widely reported in the press—which also involved incest.
    Unless we have legislation of this kind, which has been described as censorship, there will be some children—there is accumulating evidence that the number is increasing — at risk as a result of the money-making activities of the pornographers. I do not hesitate to speak strongly because I cannot think of anything more evil than the undermining of the physical and moral health and attitudes of mind of young children. Children are our lifeline to the future. There is the most solemm responsibility resting upon hon. Members to ensure that, whatever comes before them to approve or disapprove, they have the safeguarding of our children always in mind. The evil was there before the Bill was introduced and was amended in their Lordships' House. Indeed, there was a previous Bill. A great effort was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South to bring the matter before the——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to tell us how his remarks are related to the amendment.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I have said that I am in general support of the amendment. I was spurred on to say what

    601
    I have said by the remarks of other hon. Members, which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest with great humility, you allowed them to make. Since they were allowed, perhaps I may in passing make some slight reference to them.
    Mr. Brinton rose——
    Sir Bernard Braine: Oh, no; not again.
    Mr. Brinton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I hope that it will be a useful intervention; I may well be wrong. As the huge rise in the sale and rental of video cassettes was taking place, a voluntary system was being developed, as a result of a working party set up to study the measure. It was not necessarily behind the times, as my hon. Friend suggests. May I ask him to consider whether that might not have been a simpler way to control the video nasties? Do we need this elaborate set of details, which may well prove to be a minefield when put into practice?
    10.30 am
    Sir Bernard Braine: The answer can be given in one word—yes. We do need the Bill. The reason is very simple. We live in a country of 55 million people, in which the amount of crime, drug-taking, alcoholic excess and anti-social behaviour of all kinds is not diminishing. All the evidence is that it is increasing. Although I do not believe that passing laws necessarily makes people better, doing so lays down a line beyond which law-abiding people will not move, and the over-stepping of which it is clear that Parliament will not approve. We are concerned here with the evil of exposing children to appalling, sadistic, sexually explicit, violent material which the trade took a long time to consider regulating for itself. The Bill is absolutely essential.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key weakness of any voluntary arrangement is the absence of the sanctions provided by legislation such as this?
    Sir Bernard Braine: I absolutely agree. If there was a free-for-all, the current heroin epidemic would spread like wildfire.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: One of the arguments for the Bill put forward in previous debates is that it would allow those entering a video shop to know which video is suitable for which purpose. For that, one would need only the voluntary code which would have developed——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must deal with the Lords amendments before the House and stop the general debate.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I entirely agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall make my final two points.
    The question of censorship cannot be dismissed lightly. It was, after all, discussed in the House of Lords. We should not forget that there was already censorship in the film world before the Bill was thought of. The British Board of Film Censors, in its wisdom, was awarding certificates in various categories. It would give a certificate to a film which might include explicit sex, excessive violence or sadism, but, recognising that the content was not fit to be seen by young people, its showing would be restricted to persons over 18 and only in a closed, private cinema. That is censorship. The Bill did not introduce the principle of censorship. The Bill only intends
    602
    to ensure, as far as it is practicable, that young children and adolescents under the age of 18 will not see such material in the privacy of their homes.
    The Bill is in line with the great volume of legislation which the House has felt obliged to pass in order to protect children against abuse of their health and moral well-being. That is censorship; nothing has changed in that respect. No one has the right to abuse a child in the privacy of his home. That must be made crystal clear. The Bill is overdue, and it is welcome.
    However, there is one gap that I should mention, because when the Minister replies——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the gap is related to the amendment before the House.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Perhaps I could develop this point.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In all seriousness, we must follow the procedure and restrict ourselves to the amendments, in fairness to the promoters and sponsors of the Bill.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I believe that what I have to say is in order. There is a weakness in the Bill which was uncovered by Lord Mishcon in another place. It concerns the complete lack of control over the import-export trade in material of this kind.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With great respect, that point is not related to the amendment before the House.
    Sir Bernard Braine: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall set it aside. There is no such control in the Bill. There should be. Perhaps, when we review the working of the Act at some time in the future, such provision could be made. I shall watch developments with the greatest of interest.
    I support the Bill and wish it a speedy passage to the statute book.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during my short speech I shall keep within the bounds of order.
    By means of these two amendments, their Lordships have met two important points made by the Opposition spokesman in Committee. One of the amendments deals with videos meeting medical and educational needs. One could argue that the Bill as originally drafted provided the better way of dealing with this point, or that the amendment is an improvement. We urged in Committee that there should be some explicit provision—explicit is the right word to use in the case—to ensure the removal of all doubt that videos dealing with sexual activity for the purposes of health education or the use of health visitors or medical schools, for example, should be exempted. The second point was that videos provided for the purposes of broadcasting should also clearly be exempted. I welcome the amendments, which meet those two points.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) graduated to the Front Bench during the debate. Perhaps that means that he is now assuming an air of greater respectability than he had a short time ago when he sat elsewhere. Incidentally, my hon. Friend complains that some hon. Members are not fully au fait with the legislation. There is nothing new about that. After 29 years in the House, I have come to the conclusion that most hon.

    603
    Members do not know what they are doing when they pass legislation. There is nothing unique about the present situation.
    My hon. Friend has a misdirected sense of what we are doing. Clause 2 provides for specific exemptions. Sexual activity on videos is specifically excluded if it is intended for health education purposes. The Bill does not state that such videos made for other purposes will not be given a classification. Scenes will be judged by the British Board of Film Censors in the context of the video as a whole, which will be given a classification. My hon. Friend is misdirecting his efforts, because he has misunderstood the position. The exemptions having been allowed for, the heart of the Bill is not censorship but classification. As to the voluntary code that the industry says that it would have introduced if it had had more time, I shall bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not pursue that argument too far except to say that outrageous pressure has been applied through constituents by misinformed video dealers getting people to write to us telling us that we are engaged in censorship when we are doing nothing of the sort.
    Both the trade, if we accept what its spokesmen tell us, and we ourselves know that the worst and most offensive forms of video nasty will be excluded under one system or the other. For all other videos, we are merely saying that there should be classification. That must be sensible. For the worst types of videos which many people will still not allow to be shown, because I support the liberalism of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and others, we are laying down that a special licence should be acquired. If a dealer wishes to deal in such videos, he will need a licence. That, too, is perfectly reasonable.
    Much as I believe in the sanctity of the home, I do not subscribe to the view that, now that video brings cinema into the home, we are confronted by the same problem as a person having a library full of books on the subject. If both parents go out to work, because videos are so easily obtained, they cannot control what is going on in the home. That is part of the liberty of both parents going out to work. There must be some classification. That will aid parents. Those who want to show a given classification of video film, as they are entitled to do, will know that some categories of film ought to be locked safely away so that children, especially other people's children, are not exposed to them inadvertently. That is also wholly reasonable.
    We are in difficult circumstances. We do not want censorship but the video industry has mushroomed overnight in a most irresponsible way. It is the duty of the House to deal with that. We are merely trying responsibly, not to impose censorship but to provide that, when people have videos in their homes, they should know what sort of videos they have, through a classification system. Many of us regretted imposing, but have come round to accept that it is reasonable to impose, the view that the British Board of Film Censors, which has great experience in these matters, should automatically be the authority to make the classifications. That is a sensible arrangement for dealing with a growing evil.
    In that spirit I express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) for bringing the Bill in and to the Minister for his co-operative attitude in Committee. We are trying to deal with a modern social evil in the most libertarian way possible. We are not
    604
    imposing censorship but are producing certification. That is the sensible means by which to inform people what videos they hire. I do not think that any reasonable person can object to that or to the Bill, which is why I welcome it.
    Mr. Mellor: I am glad, as I have often been in earlier stages of the Bill, to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) who has played a considerable part in ensuring that, when the Bill reaches the statute book, it will do what we want it to do in general terms and will get the details right. I thank him, the hon. Members for Gower (Mr. Wardell), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and many others for their constructive attitude.
    I must tell the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that the Bill represents the views of many hon. Members who might find it difficult to agree on other issues. Nevertheless, they came together on this Bill because of a common awareness that the problem needs to be tackled. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman when he talks about fits of inattention. The Bill has received extremely careful consideration in this House and in well-attended debates. I mean well attended not by the standards of Friday but by the standards of some other debates on principal sitting days. Moreover, it has come back to us from another place, where it has received extremely detailed consideration, for which we must be grateful. We should be grateful to my noble Friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who piloted the Bill through the other place with great skill.
    I should also like to express my appreciation to Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for whom I have warm admiration because of the work that he does in animal welfare. He stated his views with great skill. Some of them were not popular, but he raised several issues that led to rethinking and he is as responsible as anyone else for some of the amendments before us. My other reason for being grateful to Lord Houghton is that, when he opposed the Bill, he said so plainly. He did not dress up his argument with a veneer of agreement when he manifestly disagreed. Good plain speaking is to be commended.
    10.45 am
    The Bill has been considered as carefully as any private Member's Bill. It is the fruit of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), to whom I pay tribute, of the Government, the Opposition and many Members of both Houses. We have tried to ensure that there is minimum scope for abuse. We have tried to reduce the number of loopholes, consistent with the view that has been expressed thoughout that the aim of the Bill is not to turn the clock back to the age of Ealing comedy but to give people who are familiar with the categories in the mainstream cinema an opportunity to see those categories reflected on vieo cassettes on the shelves of the dealer's shop when they choose their video for themselves or their children at weekends.
    The Bill gives the British Board of Film Censors the same power over videos as it has enjoyed for many years with film. That power is not merely one of saying what is or is not suitable for children. It is to say that some films are not suitable to be shown, even in age-restricted cinemas, to anyone. Many of what we call video nasties would not have got a certificate for the cinema if they had been submitted. We must ask ourselves whether, if we cannot see a film in a cinema, we should be permitted to

    605
    see it in the home, having regard to the fact that there is nothing so magical about one's own home, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby appeared to suggest. We are not allowed to murder our wives in our homes, we are not allowed to cause grievous bodily harm to our children and we are not allowed to kick our cats, so there is no reason why we should be allowed to see a video nasty.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister will commend the amendments, or at least discuss them.
    Mr. Mellor: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, was tempted into sin by those who came before me. That shows how easily we can be adversely influenced by bad examples, which is what the Bill is all about. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has taken in good spirit the raspberry that has been blown at his speech, so far be it from me to add to his problem. Suffice it to say that when Divisions unite hon. Members with views as broadly diverse as those of the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), my hon, Friend the Member for Luton, South the right hon. Member for Small Heath and me, it would be unwise to under-estimate the care that the House has applied to the Bill or the widespread desire that it should become law.
    The amendments try to ensure that the exemptions work and that they cover people who are entitled to go about their business without having to submit material to the British Board of Film Censors, while not allowing a loophole for those who simply want to find another guise under which to peddle material that would not otherwise get a certificate. We have tried further to refine the concept of medical supplies so that the training of medical students and other such people is not made more difficult. We have succeeded in that. We have tried to ensure a clear distinction, which we have always wanted to maintain, between material supplied in connection with broadcasting —it is covered by its own rules which were laid down a long time ago in relation to the powers of the IBA and the governors of the BBC—and video material. Nothing in the Bill interferes with the right of broadcasters to exercise their discretion freely. If the broadcasting authorities wish to enter a wholly different market and sell their material on video, they must be bound by the rules of that market like everybody else.
    We have ensured that the designated authority can go about its business with the minimum of interference from the Bill. The Bill does not seek to catch material that is being passed around in circumstances other than where there is a clear intention to supply. At that point, it is necessary for the material to be classified. As video nasties are not a self-defining category, every film must be examined. It was important to add to the Bill not just the legal power to prohibit video nasties from being freely circulated, but also the ability in the best interests of the consumer to offer him the advantage of seeing a classification with which he is familiar from the cinema.
    Finally, the aim of the Bill is to regulate the whole trade. Self-regulation — estimable though the attempt was—could not work because it depended on everybody having a sense of responsibility. It was apparent that irresponsibility governed the actions of some people in the market. That is not to say that there is not a large number of people in the industry whose commitment to high standards is as great as our own. If the trade becomes regarded as a dirty business, the people who will be damaged will be those who are legitimately involved in it.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister give an undertaking that if evidence became available to the Home Office that this country was to become a major duplicating base for export, the Home Office would reconsider that matter with a view to amending the legislation?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member knows that we are debating amendments. The House should not follow that line of debate.
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has taken the trouble to come here from Great Grimsby to attend this final stage of the Bill. It is important to enlighten him, just as he enlightened the House. The effect of the Bill with the amendments is not to prohibit an adult from seeing films in his own home that no sensible adult would show a child. Plenty of 18 category films will not be affected by the Bill. Whether some of the extreme 18 category films will need to be snipped because of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 is not relevant to our debate. Some 18 category videos will be available for viewing in the home, and no responsible parent will let a child see them.
    No attempt is being made to interfere with that, for the perfectly proper, libertarian reason that adults are entitled to live their lives as free as possible from restrictions by the state. However, there comes a point when one must recognise that some material is so extreme in its intention not, to entertain as to make attractive certain forms of violence, which may then be acted out in real life.
    The same spirit led the House to introduce and maintain restrictions in the cinema. Only a few people have suggested that there should not be restrictions in the cinema. If the video trade had been invented decades ago, Parliament would not have waited until now to introduce a light hand of classification and restriction. The good faith of hon. Members who have worked hard on the Bill is shown by the fact that, instead of using public concern for state censorship and directly-appointed state censors, we have given the task to the British Board of Film Censors. It has done a similar job for 70 years. We believe that it is respected. That shows that we do not want to seize upon a public concern and exploit it. The public want censorship, and we must draw a fine line. I hope that, as a result of accepting the amendments, we can draw that line with even more precision in the right place. I commend the amendments to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9 agreed to.

  Clause 4

    AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE SUITABILITY OF VIDEO WORKS FOR CLASSIFICATION
    Lords amendment: No 10, in page 5, line 8, leave out "on any premises"
    Mr. Bright: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 19 to 32.
    Mr. Bright: Hon. Members will recall that on Report my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) moved a series of amendments, which were accepted by the House, to ensure that R18 material could not be supplied on premises, except licensed sex shops.

    607
    Although "premises" has a wide meaning under clause 22, a small loophole was left, as it would not be an offence if the supply or offer were made somewhere other than on the premises—for example, outside a factory gate or at a bus station.
    These amendments, which were tabled by Lord Nugent of Guildford in Committee in another place, are designed to close that chink, to make one or two associated alterations to the statutory defences in clause 12, and to make consequential changes to other parts of the Bill. I commend them to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.

  Clause 6

    ANNUAL REPORT
    Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 6, line 17, after "Act" insert
    "(together with a statement of accounts)"
    Mr. Bright: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This amendment, which was moved by Lord Houghton of Sowerby on Report in another place, places a requirement on the designated authority to include a statement of its accounts in the annual report which it is required to submit to the Secretary of State under clause 6.
    On Report I moved amendments which ensured that the designated authority reported so that the House and the public would be aware of what it was doing. The amendment requires a statement of account to be issued annually. I see no reason not to accept that. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 7

    CLASSIFICATION CERTIFICATES
    Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 6, line 29, at end insert "general".
    Mr. Bright: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 18 and 33.
    Mr. Bright: These amendments deal with the contents of classification certificates issued under clause 7. They can be broken down into two sub-groups. Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 and 33 deal with the parental guidance category. On Report in another place Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved an amendment designed to express in different language the three classifications U(C), U and PG, for which clause 7(2)(a) provides. The noble Lord felt that there was scope for this subparagraph to be modified to reflect more clearly the basis on which the British Board of Film Censors currently awards these certificates for the cinema and on which it will award similar certificates under the Bill. My noble Friend Lord Elton undertook to consider the matter further and, as a result of discussions with the BBFC, my noble Friend Lord Nugent moved amendments on Third Reading which helped to clarify clause 7(2)(a).
    Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 deal with the maximum age to be specified on classification certificates and provide that no age above 18 should be specified. It was intended that 15 and 18 years would be specified on certificates such as those issued by the BBFC, but, in view of anxiety expressed in another place, especially by Lord McIntosh of Haringey, my noble Friend Lord Nugent moved amendments on Third Reading stating that no age above 18 should be specified in a classification certificate needed under clause 7. I commend the amendments to the House.
    Mr. Mellor: The House should understand why it was thought necessary to accept the amendments in the other place——
    It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

Mr. Umaru Dikko (Abduction)
11 am
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on the attempt yesterday to abduct Mr. Umaru Dikko.
The Metropolitan Police were informed yesterday at 12.40 pm of the suspected abduction of Mr. Umaru Dikko, a Nigerian living in this country who was formerly a member of the Government of Nigeria. The call to the police, by his personal assistant, Miss Elizabeth Hayes, said that at about 12.25 pm he had been taken away in a van after a struggle.
Because of the possibility that attempts might be made to remove him from this country, a special watch was mounted at ports. As a result suspicions were aroused by two large crates which arrived at about 4 pm at Stansted to be loaded on to a Nigerian Airways cargo aircraft. The crates were not diplomatic bags as defined by the Vienna convention. The crates were accordingly opened. I understand that members of the staff of the high commission were already at Stansted and a Mr. Edet was invited to inspect the crates. Two people were found in each crate. One crate contained Mr. Dikko, who was unconscious, and another man who was conscious and in possession of drugs and syringes. The other crate contained two men, both conscious. Mr. Dikko is now recovering satisfactorily under police guard in hospital and will be questioned as soon as he is well enough. A total of 17 people, including the remaining three found in the crates, were arrested by the police and are being questioned. None of those arrested has claimed diplomatic immunity.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary summoned the high commissioner for Nigeria to see him at 9 am this morning and told him that he took a most serious view of the incident. The hign commissioner undertook to convey to his Government a report of the meeting. He denied any high commission or Nigerian Government involvement in the incident. The Foreign Secretary said that he expected the fullest co-operation from the Nigerian high commissioner, including the waiver of diplomatic immunity if that were necessary for the purpose of ensuring justice.
Mr. Denis Howell: May I express appreciation to the Home Secretary for making an early statement to the House? I also express appreciation for the expeditious and efficient action by the police and customs officials at Stansted, who acted with commendable efficiency. The Home Secretary will understand that the British people will regard this incident as wholesale contempt for human life and for the laws of the land. This is the second time that it has happened. After our recent experiences of the Libyan siege we now apparently see it in respect of Nigerian politics. I hope and believe that the Home Secretary appreciates that it causes a sense of outrage. Most British people believe that diplomatic immunity should not lead to criminal immunity, and I should be grateful if the Home Secretary will assure the House that there will be no inhibitions upon the police investigation of the matter resulting from diplomatic considerations.
Although the House appreciates that the Nigerian Government—this is a delicate matter for the Foreign
610
Secretary —are are a friendly Commonwealth Government trying to deal with a corrupt state, nothing justifies activity such as the Home Secretary described to the House. Will he also comment on the reported hold-up of a British Caledonian aircraft in Nigeria? That is completely unacceptable to the Opposition. There seems to be no justification for it in international law and no reason why that action should have been taken. Can he assure us that the strongest protest is being made about the sequestering of the aircraft, and can he tell us when it is likely to be freed?
Although I appreciate what the Home Secretary said about the action of an official of the Nigerian high commission at Stansted, did the official agree to the opening of the crates and did he co-operate with police investigations in every way?
Mr. Brittan: To deal first with the separate matter of the British Caledonian aircraft, at the meeting this morning with the Nigerian high commissioner my right hon. arid learned Friend the Foreign Secretary protested strongly about the unwarranted detention of the plane, the crew and passengers, and asked for its immediate release. The high commissioner claimed to have no knowledge of the event but said that he would pass the request to his Government. I can confirm that our high commissioner in Lagos is meeting the Nigerian Foreign. Minister this morning and, therefore, the strongest representations for the earliest possible release of the aircraft are being made.
I appreciate what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) rightly said about the prompt and effective action of police and customs officers in preventing the attempted kidnapping and possibly saving lives. The House will wish to commend their skill and promptness. I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about his sense of outrage at this crime. We all share that sense of outrage to the full.
As to police investigations, I have said that none of those arrested has claimed diplomatic immunity. I also said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary told the Nigerian high commissioner that he expected the fullest co-operation from the high commissioner and his staff, including the waiver of diplomatic immunity if that should prove necessary. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that inquiries are still at an early stage.
The Nigerian diplomat who was present at Stansted was invited to inspect the crates. He was present after they were opened and did not impede the inspection of the crates and subsequent police activity.
Dr. David Owen: I am sure that the whole House will endorse the tributes that have been paid to the police and customs officers for their efficiency in apprehending those involved in the case. As I suspect that all hon. Members hope that it will be shown that the Nigerian Government were not involved in this incident — we value the friendly relations with a Commonwealth country — does the Home Secretary agree that the Nigerians could best demonstrate their noninvolvement and their commitment to resolving this issue by immediately releasing the British Caledonian aircraft, acceding to his request to make available for police questioning any diplomats that might have been involved in the matter, and showing the complete co-operation that we would expect from a friendly Commonwealth country?

611
Does the Home Secretary further agree that we should be careful about making too crude a comparison with the Libyan incident? It is a very different matter, and Libya had very different relations with Britain. In dealing with this delicate matter, it is important for us to accept the views of the Nigerian Government and hope that they will fulfil their obligations to a fellow Commonwealth country.
Mr. Brittan: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the good relations that have existed between Britain and Nigeria and the value that we attach to those relations. I also agree that relations would be immensely assisted by the immediate release of the British Caledonian aircraft. I agree also with the right hon. Gentleman that those relations would be further assisted by a ready co-operation with the police and those investigating this matter.
I make no comparisons of this incident with any other, except to say that it is obviously an extremely grave matter for an attempt such as this to take place. It must be investigated properly and we are entitled to expect the fullest co-operation of everybody, whether they have diplomatic connections or not, in that process of investigation. However, I shall not prejudge the outcome of the investigation.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. and learned Friend has confirmed that relations between this country and Nigeria are excellent, and that this incident should not be considered against the background of that at the Libyan embassy. Will he also confirm that the Nigerian high commissioner has promised the fullest cooperation in the investigation of this incident?
Will he also confirm that Mr. Dikko is wanted in Lagos on a charge of stealing public funds, and that it looks as though some misguided people have tried to take the law into their own hands?
Mr. Brittan: I am not prepared to speculate as far as my hon. Friend. There is an arrangement under the Fugitive Offenders Act that applies to Nigeria. No request has been made to this Government for any legal proceedings whereby Mr. Dikko would be returned. Beyond that, it is impossible to go.
As to the extent of the co-operation of the high commissioner, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said that he expected the fullest cooperation, including the waiver of diplomatic immunity if that were necessary, the high commissioner said that he would pass on that request to this Government. The meeting with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary took place this morning. I cannot report a fuller response from the high commissioner than that.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the crates concerned were marked "diplomatic property"? If that is correct, and as a crate may constitute a diplomatic bag, why has the Home Secretary said that these crates were outside the Vienna convention when he maintained that the diplomatic bags used in the Libyan incident were within the Vienna convention? Is not this part of diplomatic law in a disgraceful and gruesome mess? In those circumstances, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake that the Government will carry out what they originally said they would do after the Libyan incident, and seek a change
612
in the Vienna convention, rather than give way, as Sir Antony Acland implied to the Select Committee on Home Affairs is now the Government's intention?
Will the Home Secretary undertake that this afternoon, when my Bill, the Diplomatic Immunity (Revision and Interpretation) Bill, comes up for Second Reading, it will not be blocked by the Government, anonymously or otherwise? It is an attempt to try to get some sense into this part of diplomatic law so that diplomatic bags can be surveyed and the expression "It's in the bag" will cease to have a new and thoroughly unacceptable dimension.
Mr. Brittan: On the Vienna convention and matters relating to it, I have nothing to add to what has been said by both myself and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary about our examination of the convention, which we said would take place, and of its operation, which is at least as important as the contents of the convention.
With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's specific question about why these crates were different from a normal diplomatic bag, the crates did not have the visible markings that a diplomatic bag normally has, and there was no courier such as normally accompanies a diplomatic bag, as required by article 27(5) of the Vienna convention, who normally carries documents explaining his official status, and the number of packages.
Mr. John Wheeler: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that his statement this morning will be reassuring to many of the residents in the city of Westminster, where so many of these serious incidents involving foreign nationals have occurred. Nevertheless, there is great outrage and concern in my constituency, particularly in Bayswater, where this abduction incident originated. Many people are now frightened about the behaviour of foreign nationals. They very much hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give assurances that the police will enforce the law of the United Kingdom, and that if it is found that the Nigerian high commission was involved in this incident in any way the most exemplary action will be forthcoming.
Mr. Brittan: On the latter point, I shall not prejudge the inquiries, but the Government have made it clear, in our response to the events relating to the Libyan siege, that we shall take a serious view of any breach of the Vienna convention. Let us not forget that any action such as that to which my hon. Friend refers would be a gross abuse of the convention. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has shown his willingness to take a serious view and serious action if such a breach were to be proved. I repeat that I am not prejudging the situation.
I should perhaps have said in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) that the high commission did not contend for a single moment that these crates were diplomatic bags in any sense. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), who has shown natural concern for his constituents, I endorse his expression of the importance of the police engaging vigorously in the protection of lives and property against threats such as those that my hon. Friend has identified.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Can the Home Secretary assure the House that, where diplomatic immunity is breached in such incidents, it will

613
automatically follow that the British Government will be released from any previous arrangements in taking care of that incident? Will he also ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to make it clear to the Nigerians, the Libyans, the Sikhs or anybody else that there is no place in the United Kingdom for them to fight out their vendettas on our streets?
Mr. Brittan: The latter point is one that both I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly made, and I welcome the opportunity, in response to the right hon. Gentleman, to reaffirm it. I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by a release from obligations. We are not discharged from the obligations of the treaty, but I can assure him, as has been said, that if there is a proved abuse or breach of the convention, the Government are in no sense powerless to act and have explained our willingness within the confines of the convention to take vigorous action on any missions that have been proved to be guilty of abuses.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say that no one who appears to be concerned in this murderous outrage is listed as a member of the Nigerian high commission or any other Nigerian Government agency in this country? Following other supplementary questions, does not this incident probably lend extra urgency to reconsideration of the Vienna convention and the immunity enjoyed by a minority of the diplomatic corps for their sleazy offences and anti-social behaviour?
Mr. Brittan: I agree that this incident highlights the widely expressed concern about the operation of the Vienna convention, and underlines the correct judgment of the Government in considering these matters. As to the specific exoneration for which my hon. Friend asked, that inevitably cannot be given in the current state of the inquiry.
Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, while the House will await with interest further information on this deplorable incident, it gives rise to a wider problem that remains unsolved? Parliament and the public are heartily sick and tired of the repeated commission of offences by people claiming diplomatic immunity, in some cases when involved in serious offences such as rape, assault, serious motor offences, the smuggling of arms and drugs, and now——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the question.
Sir Bernard Braine: I am asking whether consideration could be given to this wider problem. These incidents have been going on for a long time, and the latest incident merely underlines the necessity for a clear ruling on the subject, even if it means doing something about so-called diplomatic immunity for people who behave in a criminal fashion but cannot be brought before our courts.
Mr. Brittan: The right response where grave action has taken place and there is diplomatic immunity is for the Government to take up the case very strongly with the high commission, or embassy concerned. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has outlined the steps that he would be prepared to take—quite grave ones—in the absence of full co-operation and, where appropriate, waiver of immunity in an individual case where a serious
614
crime had been committed. It is reasonable to expect within the operation of good diplomatic relations that where a bad apple exists in any embassy or high commission, any reputable head of mission should be the first to wish to deal with it and to hand any offender over to the normal processes of law.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to the Nigerian high commission the surprise of some of us that, if the Nigerian high commission was in no way involved with this act, there were representatives of the high commission in attendance at the time that the crates were being loaded? Will my right hon. and learned Friend also convey to him the astonishment of some of us, if the denials of the high commission are true, that the Nigerian Government's first reaction should have been to seize a British Caledonian aeroplane—as if to have a bargaining counter should we take any action against their diplomatic representatives? Can my right hon. and learned Friend also confirm that, had the crates been appropriately and properly marked according to article 27(4) of the Vienna convention, they could never have been opened?
Mr. Brittan: My hon. and learned Friend draws attention to the response in stopping the British Caledonian plane. I share his concern that a Government who have officially, through their high commission, denied any involvement with this should simultaneously engage in an act of that kind. It is extremely difficult to understand how the two go hand in hand. I hope very much that that will be put right promptly.
The other expressions of opinion by my hon. and learned Friend are matters which are proper for investigation. They are matters which my hon. and learned Friend does well to raise. I am sure that they will be considered in the course of the investigation.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that history shows that, almost every time a military Government seize power from a civilian one in Nigeria, there emerge in or near to that Government certain ruthless and barbarian elements who are apt to get quite out of control? Without wishing to prejudge the issue, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, until the various mysteries and doubts surrounding this incident and the episode of the British Caledonian airliner are cleared up, he should suggest to the Foreign Secretary that at the very least a severe chill should enter into our diplomatic relations with Nigeria?
Mr. Brittan: As the House will see, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is sitting by my side and will have heard my hon. Friend's comments. There is no doubt that, until the British Caledonian plane is released, it will be very difficult for Her Majesty's Government to understand how a friendly Government can behave in the way that they have done.
Sir Anthony Grant: While I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) that the grounding of the British Caledonian jet was not the act of an innocent and friendly nation, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to remind Nigeria very forcibly that, unless the aircraft is released instantly, the position and landing rights of Air Nigeria will have to be considered?
Mr. Brittan: I am sure that those responsible will have heard what my hon. Friend said. A failure to release the plane very promptly is bound to be treated as a serious matter in terms of its implications for air transport and more generally.
Mr. John Gorst: Have the Nigerian Government, at any level or at any time, sought extradition proceedings in the case of this individual? Secondly, what is the status of Mr. Dikko in this country? Is he enjoying political asylum, or is he here on a visitor's passport?
Mr. Brittan: I can give a clear answer to my hon. Friend's first question. At no stage have the Nigerian Government sought Mr. Dikko's extradition or its equivalent under the Fugitive Offenders Act. I do not think that Mr. Dikko has sought asylum, but I shall have to check up to discover his immigration position.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friends make it plain to heads of mission in this country that our police have two jobs, the first being to protect diplomats and the second being, if necessary, to protect other people from those who may or may not be associated with high commissions or embassies? Will my right hon. and learned Friends also accept that we have had too many incidents of ambassadors, high commissions and their staffs being endangered here and too many incidents such as the Bulgarian one, the Middle East problems and the South Africans attacking their nationalist movements in this country and that we are not prepared to allow them to continue? We shall protect diplomats, and protect other people from diplomats, if necessary.
Mr. Brittan: Diplomats are entitled to protection, and they get it. Equally, the people of this country are entitled to be protected against any abuse of diplomatic immunity or diplomatic privileges. The people of this country will not put up with outrages emanating from diplomatic sources. It was exactly for that reason that, after the Libyan incident, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I made it clear that we were ready to take the strongest action against any mission proved to be responsible for any abuse of diplomatic privileges leading to criminal actions. That remains the position. But when and if a specific incident can be laid at the door of any mission, it is a matter of fact and investigation in each case.
Mr. Barry Porter: Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), I am still not clear about the status of the people presently under investigation. Is not the House entitled to know what connection, if any, there is between these people and the Nigerian high commission or, if they have no connection, what their status is in this country?
Mr. Brittan: A total of 17 people are being questioned at the moment. They include the three people in the crates, plus a number of others who were around at the time at Stansted. It does not necessarily follow that those people currently being questioned are guilty of any offence. They are being questioned, and the questioning ought to be allowed to continue
Mr. Michael Howard: Given the possible need to ask for a waiver of immunity, and given also the considerable difficulties which lie in the
616
way of renegotiating the Vienna convention, will not the Government undertake to look urgently at the possibility of renegotiating, on the basis of a mutual waiver of privilege in predefined circumstances, the terms on which we continue diplomatic relations with other countries?
Mr. Brittan: My hon. and learned Friend's idea has considerable attractions, although the ability to predefine circumstances will not necessarily be easy to determine. I shall draw this suggestion to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary who, in any event, has heard it.
Mr. John Powley: Although the action of the Home Secretary in this affair is entirely commendable, what actions will he and the police take in future to ensure that this gentleman is not again abducted?
Mr. Brittan: It is quite clear that the risk in which this gentleman is placed has now been underlined, and the police will no doubt take note of it.
Sir John Page: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give the House any more information about the documentation accompanying these crates?
Mr. Brittan: Yes. The crate was addressed to the Ministry of External Affairs, Lagos, from the Nigerian high commission, London, but it was not accompanied by an official document showing the status of the courier and the number of packages constituting the diplomatic bag, nor did it have the other markings of the diplomatic bag as such.
The House will recollect that when I answered questions on the Libyan affair a contrast was drawn between the diplomatic bag and personal baggage, and the different degree of protection accorded to both. It was clear that this was not a diplomatic bag, although it purported to emanate from the high commission. I deliberately used the somewhat legalistic and pompous word "purported" because, of course, it is the subject of investigation.
Mr. Denis Howell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman throw a little more light on the phrase that he used in the statement that members of the staff of the high commission were already at Stansted when the crates were opened? Are those members of the high commission at Stansted subject to police investigation, and, if so, are they co-operating? That is important.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman request his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to convey immediately to the Nigerian Government the fact that both sides of the House believe that it is completely unacceptable that the aircraft should be impounded and that that is completely inconsistent with the Nigerian high commission's claim that it is in no way involved in the affair? Will he also inform the Nigerian Government that we will judge them not least by the speed with which they release the aircraft and allow it to proceed on its lawful course? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman keep the House informed of developments at Stansted and any other serious developments in the course of the investigation?
Mr. Brittan: All the members of the high commission's staff at Stansted are being questioned by the police in the investigation of this matter. Of course the House must be kept informed of developments as they occur.

617
It is perfectly clear from what has been said from both sides of the House that there is a fund of goodwill towards Nigeria——
Mr. Frank Dobson: But not to the military Government.
Mr. Brittan: —and a readiness not to jump to conclusions prematurely, unnecessarily or on the basis of inadequate information. But equally it will be clear that that fund of goodwill will be drawn on too heavily if the Nigerian Government fail to release the British Caledonian aircraft immediately.
Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that any point of order for me can arise on this.
Mr. Janner: It arises directly out of this matter, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter in which two Departments of State are concerned. The Foreign Secretary has most properly come to the House to listen. Surely, where there are matters of the broadest interest regarding diplomatic immunity as such, and the British Caledonian aircraft in particular—where, for example, matters extend to how the Government could or would prevent bodies, live or dead, from being carried out in diplomatic bags — it should be for the Foreign Secretary to provide a statement and answers to the House.
Mr. Gorst: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it within your power to invite the Foreign Secretary, if he so wished, to respond to the point of order made by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I am not responsible for which Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box to make a statement.

Video Recordings Bill
Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
11.32 am
Mr. Mellor: As I was saying before my elders and betters arrived in the Chamber, the amendments are to clause 7, which is one of the principal clauses. Therefore, it is perhaps worth while to detain the House for a moment or two to consider the implications of the amendments made in the other place, which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) is right in asking the House to accept.
Clause 7 relates to the crucial issue of classification and labelling. It has been our intention throughout that, so far as possible, video recordings available in shops and other places should reflect on the face of the cassette cover the classifications commonly understood by the public from long experience of the cinema. The effect of clause 7 is to permit that to be the case.
It is no part of the Bill's intention, nor is it its effect, that anything that one might term part of mainstream cinema—by which I mean any film with a certificate up to the classification 18, which can be shown subject to the appropriate age restrictions in any cinema in the country — should be interfered with. It is our intention that those films should be available for viewing in the home. In some cases, when one is dealing with films with a 15 or 18 certficate, it will be for the parents to determine whether they are prepared to allow their children to see the film. Under the Bill it will not be lawful for a child under the age of 15 in respect of a 15 certificate, or under the age of 18 in respect of an 18 certificate, to go into a shop and obtain that video direct from the dealer.
It may be, as I have said before, that some of the outer edges of the 18 category will be affected on videos, but it is important to understand that that is a consequence, not of the Bill, but of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and that section of it which provides that the test of obscenity depends upon those likely to see the material. That may differ in accordance with whether the material is being shown in an age-segregated cinema, or in the home where no age restriction can apply and where children may come into contact with it.
Clause 7 provides that the designated authority must issue certificates, which are defined in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c), to reflect those classification categories with which we are familiar in the cinema. Subsection (2)(a) provides for the general classifications with which we are all familiar of U, UC and PG. Paragraph (b) provides for an age restriction to be applied, and we have in mind age restrictions of 15 to 18. Paragraph (c) provides the restriction that no video recording containing certain works can be supplied on premises other than a licensed sex shop. That reflects a decision which was arrived at after a great deal of debate and discussion.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) smiles. I smile ruefully at the remembrance of it, but good came out of what was initially a squall which blew up between supporters of the Bill. We have reached an arrangement which we can all accept, which is that it should be for the designated authority to determine whether 18R videos should be made available

619
and whether they come within the terms of the Obscence Publications Act. We are all agreed that the only outlet for that sort of material should be a licensed sex shop.
Clause 7(2)(a) deals with three certificates relating to children—U, UC and PG. We entered into some useful and helpful discussions——
Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase to which I took exception on an earlier occasion —a licensed sex shop. Will he confirm that a licensed shop is the appropriate description? It may or may not be a sex shop.
Mr. Mellor: The Bill refers to licensed sex shops. They will be licensed under the arrangements already laid down for sex shops.
After the Bill left this House, my officials and I started discussions with the BBFC. I had long discussions with Lord Harlech and my officials had talks with the secretary of the board, Mr. Ferman, about whether, as a result of an oversight in the drafting of the Bill, clause 7(2)(a) might not allow the board to continue to use the PG certificate.
A number of the most popular films of recent years, including "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and the James Bond films, have been PG films. It was important that there should be no doubt in this matter. It was never anyone's intention that there should be interference with the PG category, which is given to films which may be widely shown, but implies that a parent might wish to make up his or her own mind and offer guidance on whether the film was suitable for a particular child, even though it was thought generally safe to be seen by children and did not require an age restriction.
The worst thing would have been for the designation authority to start its arduous task of reclassifying the back catalogue of videos against a background of doubt about whether the traditional view of parental guidance was permitted under the Bill.
It was pointed out that the award of a certificate under clause 7(2)(a) might have been inadequate and that the Bill, as it left this House, might not have made it clear that the expression
"suitable for viewing by persons of any age"
is not the same as
"suitable for viewing by all persons",
which was the original wording of clause 7(2)(a).
As a result of our discussions an amendment was passed in another place and I commend it to hon. Members because it does not alter the basic structure of the Bill, but makes it easier for us to achieve what we always intended to achieve, which is that the PG category, so well understood and widely accepted in cinemas, should continue to be available for videos. If the PG category could not be carried across into video shops, it would materially undermine one of the principal intentions of the Bill. It has always been the expressed aim of the Bill that people should understand what they are dealing with, and that background of understanding can be provided by their familiarity with cinema classifications.
The intention behind subsection (2)(b) is that restrictions should attach to the two age-restricted classifications with which we are familiar in the cinema —the 15 and 18 categories. It is well understood that when 15 or 18 category films are shown in cinemas it is
620
not lawful for children under 15 or 18 to attend. Those restrictions are carried across into video shops by the Bill and carry penal sanctions if children under 15 or 18 obtain from dealers 15 or 18 category videos.
However, anxiety was expressed in another place about the fact that in allowing the reference to persons who have attained the age specified in the certificate, without restricting that age, subsection (2)(b) might have made it possible for someone to choose an age over 18 —whether 21, 35, 54 or some other age. That was not the intention of the Bill's supporters and, in deference to the strong arguments advanced by Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who most of us remember for his distinguished service as leader of the GLC for 24·5 seconds after the last GLC elections — before he was knifed by Mr. Livingstone — we have decided to accept the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos 14 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 15

  PENALTIES
  Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 11, line 33, at end insert—
  "In this subsection "the standard scale" has the meaning given by section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982."
  11.45 am
  Mr. Bright: 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. 35.
  Mr. Bright: I am one of the few hon. Members who have stuck to the rules today. I have not deviated from our discussions and I have tried to play the game throughout the passage of the Bill. That is why we have a fairly complex measure. I have tried to meet the wishes of the Opposition and of some outside organisations, which have then turned round and called the Bill a dog's breakfast.
  Some kind words have been said by those who have thanked me for introducing the Bill. I thank those people and, as this is the last time that I shall speak during the passage of the Bill, I should like also to thank all those who have helped me to get the Bill through.
  I particularly thank Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Howell), who has been a great friend during the passage of the Bill. I also offer thanks to members of another place, particularly my noble Friend Lord Nugent, and to hon. Members who have supported me for a long time; the Bill was introduced over a year ago.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has been a great friend. He was a friend before I introduced the Bill, but he is an even greater friend now and we have worked closely throughout the passage of the Bill. I also thank the staff at the Home Office. Without them and their expertise in drafting and so on the Bill would never have got off the ground. I also thank my own staff.
  On Third Reading I thanked my wife Valerie and mentioned that she was expecting a child. I have been dreading getting a message today telling me to rush to the hospital. I told Valerie to wait until after the Bill had got through.

  621
  We have wandered a little in our debate. Any hon. Member who wishes to raise further matters may do so outside the Chamber. I have a good answer for every point that can be made, having rehearsed them throughout the past year.
  Amendment No. 34 is technical. When the Bill left this House, clause 15(4) dealt with the meaning of the standard scale in subsection (3) and ensured that it had the meaning assigned to it by section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. It also provided for that section to apply to Northern Ireland and ensured that, for the purposes of the penalties in clause 15(3), any inflation-proofing order made in respect of fines applying in England and Wales would extend to Northern Ireland. However, as a result of the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 which comes into force on 18 July, references to the "standard scale", are, for Northern Ireland, automatically translated into references to the standard scale established by that order. The ad hoc extension to Northern Ireland of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 is, therefore, no longer required. The amendments make the necessary adjustments to the Bill.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) for taking over my initial idea in this difficult area. The drafting problems have been considerable. Difficulties are caused by the effect of the Bill on children. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the enormous amount of work that he has done. I also pay tribute to the Minister. At all times he has been prepared to listen carefully to the arguments. He has taken them on board, considered them carefully and come back with cogent answers which have been much to the point. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) because of the considerable work that he has done.
  I am sure that the measure will fill a huge gap in the law. Up to now, children have been able to hire or buy video cassettes containing scenes of depravity and horror, the existence of which is difficult even for hon. Members to accept. I commend the Bill to people outside. Inevitably, we shall experience problems.
  The House of Lords did much work on the Bill. I was particularly pleased with the amendment to clause 4—which also applies to clause 12—which fills a technical loophole in connection with 18R video cassettes. As the hon. Member for Luton, South said, such cassettes might have been available outside factory gates and elsewhere. Remedying that is a considerable advance.
  I am glad to have the opportunity to thank all who contributed so tremendously to the Bill's passage and to the classification of video cassettes, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath said, lies at the heart of the Bill. Classification will inform parents so that they know what is available and can make the choice of what is appropriate for their children to watch.
  Mr. Colvin: I crave indulgence to add a few remarks of appreciation and to echo what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I have been thanked for being the unofficial Whip during the passage of the Bill. According to the book "Honourable Members" written by my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), the only qualification required for a Conservative Whip is to be 6ft 1in tall, and an ex-guardsman. I have those two
  622
  qualifications. Other qualifications were not required, because hon. Members on both sides demonstrated the utmost co-operation and appreciation of the need to get the Bill, in a proper state, on to the statute book.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) on the way in which he tackled the Bill from the start. He has needed a certain amount of courage, particularly in relation to the controversial question of 18R cassettes. He was persuaded to challenge the holy trinity of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and Mrs. Mary Whitehouse. He won the argument. That took guts, tact and persuasion. That issue was probably the most controversial of all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) said that the British Videogram Association might not think that the word "welcome" was the right word to use to describe its reaction to the Bill. From discussions that I have had with retailers and video libraries, it is clear that they believe that the sooner the Bill is on the statute book the better, so that they know precisely where they stand. Retailers and libraries will be pleased when the Bill becomes law.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South is the promoter of the Bill because of the luck of the draw. There but for the luck of the draw sit at least 100 hon. Members. If any one of us had succeeded in the ballot, we should have chosen such a measure to promote. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South and all other hon. Members who have taken part. I wish the Bill a speedy passage to the statute book. Among other things, it fulfils a Conservative party manifesto commitment.
  Mr. Brinton: As one of the two dissenters today, I should like to pour oil on temporarily troubled waters. My late and much missed colleague, Reginald Bosanquet, wrote a book called "Let's get through Wednesday". After this morning, my book will be called "Let's get through Friday". I expressed myself rather badly first thing this morning. The problem is that the British Videogram Association sees the need to ban the nasty and provide some advice for parents.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), because of his luck in the ballot, evolved a way which inevitably creates ripples and attracts criticism. The meat of this place is opposition. I hope that my hon Friend agrees that it is right that some of us should try to oppose certain proposals and offer constructive arguments.
  My main purpose is to add my deep congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South, who has worked so hard and made considerable sacrifices. I hope that the success for which he dreams will be achieved in the not-too-distant future.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I thank the hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), the Minister and officials for their co-operation. I include the unofficial Whip, the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) in my thanks. I can now reveal that he sent me notes from time to time which would never have emanated from the Whips Office and which were much more welcome on that account.
  The way in which Ministers, officials and hon. Members from both sides have dealt with this matter makes me believe that we should have more such cooperation in the future. Private Members have a role to play. Hon. Members are often frustrated when confronted

  623
  with wagon after wagon of Government Bills. I hope that the business managers and the appropriate Select Committee will remember that private Members have a contribution to make on some great social issues for which the Government cannot find the time or resources. When there is all-party support for a private Member's Bill, our parliamentary life is enhanced. It is in that setting that we express our appreciation.
  I am glad that reference has been made to the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell). He introduced the subject to the House early on, but his Bill fell by the wayside. He produced a paving measure—that is the appropriate term these days — which was successful in that it led to the introduction of the Bill before us.
  I am appreciative of the consideration that was given to the Bill in another place, especially by my great Lord Houghton. We all know that he is a doughty champion of liberty, and it is right that he made us defend every clause of the Bill, even if we did not agree with him. He subjected every provision to searching examination.
  12 noon
  When the Bill is enacted, it will be a useful measure for protecting the standards of our society. It will create a sense of responsibility through certification and not by censorship. I accept that we may not have everything entirely right. Perhaps Lord Houghton and some of our other libertarian friends will prove to be right in some instances. If events prove that we have not got everything exactly right, we can always return to these matters again and correct any abuses. At least we have attempted to get it right, and I believe that we have succeeded in large measure.
  Mr. Mellor: The Bill is a moderate and common sense approach to a problem which is causing deep concern to many people. In passing the Bill we shall ensure that there is a moderate response to the video problem, when it would have been easy to go over the top. Above all, it is an effective response. Although there are laws which prohibit obscenity on video as well as in any other form, they were not effective in biting on the problem before damage was done. The Bill provides an effective way of dealing with the problem. I am sure that we shall all be proud when we see the Bill in operation and realise that we were associated with it.
  Many people have worked extremely hard on the Bill. As I think that it is an important measure, I do not
  624
  begrudge the time that I or my officials have spent on it. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for demonstrating that our efforts have been appreciated.
  The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) has been a stalwart comrade in arms throughout the passage of the Bill and has added greatly to the pleasure that we have all taken in being associated with it. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has been enormously helpful. This help has not been limited merely to accepting the Bill uncritically for he has expressed a number of thoughts which have found their way into the Bill by means of amendments. The Bill emerges the stronger because of his constructive interest. I am grateful to many of my hon. Friends for supporting the Bill throughout its appearances in this place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) has done an outstanding job. Many hon. Members hoped that they would be successful in the ballot, but there must be many who doubt whether they could have given the job the commitment that my hon. Friend has demonstrated, or have done it as effectively. He has been tireless in his advocacy of the Bill. He tells me that about 15,000 letters on the Bill have passed through his office over the past eight months, all of which he has answered. In addition, he has had to continue with the busy life of a constituency Member. I understand that he has attended about 300 meetings to discuss the Bill. Anyone who has had a point of view on the Bill and has wanted to meet my hon. Friend has been able to do so, because he has made himself available to all.
  Since the time when my hon. Friend knew that he had emerged at the top of the ballot and elected to introduce the Bill, he has spent about two working days on it, or their equivalent, every week. That is a tremendous commitment. It proves the quality of my hon. Friend and the strength of our system, for the very reasons advanced by the right hon. Member for Small Heath. There is a real role for a private Member, and my hon. Friend can take as much pride in the passage of this Bill as anyone can in the passage of any measure in recent years.
  It is encouraging to know that my hon. Friend retains some time for family life. I understand that this will be an exciting week for him, because he will have placed a major Bill on the statute book and, with any luck, his wife will be safely delivered of a bright spark within a few days. His cup will truly overflow with happiness. Certainly no one deserves that happiness more than he does. I thank him on behalf of us all for what he has done.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 35 agreed to.

Cycle Tracks Bill
Lords amendments considered

PROHIBITION OF DRIVING OR PARKING ON CYCLE TRACKS
Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 20, after "who" insert ", without lawful authority,"
Mr. Cecil Franks: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take Lords amendment No. 2.
Mr. Franks: Consideration of the clause in another place showed that the drafting needed to be improved. The clause as drafted made it an offence to park or drive any motor vehicle wholly or partly on a cycle track. Various defences are specified, including, in subsection (4), the defence that the motor vehicle is being driven on a cycle track when that is the only practicable way of obtaining vehicle
"access to or egress from any premises".
The effect of the clause overall would be to take away without compensation any existing lawful authority that a person may have to drive a motor vehicle on a cycle track to gain access to premises if there is another reasonably practicable means of gaining vehicle access to them. Clearly this is wrong. The amendment ensures that where a person has lawful authority to drive or park on a cycle track he will be able to continue that use without committing the offence specified in subsection (1).
It may help the House if I give one brief illustration of the difficulties that would be encountered without the amendment. If a house owner has two means of access to his property, one at the front and one at the rear, and one of those means of vehicle access is denied because of the construction of a cycle track, that person will no longer be able to use that means of access so converted to a cycle track by virtue of there being an alternative means of access. That denial of access without compensation is not in our minds and is not acceptable.
Subsection (4) gives a defence if a person is driving on a cycle track as the sole reasonably practicable means of obtaining vehicle access or egress from premises, even though he may have no lawful authority so to use the cycle track. It is clearly wrong to appear to condone any unlawful driving of a motor vehicle on a cycle track. In deleting subsection (4) we are not taking away anyone's lawful authority to use a cycle track. That authority is protected by the amendment to subsection (1). We are ensuring that there is no defence that can be held to condone the unlawful use of a cycle track.
Again, it may be helpful to the House if I give it a rather extreme example. Let us say that a burglar is driving along a cycle track en route to his intended victim. He would not be committing an offence as the Bill is currently drafted, but clearly he would have no lawful authority to be on the cycle track. That is an extreme example, but it illustrates the loophole which has been filled by the amendment.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): It is right for me to say that the Government welcome and support the amendment. However thorough we were in our drafting of the Bill
626
originally and in our discussions in this place, this point has been well taken by our noble Friends in another place. I am grateful to Lord Gisborough for the attention that he paid to the matter, which resulted in the amendment.
There is no doubt that the amendment is the best way to tackle what would otherwise have been a small but none the less negative aspect of what has otherwise been an extremely positive Bill. I hope that the House will agree with the Lords amendment.
Mr. John Prescott: The Opposition fully support the Bill and the purpose of the amendment. There is no reason to detain the House any longer, except to wish the Bill well.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Clause 3

  CONVERSION OF FOOTPATHS INTO CYCLE TRACKS
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 3, after "highway" insert
  "which for the purposes of the 1980 Act is a highway maintainable at the public expense and".
  Mr. Franks: 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. 4.
  Mr. Franks: This amendment is an essential clarification of the Bill's intent. Once a foothpath has been converted to a cycle track, steps must be taken by those responsible for the cycle track to ensure that it is capable of use by cyclists. For example, a suitable surface will be required and it will need to be properly maintained. Some expenditure will clearly be involved. It was never the intention that this should be other than a local highway authority's responsibility. If the cycle track is not maintained at public expense, the local highway authority will be unable to install the harriers and do the other work provided for in clause 4.
  In the amendment, the responsibility to maintain a cycle track at public expense is tied to the responsibility given under the Highways Act 1980 and to the definition of highways maintained at public expense, which appears in section 329 of that Act. The amendment to subsection (9) is linked to the amendment to subsection (1) and deals with the revocation of footpath conversion orders.
  When a footpath conversion order is revoked under subsection (9) and the cycle track reverts to a footpath, it is appropriate that the footpath should be maintainable only by the local highway authority if it maintained it previously. That is what the amendment seeks to provide. It also clarifies the position where the revocation order involves part of the footpath only.
  I hope that within a few moments the long and tortuous journey of the Bill's legislative process will reach its destination. The Bill had its genesis almost 12 months ago, on 20 July 1983, and has followed the twists and turns of the parliamentary process through the various Corridors, Chambers and Lobbies of Westminster, and the lobby pressure groups that are part and parcel of the parliamentary process.
  It would be remiss of me if I did not take the opportunity to put on record my sincere appreciation and thanks to all who have assisted in the Bill's passage'—to

  627
  my colleagues on both sides of the House who have given the Bill their support and to the officials of the Department of Transport, who have been magnificent with the advice, assistance, guidance and encouragement which have been so readily forthcoming during the past 12 months. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her well-known love and encouragement of cycling. She is a most remarkable person when it comes to this activity. I am extremely grateful to her. The noble Lord Huntly played his part in the other place in ensuring that the Bill had a fairly smooth passage there. I am extremely grateful to all who have played a part, and I hope that shortly the Bill will become what it should be—an Act.
  12.15pm
  Mr. Colin Moynihan: It is worth concentrating momentarily on these amendments, because they greatly enhance the safety of cyclists. That is important and results in part from the maintenance of cycle tracks. I am glad that time was given in another place to clarifying where the responsibility for maintenance exists and will rest in the future. It enhances the quality of the Bill.
  I should like to congratulate, as I know would hon. Members on both sides of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) on his assiduity and hard work in the preparation of the Bill. He has done an enormous amount of good work, which has been welcomed in the House and by those interested in the development of cycle tracks. I am pleased to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment with responsibility for sport, and the previous Minister with responsibility for sport, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Howell). That shows how important this measure is. I should like once again to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness on the good work that he has done in improving the scope for and safety and interest in cycle tracks and cycling throughout the country.
  Mrs. Chalker: These amendments are much needed, and the Government are therefore pleased to support them. I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), who took up this Bill with a great deal of enthusiasm and piloted it through. I add my thanks to my officials, who, as he said, have been unceasingly helpful in trying to reach the right balance to encourage the use of cycling in places more appropriate than our roads, which can so often be dangerous for cyclists. They have done a first-class job. I cannot praise them too highly.
  These amendments are necessary because maintenance is an important part of encouraging the use of cycle tracks, and I hope that they will be accepted by the House. I hope that the Bill, in going on its way now, will give a new lease of life to the older cyclists, amongst whom I must now number myself. It is a good deal safer to cycle on a cycle track than on the open road. I thank all those who have been involved, and I know that cyclists throughout the country will look forward to ensuring that the Bill, when it receives the Royal Assent, is quickly put to good use.
  Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]
  Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to. [Special entry.]

Child Abduction Bill
Lords amendments considered.
New clause

  RESTRICTION ON PROSECUTIONS FOR OFFENCE OF KIDNAPPING
  Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
  " Except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions no prosecution shall be instituted for an offence of kidnapping if it was committed—

  (a) against a child under the age of sixteen; and

  (b) by a person connected with the child, within the meaning of section 1 above."

  12.17 pm
  Mr. Timothy Wood: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  I should like to pay tribute to the work and attention paid by the other place in its consideration of the Bill and the amendments which, in my view, definitely improve it.
  I should like to exprss my thanks to Baroness Faithfull, who guided the Bill through its consideration in the other place. Her knowledge and experience were a major aid to its successful passage there. I should also like to acknowledge the attention given to the Bill by what I shall describe as the brightest stars in the legal firmament. Their assistance and advice have been remarkably helpful.
  The amendment was moved in the other place by the noble and learned Lord Scarman. While the Bill has been under consideration an appeal has been heard relating to an offence of kidnapping by the father of a child. In a surprising judgment, the Court of Appeal ruled that no offence had been committed. I commented on that judgment on Third Reading. An appeal against the judgment was made to the House of Lords. I am delighted to say that their Lordships took a different view and decided that there is a common law offence and that a parent can kidnap his child.
  The common law offence confirmed by the judgment has some elements in common with the statutory offence proposed in clause 1. It might be helpful if I expand on it, perhaps paraphrasing some of the points made by Lord Scarman in the other place.
  Clause 1 makes it an offence if a person connected with a child under the age of 16—that includes a parent or guardian of the child—takes or sends the child out of the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent. That offence will attract a liability on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years. Since it is plainly a very sensitve area of the criminal law, and one that is to some extent covered by the family law and the ability of the family court, using the process of contempt of court, to enforce its own orders, one finds in clause 4(2) a restraint placed upon prosecution. That purpose is plain—to keep the criminal law out of these matters unless the criminality of the acts committed is such that others must resort to the criminal law.
  Subsection (2) provides:
  "No prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) above shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions."
  The purpose of the Lords amendment — which is phrased in language very similar to clause 4(2)—is to

  629
  ensure that the common law offence of a parent kidnapping his own child shall not be the subject of prosecution except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The object of the amendment is precisely the same as the object of clause 4(2) in respect of the statutory offence. It is to ensure that, save where it is absolutely necessary, the criminal law will not be used to enforce family obligations in respect of children.
  The statutory offence in clause 1 of child abduction by a parent or other person connected with the child is limited to an abduction out of the United Kingdom. The common law offence of a parent kidnapping his own minor child can be committed even though the child is not taken out of the jurisdiction. That is substantially the difference between the common law offence and the proposed statutory offence. I believe that the two offences can coexist, provided that in both cases the same restraint is placed upon invoking the criminal law.
  I should like to touch briefly on some comments made in a Times leader of 25 June and some similar points made by Lord Mishcon in the other place. While there is overlap between the common law offence and the statutory offences proposed in the Bill, I do not feel alarm or major concern on that matter. Whether one is dealing with Government or private Members' Bills, it is inevitable that outside events may influence the course of a Bill. Indeed, the reason for introducing legislation can often be because of the prevalence of such events, which require some further control by the law.
  One can always quibble with the phraseology of legislation, but the test of new legislation should be that it, with existing law, provides a proper framework for the control and conduct of our lives. I believe that the common law offence, together with the statutory offences proposed in the Bill, will provide such a framework for the protection of children. The Lords amendment introduces a consistency of approach in the common law and the new statute, and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) and the proposal. The amendment confirms the truth of Sir Alan Herbert's famous line:
  "There's a lot to be said for the Lords".
  However, in view of recent events, my hon. Friends in the Whips Office might take a slightly different view.
  The proposal emphasises the value of the time that we take in legislation, because the particular decision by the Court of Appeal, and the reaction of the House of Lords —occurring as it did during the passage of the Bill—has enabled us, through the intervention of Lord Scarman, and under the very good leadership of Lady Faithfull in another place, to improve this admirable Bill even further, and at least to provide what is so important—real consistency between the common and the criminal law.
  Not as a lawyer but as one who has been involved in the process for some time, I welcome the Lords amendment not only because it strengthens the Bill but because it gives me an opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, and also to thank those in another place—not least the Lord Chancellor—and Home Officers Ministers in this House who have been so helpful, thoughtful and constructive throughout the long story of the Bill.
  Expressing as I do a kind of nunc dimittis feeling at the end of a long saga, and congratulating and thanking
  630
  everyone involved, I commend the Lords amendment particularly because it emphasises the importance of the wisdom of legal advice in another place in strengthening an already admirable Bill. It enables us to be sure that the purposes of Parliament, in protecting children and their parents from the outrage of child abduction and kidnapping, shall be fully confirmed in the final legislation.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I thank the promoter, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), and the sponsors of the Bill for the amendments which have been tabled in another place and now accepted. I think that they meet opinion in all parts of the House and not least the opinion of the Opposition in Committee. We are glad that the amendments for which we pressed have been tabled.
  I offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on yet another successful private Member's Bill. We all know that a considerable amount of time, effort and ingenuity are required in order to get such a Bill through this place. Increasingly, I believe private Members' Bills to be of great importance to us.
  I also thank the Ministers and the officers of the House for their co-operation in helping to get the legislation on the statute book.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): The Bill is a major piece of legislation because it effects a considerable change for the better in a sensitive part of the criminal law, dealing with the rights of children to be able to live in peace with the parent who has the legal custody, without being forcibly removed by others, including the estranged parent, who may think that he is acting—as the phrase has it—as part of a "tug of love" but is acting in an extremely selfish and unprincipled way in relation to the child.
  Up to now the law has been inhibited in deal trig effectively with the problem. The matter was considered by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. The committee's report has been taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood). He has had the opportunity of considering further advice in the light of other developments in the law. He has introduced a Bill which is of the first importance, and it has been a great pleasure to us to assist him in bringing the Bill before the House and putting it on to the statute book.
  The amendment before the House deals with the latest position on the common law on kidnapping, as held by the House of Lords in its very recent decision in the case of Daily.
  The Bill can be placed on the statute book and interrelate with the common law and the previous law in a way that will enable a coherent body of law to be formulated. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) here, because he played a pioneering role in bringing the unsatisfactory state of the law to the attention of the House. As in the case of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and the Bill that we considered earlier, those who blaze the trail should derive the greatest satisfaction from subsequent events even though they may not have the final privilege of taking the Bill through. By his presence today, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge shows his continuing interest. I want to give him credit for the sustained interest that he has shown in the subject.

  631
  12.30 pm
  With regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, I do not apologise for repeating what I said on Third Reading. For a private Member to effect a major change in the law at any stage in his career is a considerable achievement. To do so in his first parliamentary Session is an outstanding achievement. My hon. Friend's constituents should be proud of him for what he has done, and he, too, should take pride in the fact that he has not just tinkered with an obscure corner of the law but has effected a major reform in a significant area of the criminal law. We all congratulate him.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5

  OFFENCE IN SCOTLAND OF PARENT, ETC. TAKING OR SENDING CHILD OUT OF UNITED KINGDOM
  Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 4, line 7, after "without" insert "the".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 7.
  Mr. Wood: These are drafting amendments. They ensure that the definition of "appropriate consent" is the same in clause 5 as in clause 1. At the moment, the definition in clause 5 is slightly different, and its effect might not be exactly the same in some circumstances. The definition of those who may give consent to a child's removal from the country should be the same in both clauses, so that the position is the same in Scotland as in England and Wales and there is no doubt or difficulty. That is what the amendments achieve.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has given me much help in this matter, and his officials. The support and advice that I have received have been of inestimable value. I could not have proceeded with the Bill without such support.
  I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) for his pioneering work and for his encouragement throughout the consideration of the Bill. I believe that, as has been said, the Bill will be a building block in the work of creating sound homes for our children to live in.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 7 agreed to.

  Caravan and Tent Sites Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.34 pm
  Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Although I have sponsored this Bill, I am not motivated by any practical pursuit of the hobbies of caravanning or tenting. My only experience of caravanning or tenting was at the age of nine when, as a boy scout, I went to camp for a fortnight's holiday. I enjoyed the first four days so much that on the fourth night I awoke, in torrential rain, at a bus stop one and a half miles from the tents. I had walked in my sleep from the camp site to the bus stop, where I might have caught a bus home. Since that time, I have accepted that something within me tells me that I am not one to follow the pursuits of tenting or caravanning.
  However, no one should assume that I am opposed to those hobbies. I have great admiration for the large number of people who enjoy those worthwhile pastimes and give their families much pleasure by introducing them to those pursuits. My reason for promoting the Bill results mainly from being an observer of the tenting and caravanning scene. Within a one-mile radius of my home town, it is possible to count more than 3,000 caravans on any day of the year. It will perhaps therefore by understood why I have had good reason to think about caravanning in the 25 years that I have lived there.
  Anyone who could have foreseen such a concentration of caravans in the 1950s would probably have wanted to introduce legislation to prevent it happening. The fact that I disapprove of such a heavy concentration of caravans in one small area does not mean that I think that the caravan sites are not well run. Bearing in mind the constraints under which such a large complex must operate, I have nothing but praise for the people who run the sites. The Bill has little or nothing to do with that, however, because the caravans on those sites are static—they are used for summer holidays but remain on the site. I am concerned with the problems associated with mobile caravans.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Does my hon. Friend's definition of a static caravan include those which he has described and caravans that are capable of being moved, although they remain static?
  Mr. Hubbard-Miles: Most caravans can be moved but rarely are until they come to the end of their worthwhile lives. They are moved to a site where people take their summer holidays, are maintained during the winter but are moved only rarely — for example, when the owner leaves the country, sells the caravan or gives up the idea of taking summer holidays in it.
  We also have touring sites in my area. In July and August there is an enormous influx of such caravans, which has created some problems with siting. Unfortunately, many people hitch their caravan on to their car in the hope that they will find a site, only too often to discover that the well-run sites are fully booked.
  Having been fortunate in the ballot and having had much experience of the problems that caravanning creates in some areas, I was pleased to find that much research has been done by the Department. In 1978, a consultative document was issued, to which there were 300 responses. It was found that the distinction between tents and

  633
  caravans had become outmoded, as some forms of tent and caravan display similar characteristics. For example, there are folding caravans and trailer tents and tubular steel framed tents that are often as big as, if not bigger than, many touring caravans.
  The document also stated that the growing demand for camping and caravanning needed control and that constructive efforts were needed to improve the standards and increase the provisions of the sites in a coherent and acceptable way. If that is not done, the demand will take less acceptable courses of its own volition. At that point the Government decided to encourage bodies to find more sites, advise good minimum model standards for the sites and bring together the use of tents and caravans under one legislative procedure.
  In my constituency we have many touring sites and in July and August, many people with caravans and trailer tents come to find sites. It forms part of the south Wales coastline and abuts the Gower peninsula, where there are also many touring caravan sites. When I worked in local government we faced considerable problems created by the inflow each summer of many touring caravanners and campers.
  I wish to express my gratitude to the organisations that were consulted on legislation for tents and caravans. I received tremendous co-operation from bodies such as the Caravan Club, the Camping Club of Great Britain and Ireland, the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union. The vast majority of these many organisations—about 160 were consulted—welcomed the idea of legislation and the broad outlines of the Bill. I have had long hours of discussion with many of them.
  It is not generally realised that the hobby of camping comes under entirely different legislation from that of caravanning. My Bill seeks to bring the two pursuits together under one piece of legislation. The tents of today are no longer small, low-ridged tents with walls that drip each time the side is touched, but large, comfortable, well appointed structures with tubular steel frames, which are often capable of housing a family.
  My area attracts many people because it is a beautiful part of Wales and we have a remarkable climate. Hon. Members may have noticed from today's newspapers that we have not had any appreciable rainfall for three months and that the Welsh water authority will have to introduce water rationing unless, unfortunately, we have heavy rainfall within the next month or two. Hon. Members will appreciate my deep interest in the subject.
  Although we have to some extent dealt with the problems of touring caravans, we have not dealt with tent camping, which now presents similar problems to local authorities. A unified system of control makes good sense. The problems have been discussed for many years, and it is more than 13 years since the first report of the camping working party in 1971. I have learnt that all the interested groups—campers, local authorities, farmers, landowners and commercial operators — agreed the principles recommended by the working party, which we are trying to incorporate into the Bill.
  No one would expect that all those involved in such pursuits will agree every detail. It would be surprising if tent campers, who have faced few restrictions on their activities during this century—the pastime has grown from a comparatively minority interest to a massive 13 million nights of tent camping each year — were tremendously enthusiastic about controls. However, the
  634
  intention of the Bill is that the facilities available to those campers should be improved and that standards should be set so that tent campers are assured of a good standard of sites. Despite the fact that some opposition might have been expected I was heartened to discover that, once all the responsible leaders of the organisations involved in tent camping had been reassured about the measures that we propose to protect the informal casual camper, they welcomed them.
  The Bill has the limited objective of creating a unified system of licensing control for tent and caravan camping. It does not address planning problems or wider issues such as mobile homes and gipsies.
  Mr. Porter: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say how many organisations and lobbies are enthusiastic about this complex Bill, which sets out many regulations. How many individuals have supported this legislation? Camping and tenting are often carried out by individualists who prefer to take their holidays in that way and do not wish to be part of an organisation or a lobby. Has it been possible to take their views into account?
  Mr. Hubbard-Miles: There has been some response, but it is much more difficult to obtain a consensus from individuals. Later on, my hon. Friend will realise that in the Bill we are taking steps to protect the camper who wants to go on to a site on his own or with just his family or a couple of friends. Such camping will be excluded from the conditions of the Bill.
  The Bill has limited objectives. We are seeking to minimise bureaucratic intervention and to set controls in a form appropriate to the different types of camping. Any suggestion—there has been this suggestion while we have been talking about this Bill—that it is related to the activities at Greenham Common can be discounted, because this Bill will not affect the events at Greenham Common. Some people thought that there was an ulterior motive in this Bill and that its objective was interference in the activities at Greenham Common. I assure the House that I have no intention of attempting to achieve that. I shall leave that to those who are concerned with the matter.
  The Bill has limited objectives. Clause 1 extends the controls on touring caravans under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 to cover tents. Schedule 1 makes the consequential amendments and disapplies the requirement for tents to be licensed under section 269 of the Public Health Act 1936, so that tent sites as well as caravan sites will be under one and the same system of licensing.
  The next five clauses introduce modifications to the existing dispensations from the controls in the 1960 Act, or introduce new exemptions from licensing to cater for the special character of some tent camping. I wish to emphasise that all exemptions are intended to eliminate bureaucratic interference where it is not justified, and all relate to temporary sites and can be divided into two types. Small numbers and short stays—this covers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter)—do not justify the panoply of controls, so we have put in a number of exemptions to allow such camping to continue unimpeded.
  We have also given credit to the social cohesion of clubs and other organisations. Where an organisation accepts responsibility for its members' activities on a camp site, it will be able to obtain exemptions from licensing

  635
  requirements. This group of exemptions is an attempt to relate the amount of control needed to the ability of the organisation to deliver it. The casual youth group is limited by both numbers and type, and where strongly hierarchical organisations are well able to discipline their members, they should be enabled to camp without any restraints. If one thinks of my first experience as a scout, one will understand the reasons for this.
  In the 1960 Act, a single caravan can spend up to two nights without the site owner needing a licence. Clause 2——
  Mr. Porter: My hon. Friend has properly referred to the exemptions from site licensing for youth organisations, but I see that the definition of a youth organisation is
  "an organisation or institution providing recreation or education for persons most of whom are less than 21 years of age."
  Is my hon. Friend satisfied that that is a proper and appropriate definition, bearing in mind from his own scouting experience that there are rover scouts—I think that they are still called that—who are over the age of 21? There are also organisations such as the Young Conservatives who, for all I know, may go camping up to the age of 30. Should not the definition be looked at in rather more detail?
  Mr. Hubbard-Miles: My hon. Friend has a point, but I suggest that such groups are covered by other clauses. Where an organisation is prepared to accept responsibility for the activities of its members—I presume a group of rover scouts would be a classic example of such an organisation—it can apply for an exemption certificate. A certificate, according to a later clause, can be held on a national or a local basis. My hon. Friend suggested that a group of Young Conservatives from his constituency might wish to go camping. The branch could apply for an exemption certificate for itself, or the national organisation could apply for an exemption certificate for all its branches.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North): Am I right in thinking that this provision would apply to any group taking part in the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme such as schools, members of cadet organisations and even industrial firms? Many people camp under that scheme, and I am sure that this provision would be welcomed generally if it was likely to further that activity.
  Mr. Hubbard-Miles: Yes. That is one of the objects of the Bill. It is to encourage well-run camping expeditions and to encourage groups such as the ones mentioned by my hon. Friend to promote this worthwhile and enjoyable hobby. Any organisation, be it national or local, prepared to accept responsibility for laying down codes of behaviour by its members can apply for exemption from the Bill's provisions.
  Under clause 2, a single caravan can spend up to two nights on a site without the site owner needing a licence. The clause modifies this to provide that either a single tent or a single caravan will be allowed to spend two nights plus the night of any adjacent public holiday such as Good Friday or a bank holiday Monday without the need for a licence. Furthermore, anyone back-packing with a small tent will be free to stop over for the same short stay wherever a farmer is prepared to have him. The only limit
  636
  on camping of that sort is on occupiers, who may not allow such camping for more than 30 nights in any one year without obtaining a licence.
  Clause 3 changes the existing rule which allows three caravans to be stationed for up to 28 days in a year on agricultural land of more than five acres. If the Bill is accepted, in future the limit will be based on two hectares of agricultural land or one hectare of non-agricultural land, with the intention of bringing into use smaller areas of land such as football fields for occasional campers. This again is aimed at encouraging the pursuit of this hobby and again it is proposed that the permitted maximum numbers shall be five caravans or tents and the allowed period 30 nights.
  That brings me to clause 4. The Public Health Act 1936 requires an occupier to have a licence if he wants to run a tent site for more than 42 days. Scouts, guides and similar organisations can obtain exemption from the Department of the Environment which will absolve an occupier from that obligation. In other words, any farmer who provides site accommodation for such organisations will not be required to have a licence.
  Clause 4 replaces that provision so that any organisation which has among its objects the training of the young in good citizenship and discipline may seek an exemption certificate.
  Mr. Porter: Would that include any youth organisation run by, for instance, the National Front?
  Mr. Hubbard-Miles: That is a matter for the Department to consider when an application for such an exemption is made. Clearly, it would be difficult to spell out in the Bill the exact details of political attitudes of organisations. It is not intended that there should be any political attitude towards the hobby. The organisation must show that its object is the training of the young in good citizenship. My hon. Friend and the Minister would have to make up their minds on that.
  The other change in the clause is the provision of a new power which would be available to the Minister to enable him to impose conditions on the exemption certificates. That might cover my hon. Friend's point. For example, there is a need on conservation grounds to control the number of rallies held in some national parks. At present that is done by an administrative arrangement under which those organising caravan rallies in some places are asked to consult national park authorities. This provision will regularise that situation.
  The 1960 Act allows the Minister to authorise selected organisations to issue certificates exempting an occupier from licensing for a site taking up to five caravans. That is known as the certificated location—or CL as it is better known. At present four organisations are allowed to do that. They include the major caravan and camping organisations. Those bodies have the authority to issue a licence to a farmer or landowner saying that he can take up to five caravans on to his land without formally applying to the local authority for a licence.
  It is a mark of how successful that has been that the main organisations impose strict rules on members using this facility and grounds for complaint are effectively zero. Those are worthwhile and helpful situations, catering for small groups of people who perhaps want to get together without the formality of a large site. We are not trying to make one massive site. We are looking for the casual camper, the family camper, who wants to enjoy a few weeks in the company of his friends and family.

  637
  Clause 5 recognises how well that has worked up till now. It benefits campers, farmers and the wider community by keeping the number of sites small. The Bill proposes to increase the number from five to eight and includes caravans or tents, rather than only caravans.
  There have been some critics of certificated locations, but I believe that they meet a need. There are more than 5,000 CLs in the United Kingdom which are used happily and successfully by 300,000 people every year.
  One of the problems that we faced in drawing up the Bill was how to deal with youth camps and rallies. Clause 6 recognises the semi-formal, organised camping for young people which is large enough to be a worry, but not permanently organised so that its internal disciplines and codes of conduct can be an effective control. For example, an organisation may decide, as a one-off event, to take a site to foster good relationships. The clause provides an exemption which should meet the need of those organisations, while preventing long-term, large, uncontrolled, summer-long encampments. The Bill includes exemptions for up to 15 tents for 15 nights. That is in line with the recommendation of the 1971 working party on camping and I warmly commend it.
  Clause 7 deals with the problem of rallies. Various organisations have been anxious to protect the facilities that they enjoy under the current legislation. I have had more correspondence on this subject than on any other and I believe that we have come up with a solution which is acceptable to all sides.
  The 1960 Act allows an exempted organisation to hold caravan rallies for its members lasting for up to five days, without a site licence. About 170 organisations hold exemption certificates and although, as I know from my local area, there are occasional problems, the vast majority of rallies take place without incident or complaint.
  The Bill proposes to continue to rely on the good sense of British club members and to leave the basic concession almost unchanged. It merely proposes to apply the provision to five nights instead of five days, because that makes the matter clearer.
  I hope that those who take part in rallies will be pleased with the new provision that a members' rally of up to 30 nights may be arranged with the prior agreement of the local authority.
  The other important change included in clause 7 is the ending of the exemption under which some clubs have been permitted to establish what are known as managed sites, without the need for a licence. Because of the way in which the General Development Order works, they have not been subject to planning control.
  In practice, only three organisations have established such sites, but it was generally agreed during the consultations that led up to the Bill that any large permanent camping site should be subject to full local authority control for planning and licensing.
  The problem is what to do with existing sites. The Bill suggests a compromise for those who argue that all sites should be controlled and those who believe that none should be. It is reasonable for members of a club to continue to be able to camp on established sites even if they have lower standard facilities than those demanded of sites licensed by a local authority. The Bill contains a transitional provision in schedule 3 to allow existing managed sites which take members only to continue to enjoy exemption.
  Mr. Tony Speller: My hon. Friend seems to be talking out his own Bill, although some of us would like to speak in support of it. If five caravans are parked on a licensed site which holds eight, is there a commercial or a purely political reason for prohibiting the entry of a non-member who may then decide to mess up a local lay-by? What is the purpose of permitting only members when space is available and someone is prepared to pay for it?
  Mr. Hubbard-Miles: Managed sites are similar to certificated locations. If unlimited access to such sites were allowed the certificated locations would be at a disadvantage. The Bill contains a compromise between the two types of site. I believe that only members of a particular organisation should be exempt.
  I appreciate that I am talking rather a long time, but the Bill is long and complicated.
  Mr. Porter: The Bill is long and complicated. Schedule 2 contains a new subsection which states: "Different standards may be specified … in England and Wales and in Scotland."
  I am not sure what that means. Are there to be different model standards for sites in England and Wales and in Scotland or is there a distinction between England and Wales, and Scotland? The words are not clear.
  Mr. Hubbard-Miles: We have no intention of introducing a nationalistic approach. The difference in standards is the difference between the CL and the managed site—the site which is licensed by the local authority and the site with an accepted lower standard because it is an informal camp site. The Bill allows existing sites to continue for a transitional period.
  Much detail is contained in the remaining clauses and schedules because of the complexity of the Bill. We have tried to minimise interference by local authorities.
  Basically, the Bill is fairly simple. That might be a contradiction, but I do not think that it is. Some people believe that the Bill does not go far enough and others that it goes too far. If I have a worry, it is that the new controls may cause some farmers to stop allowing camping in some fields which are used for that purpose for up to 28 days a year. I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain how he plans to phase in the new controls if and when the Bill' is enacted. It is my hope that at the end of the day there will be more and better sites for campers. That is my first concern in promoting the Bill.
  Two provisions are specifically designed to do that, and with these I end my presentation. The first provision is the refinement of the term "adjoining land", which presently governs the extent of unlicensed camping on land in the same occupation, be it a smallholding of 5·5 acres or an estate of 5,500 acres. In future, "adjoining land" will have the sense of within 500 metres on land in the same occupation. Secondly, there is the proposed transitional arrangement which would provide automatic entitlement to a site licence to anyone who can show that in the three years before the Bill was printed he had tents on his land. The conditions in such a licence would be related to the previous stage.
  I believe that if the Bill were enacted it would make a modest but worthwhile improvement to our life together on these islands. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to all hon. Members for being so patient. I commend the Bill to the House.
  1.16 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) on his foresight in using his good fortune in the ballot to bring this important Bill before the House. As he rightly said, both camping and caravanning are fast-growing leisure pursuits, and the two are often interchangeable. Campers eventually grow older and become caravanners. The Caravan Club has about 250,000 members, and it is estimated that about 2 million campers and caravanners intermittently use the facilities that we are discussing. They use facilities that enable them to see the best of Britain. Their presence is not permanent, so they do not destroy the environment. They go to enjoy the environment and to leave no trace of having been there, unlike developments which include shacks or holiday bungalows, which can irritate the local community. The campers and caravanners arrive at the sites, spend their money and leave.
  There has been no legislation on this subject since 1960, and it is important that our legislation is brought up to date. That is what the hon. Gentleman has sought to do. I should declare an interest, because I am a keen caravanner, a member of the council of the Caravan Club and the secretary of the all-party camping and caravan group.
  The Bill goes back to the working party's report in 1971, when it was decided that the false distinction between tents and caravans should end. The hon. Gentleman has given effect to that recommendation by using the word "units". When I was a Minister from 1974 to 1976 in the previous Labour Government, I and my ministerial colleagues used always to consider next year's legislation at about this time of year. A Bill of this sort was always on the long list, but it never reached the short list. The hon. Gentleman has put his Bill before the House, and that will be of great advantage to the House.
  The working party's report said that the distinction between tents and caravans should go. It recommended that the exemption for 28 days, which is limited to three caravans, should be increased to five units. The ludicrous position had arisen whereby a farmer could take the three caravans for a total of 28 days, and an unlimited number of tents. There was much newspaper comment and many reports of greedy farmers overloading their fields with tents, which can become a public health hazard. The Bill puts that right. Having provided that there can be up to five units on a 28-day site, it would be ludicrous to leave the figure at five caravans for certificated locations. The hon. Gentleman correctly increases that figure to eight.
  I shall explain what is meant by a certificated location, because non-caravanners may not fully understand. It is typical ministerial jargon, which comes straight from the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Many phrases in current use come from Acts of Parliament. We cannot think of any better definition than "certificated location", the words in the Act. Certificated locations are the jewel in the crown of caravanning. The Camping and Caravanning Club of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Caravan Club and other organisations police the system at their own expense. The Caravan Club rejects 60 per cent. of the people who apply to have a certificated location on their land. An inspector goes around the land. He may not be satisfied with the access
  640
  to the site. He may consider it dangerous for a caravan to go in and out of a narrow lane, and he would reject the site. That works extremely well.
  The Minister will be aware that the present Secretary of State for Employment, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, at the Caravan Club's 75th anniversary dinner, paid tribute to the certificated location system. He said that an Act of Parliament had rarely devised a system that caused so little trouble to anyone.
  This year the Caravan Club has not received one complaint from a local authority about any of its 4,000-plus certificated locations. There are few institutions about which one can say that. The site is carefully considered by the club before anyone obtains a licence.
  The fact that the figure is increased from five to eight does not necessarily mean that there will be eight units on each site. If a site is small, the Caravan Club would say, "No, you have only half an acre, you cannot go up to eight caravans." If the site is 10 or 12 acres, it is absurd to limit the number to five when other people are anxious to use the site.
  Let us preserve the CL system. If the 28-day exemption increase from three to five is accepted, it is logical that the CL numbers should increase from five to eight as is proposed in the Bill.
  I disagree with the method suggested by the hon. Member for Bridgend for applications for CLs. At the moment, whichever club is involved, it polices the system. It has discretion whether to issue a CL licence. The hon. Gentleman proposes that the organisation must give written notification to the local authority. The Association of District Councils did not ask for that. It did not want that addition to bureaucracy, but the Caravan Club would agree that where a local authority asked that it should always be given written authority, that would be done. That is fair enough.
  A good example which springs to mind is the Gower peninsula, near to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. There is so much pressure in such an area that it would be perfectly reasonable for a local authority to demand advanced notification. It is absurd to require advanced notification in every case when the system works so well and is so well policed by the clubs. I think that it is a little unnecessary, and if we reach the Committee stage that small matter might be put right.
  I slightly disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he proposes that in future exempted sites should require planning permission. I wonder why. There has been no complaint about them. There was nothing about that in the 1971 report. It seems needless, and we are worried about what would happen to the existing 181 sites. Will they have to apply for planning consent? I do not think that the wording of the Bill is clear. The requirement would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and would cause a great deal of work for no reason.
  The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) asked about non-members using a members' site. Ideally, the club prefers a site for its own members' use, and it is usually the local authority or the national park that asks the club whether others may use the facility. The site is neat and tidy and is administered by the club, and when it can be used generally the local authority does not have the worry of caravans being parked in lay-bys and so on. That

  641
  aspect should be considered. I do not think that it is necessary to apply for planning assent for existing sites; nor is there a need for that to be done in the future.
  I have mentioned some very minor niggles arising from a praiseworthy Bill. I congratulate the promoter. How far the Bill will get at this late stage in the Session I do not know, but if a Second Reading is given to the Bill today the Minister will know that the will of the House is clear and that he could, in the next Session of Parliament, bring in Government legislation on this very important subject. If he did, he would get a very fair wind behind him from the Opposition.
  1.26 pm
  Mr. Tony Speller: I join the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) on getting so far with his Bill, even if he took rather a long time about it. Those of us who come from the west country are well aware that the trains from Paddington are infrequent and seem to get less and less frequent. That is why I want to bring perhaps a change in view to the debate.
  We have been listening with great interest to reasons why the Government or the parliamentary system should regulate, re-regulate and in many cases make even more regulations, but meanwhile the people are choosing, of their own free will, to go to self-catering accommodation in buildings or caravans or tents. I have obtained figures today from the English Tourist Board, via the excellent West Country tourist board, showing the number of holiday nights and where they are spent.
  The figures are interesting. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend overstated one of the figures by 50 per cent. You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have a west country interest. I find that 96 million holiday nights were spent in the west country last year. These days our holiday season is very short — part of June, all of July and August and part of September. It is fascinating to find that 51 per cent. of those holiday nights were spent in catered accommodation, and, to my astonishment, a full 49 per cent. in the west country were in self-catering of one kind or another. I in no way object to the Bill, but those figures show a changing pattern of the holiday world which must be considered.
  In my part of the country a number of farmers have been badly hit by the milk quotas. It might be suggested that this has no relevance to the debate. On the contrary. The right hon. Member for Halton mentioned the certificated locations, which are usually very small countryside sites where the farmer or his wife is able to obtain a useful contribution to the farm income. Anything which makes that harder to do, and less attractive, should be opposed root and branch.
  There can be no doubt that the self-catering industry is replacing hotels and boarding houses to a considerable degree. I mentioned that 51 per cent. of holidays in the west country were in catered accommodation—that is where someone is paid to feed the holidaymaker—and that 49 per cent. were not. The next figure shows how the split occurs. In the self-catering sector—the only one with which we are concerned today—caravans are only 10 per cent. of the total, and tents 16 per cent. Flats, chalets and buildings which are rented and occupied by holidaymakers make up 34 per cent. of the total. Therefore, only a third of those involved in self-catering
  642
  are in a building of some sort where they look after themselves. Within this figure, those using holiday camps account for a mere 10 per cent. of the total.
  In my area there are some super static caravan sites. We call them caravans without wheels. They can be moved, but it is a difficult task. They represent 26 per cent. of all holiday nights in the west country, far more than I would have guessed. It is interesting to note that just over a third of the accommodation is in holiday camps and on static sites, where a bar or some form of refreshment facility is usually provided.
  My hon. Friend is concerned particularly with tents and touring caravans. Caravans account for 10 per cent. and tents for 16 per cent. of the total holiday nights, as I said earlier. That is a very high percentage — exactly the same as for buildings other than flats or chalets. I shall deal in a moment with the goods and bads of touring caravans. My present point is that my hon. Friend's Bill relates to only 26 per cent. of the total holiday input into the west country. Hon. Members from further afield may be interested to know that whereas in the west country there is about a 50–50 division between catering and self-catering holidays, outside the west country the self-catering figure is now 60 per cent. That may mean that there are many more tents and caravans dotting the hills around Bridgend, and not enhancing the view.
  I should add, for those who wish to tot up the figures, that 2 per cent. of west country holidays are on boats.
  The right hon. Member for Halton mentioned the Caravan Club. I, too, am a paid-up member of that excellent body, which has a quarter of a million family members or, in other words, half a million married couples, or three quarters of a million family groups of husband, wife and child. These are responsible and caring people who love the countryside and prefer to take their holidays there.
  There is a current canard that caravanners do not spend money. It may be that, because of our ridiculous Sunday trading laws, caravanners have to take some things with them because they cannot buy them locally, but the two most recent surveys show that in this country an average caravan holiday party spend £300, apart from their motoring costs, on their holiday.
  If my hon. Friend's Bill becomes law—or if the Government bring in similar legislation in a later Session —it will make life difficult for the caravanner. We will destroy a large sector of our tourist industry, and we shall not help anybody, except that our action will be good news for the touring clubs of France and Spain. As with our licensing laws, we shall be driving abroad tourists who find our restrictions too irksome and are not prepared to accept them. There is a danger that additional restrictions will lose us not merely the golden egg, but the whole goose. The tourists will go elsewhere.
  It is fashionable to say that caravans destroy the traffic pattern. I come from lovely north Devon, where there is one whole mile of dual carriageway in a large constituency —and that was constructed only because of the presence of an industrial estate. In my area it is often the tractors or the cows that cause delays. Caravans move at a pretty brisk pace. They certainly travel as fast as many overloaded cars.
  I accept the third objection, which is that caravans are not beautiful. Bad sites have spoilt the whole principle of tenting and caravanning. Those who belong to the major

  643
  organisations know and accept the truth of that. That is why, for example, we seem to have a number of members here from the Caravan Club.
  It is not necessary for sites to spoil the landscape. In the Lake District there is a site for 300 caravans very close to the lakes, and it cannot be seen. It has been sculpted into the countryside and the area has been fenced and planted with trees. However, it is true that a bad site looks awful and should not be allowed.
  There is at present a general exemption which allows anyone to make some use of his land for tenting or caravanning for up to 28 days in a year. There are also certificated locations where one of the camping or caravan clubs has allowed—as is their present right—planning permission. Three caravans are allowed under the exemption, and five on a certificated location. It would be wrong to remove that distinction. There is a difference between the field or bit of land which is used for 28 days in a year and has no facilities, and the certificated location which is inspected annually—the certification has to be renewed—and which must have good facilities. If my hon. Friend's Bill is passed and the general exemption goes up to five caravans, I am sure that many hon. Members agree that we should then be talking about at least eight for the certificated location. The danger is one of size.
  Operators of wheel-less caravan sites object strongly if they see people who are not in their line of business seeming to cream off business. If a person likes a holiday in the country, whether in a caravan or in a tent, he is probably different from the type of person who wants to rent a holiday bungalow or a static caravan. We should make a great mistake if, as a result of the Bill, we found that we were discriminating against site operators in favour of anyone. The British people are quite capable of making up their own minds where to take their holidays. As a west country Member, I hope that we shall not make it more difficult for people to come down to my part of the world.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) has asked several pertinent questions. The Bill bears little resemblance to a private Member's Bill, as it is lengthy and extremely detailed. I sometimes fear to ask too many questions in case the answers have not yet been thought out. Occasionally a good and simple idea turns into a vast octopus of legislation which, unwittingly, draws in every district council. They will be required to argue, discuss and visit sites. We shall bureaucratise something that goes along very nicely as it is.
  The right hon. Member for Halton said that there had not been one complaint last year to the Caravan Club, which is by far the biggest of the relevant organisations. What on earth is the point of making a change? I do not object to the principle of my hon. Friend's Bill, but I wonder whether the practice of it could be unduly time-consuming for councils. There is always the niggling fear, which is perhaps more common on this side of the House than on Opposition Benches, that we are providing jobs for the boys where we might have taken jobs away in the past few years. I can envisage planning committees saying that because they have the extra responsibility for camping sites they need more planners and inspectors. At the moment, the system is self-policed and self-financed. If the result of that is no complaint by any public body, we shold be happy with that success story.
  644
  I fear that we might be moving a little too fast just because some things are bad. I understand the problem near Bridgend, as I have seen how a crop of tents can appear to come up overnight. The same happens in my part of the world, although, fortunately, we have rules and regulations which prevent too much abuse in national parks. I understand the argument against unlimited and unplanned camping and caravanning, but the present system does not do badly. Although my hon. Friend's Bill is unlikely to go further in this Session, should it come forward again I hope that we shall have something far simpler, a bare skeleton, through which we can work. I am well aware that the legal men say that everything must be described, redescribed and defined, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South said in his interventions, we must ask whether we really need a Bill when there are no problems. That is the crux of the issue. What is the point of this Parliament trying to impose more legislation when we do not appear to need such a full-bodied Bill?
  I am well aware that people complain whenever something new emerges, whether it be a small airfield or microlight aircraft with engines that go pop, pop, pop. Every time we seek to build a new road somebody complains, and every time someone suggests a caravan park people complain. We have the infinite problem of finding a balance between peace and quiet, which is what caravanners and campers want from a place such as Exmoor or the north Devon coastline, and the need for those of us who live in such places to make a living from them. Although the North Devon district council is extremely enlightened and sensible, some councils are dominated by people who, rightly or wrongly, describe themselves as conservationists, to the extent that they would drive both camper and caravanner from those few remaining lungs of Britain adjacent to our national parks. I would deeply regret that.
  I do not wish to oppose the Bill. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend on having brought it to this stage, though perhaps, alas, too late. If it comes forward in future, I hope that those who draft the Bill will bear in mind that some hon. Members think that it is their job to reduce the volume of legislation and to legislate only when it is strictly necessary. My attitude will depend on what the Minister says, but at this stage I do not feel other than neutral. The case has not been made.
  1.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I hope that it will be convenient for me to intervene at this stage because many points have been made. I hope that I shall not detain the House too long.
  First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) on the way in which he introduced the Bill—with his clause by clause analysis and background experience—and on the way in which he has stuck to the task during the past 12 months. A great deal of research has gone into the Bill and he has held long discussions with interested leading organisations. Many of those organisations are most enlightened in their attitude towards the problem, and have approached it with a degree of constructiveness, which I hope will be echoed elsewhere.
  My hon. Friend triggered off some recollections in mind mind about camping many years ago. I must say,

  645
  perhaps at some risk of misinterpretation outside the House, that my experiences were somewhat similar to his. He referred to the type of accommodation that existed in the 1950s. I am not sure whether he can remember that decade but I certainly can. My experiences under canvas were of a military nature. The dripping walls of canvas were a reason which provided me with a prolonged anxiety complex and a certain amount of depression about the prospects of camping under canvas again. That is a source of deep dismay to my family. An enormous number of people participate in camping to enjoy holidays, the countryside and leisure. It has become an enormous industry throughout Europe and is a most important dimension of our society. My hon. Friend was right to mention the explosion of interest and the enormous demand for it.
  Over the years many Opposition Members have taken a close interest in the subject. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was a Minister he set up the working party, and the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), who mentioned important issues in his speech, played a part as a former Minister in the Department.
  A great deal of work has been done. There has been a working party, there have been recommendations, and officials both inside and outside my Department have put a great deal of work into the matter. I congratulate them and thank them for what they have done.
  The Government broadly welcome the Bill. The will of the House will decide whether it makes progress. I would certainly not stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there are plans for it in future Sessions, because this subject has been around for many years. The parliamentary timetable is important. Whether it reaches the Committee stage will depend on the attitude of all hon. Members. The strategy behind the Bill is to be welcomed. The involvement of successive Administrations in proposals to modify and modernise licensing controls is important, and with the explosion of camping in recent years this Bill is as close as we are likely to come to an agreed compromise among the various interests in camping and caravanning.
  Anyone involved in such pursuits outside the House must view the Bill with some anxiety. I shall not defend or criticise my hon. Friend's Bill, which is a private Member's Bill, but the Government are anxious to approach it constructively. It is not our intention, as some of my hon. Friends said, to introduce more bureaucracy. The intention is to introduce some unification, which was an important feature of my hon. Friend's speech. As the right hon. Member for Halton and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 brought touring as well as static caravans under a new form of licensing control while leaving tent camping to continue to be licensed in England and Wales under the Public Health Act 1936.
  It is interesting to note that the 1960 Act contained 30 clauses and 15 schedules, which is in stark contrast to my hon. Friend's Bill. I do not mean to be disparaging when I say that my hon. Friend's measure is more modest. Those of us who have taken the trouble to acquaint ourselves with the 1960 Act during the past year since my hon. Friend was fortunate enough to come so high in the ballot will know that those 30 clauses and 15 schedules did not do what they set out to do. We are all capable of being wonderful armchair critics with the benefit of hindsight, but the 1960 Act was, in some respects, an obvious mistake. It was not
  646
  long before the development of the frame tent introduced the revolution in camping about which the House has heard. Not only were tent sizes similar to those of caravans, but the fittings available induced thousands of people daily to take up camping. More and more people could inhabit one tent, and the dichotomy between camping and caravan-site licensing became less and less sensible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) has corresponded with me about this subject more than once and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has experienced similar problems. Those who have the good fortune to represent the glorious parts of our kingdom must suffer such planning difficulties. I do not wish to discuss the planning aspects today. Although several questions have been asked, they must be directed elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend painted a glowing picture of the Gower peninsula that might induce me to return there later this year.
  Camping and caravan licensing have been separate, but there is now a much closer relationship between frame tents and touring caravans than there is between the latter and static caravans, be they holiday caravans or mobile homes.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: It has been suggested that we are doing something new by trying to unify the legislation for caravans and tents. However, the effect of pre-war legislation was that both were covered under the same planning and public health legislation. The anomaly was that the 1960 Act ignored that process and dealt only with caravans. In that sense, we are simply legislating for what was always the position.
  Mr. Macfarlane: That is right, but we should recognise that it was not a deliberate omission from the 1960 Act. Tent camping has moved at such a pace in the interim that we must now assess what should be done. I do not wish to be drawn too far down that road, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Potter) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Brigend about gipsies and mobile homes. If I can offer one source of solace today, I can say that the Bill does not relate to gipsies, who are covered by the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and by subsequent legislation on mobile homes. I can offer a small crumb of comfort to my hon. Friend for his constituents—that this legislation does not impinge on past legislation on this matter.
  Mr. Porter: My hon. Friend has obviously read the Bill in some detail. On the point about gipsies, tinkers and mobile homes, will the Bill affect what is happening on Hampstead heath? There are some elderly people up there who are terribly worried about what is happening.
  Mr. Macfarlane: I feel that I should not answer on that point, although I have responsibility for gipsies and their problems. Legislation is available to control what is occurring there. I should not wish to incur your displeasure on a Friday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by going too far. The answer to my hon. Friend is that this legislation will not intrude on previous legislation.
  I shall now touch on the background of some of the historical aspects of the Bill.
  In 1969, a camping working party was formed by the then Ministry of Housing and Local Government to

  647
  examine the situation and in 1971 it reported on many aspects of camping with recommendations many of which, with little change, are contained in this Bill.
  The major proposal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend has explained, is to unify site licensing controls over camping and caravanning.
  It is pleasant to reflect that two of the signatories of the report, as long ago as 1969–71, were Mr. Donald Chidson of the Caravan Club and Mr. George Cubitt of the Camping and Caravanning Club who is a member of the Sports Council, and they are both still in post today. That provides continuity, and I hope will give my hon. Friends who are concerned about aspects of the Bill some reassurance. I believe that their organisations welcome the Bill, and it is important to have such organisations behind it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend has been diligent in ensuring that there is such support. There are, of course, details that they would like to see changed, as hon. Members would, but that can be undertaken in Committee.
  Little then happened until the long summer of 1976, when camping suddenly became more popular than it had even been before. Revival of interest led to the issue in 1978 by the previous Administration of a public consultation paper based on the recommendations of the working party.
  We continued the working party. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when Secretary of State for the Environment, announced in November 1980 that the Government believed that legislation to implement those recommendations in a slightly modified form would be desirable when parliamentary time could be found.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend is therefore to be congratulated on bringing to the House a measure which is the fruit of so much hard work and discussion and which is, as I know from discussions that I have had with many of the groups most affected, generally supported on all sides.
  The most important reservation that has been expressed is that there is a danger that the new legislation will result in a reduction in available camp sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend asked me to explain how the Government would plan to avoid that.
  We are determined to avoid it. Paragraph (3) of schedule 3 is the key provision. It provides that all tent sites so used at any time within a three-year period before publication of the Bill shall be automatically entitled to a site licence. Three years has been chosen because many such sites are on farms and in fields which are used for crop rotation. It may be that some are used for tenting only every third year. This is a fairly predictable pattern.
  I have shown our determination to ensure that all sites are covered. It is no part of our policy to reduce the availability of camping sites. The thrust of the Bill is to provide for better control over existing sites, and it is our intention to encourage new licensed sites to be brought into use.
  It is clear that all of us dislike bureaucracy, and farmers are no exception to that. Many have argued that farmers dislike bureaucracy so much that they will not even bother to apply for a site licence. That is not likely to happen except in a small minority of cases. It may happen in some cases, but it will be sporadic.
  648
  The responses of fanners to any additional red tape has be be offset against their great experience in handling paperwork wherever there is additional money at the end of it. I do not wish to be flippant about this, as the Government see this as the greatest problem to be solved if the new controls are to achieve our objective of more and better camping sites. That is clearly in the interests of hon. Members who have a profusion of such sites in their constituencies. That is why the controls are very important.
  Much as my Department dislikes circulars, we are already committed to doing all that we can by way of circulars. We have to use them sparingly, but in this instance they are important. In addition, there will be seminars and publicity to make the new controls easily understood and the licences easy to apply for. We are willing to consider any other measure that will help to ensure that site owners feel it worth their while to continue offering places to campers.
  We shall be looking to local authorities to use the transitional period of 18 months that we should propose to leave between the passing of the Bill and its commencement to work out how they are to meet camping needs in their areas. I believe that in many cases this will mean that licences for small, short season, 30-day sites will be granted with a lower standard of facilities than those required at commercial sites.
  The other anxiety that I have had expressed to me, not only today but outside the House, is about casual camping and rallying. This again has been looked at carefully, and I believe that my hon. Friend has struck the right balance in the Bill. Although he does not carry everyone wholeheartedly, I think that, given time, those anxieties will be allayed. I have looked at these proposals carefully, but there is no point in bringing in controls which everyone agrees are needed and then having so many exemptions that they do not bite effectively.
  Many people have expressed concern that there are too many exempted organisations. Some background on that might be of help to the House. Currently, there are 173 caravan clubs holding certificates of exemption, all of which may hold rallies under paragraph 6 of the first schedule to the 1960 Act. Only four of these organisations — the Caravan Club, the Camping and Caravanning Club, the Motor Caravan Club and the Civil Service Motoring Association — may set up certificated locations, and only the first three of these have been allowed to set up managed sites. The certificated locations have to be notified to my Department. Between them, these organisations have just over 5,000.
  Managed sites are not notifiable, so that the exact number is unknown, although the Caravan Club's handbook states that it has 180 this year. Although there has been a large increase in the number of exempted organisations for rallying purposes—there were about 57 in 1977—the majority are probably splinter groups from the larger clubs who were either dissatisfied with the larger organisations or preferred to arrange smaller, more personal rallies. But I do not think that there appears to have been any significant increase in rallying as a result of the increase in exempted organisations. All have been required to abide by a code of conduct as a prerequisite of the issue of an exemption certificate, and so far no complaints about their activities have been received. One certificate has been withdrawn, but this was because the club secretary was abusing the privileges.

  649
  The genuine back-packer and the genuine rallier have nothing to fear from the Bill. The site operator who tries to use the availability of exemptions to operate an unlicensed site all summer should find it difficult. But this is a matter of detail which I suppose the House could well discuss in Committee.
  That leads me to my final observation. The Bill is a compromise in which many of us, not least the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) who initiated the 1978 round of consultations of which this Bill is the culmination, have had a part. It should be seen as a package. It is a balancing of diverse interests for the greater public good. That is why I believe that the right place to test whether the details rather than the principle are as they should be is in Committee. The Government welcome the Bill. We think that it is an important step forward.
  1.59 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) has promoted this Bill. There is no doubt that the issues that he raises have great pertinence for Members of Parliament who represent my part of the world. I ought perhaps to say, as a lawyer, that I can well understand why what is effectively a fairly simple measure does not make easy reading. I am not trying to make money for my profession—that would be wrong—but I can understand why the Bill is not an easy read.
  My experience of camping was not particularly auspicious. The only time that I attempted it was many years ago at a pop festival on the Isle of Wight. I put up my tent, but it was promptly stolen, and I had to buy a paper sleeping bag from an entrepreneur who was selling them on that occasion. I do not know whether he was also stealing the tents, but it certainly made me realise that I would associate myself more readily with the entrepreneurial seller of sleeping bags than with the happy wanderers who pitched tents.
  One particular aspect of the Bill upon which I want to touch was raised first in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and then dealt with at length by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). It was suggested that we are passing more law than we need and interfering in areas where no legislation is needed. If a Conservative Administration were seen to be conniving at such behaviour, one would wonder what was going on.
  An anomaly has crept into the system, even though it may have been unintentional. Before the war, legislation to control the use of camping sites covered both caravans and tents. It did so by a rather ramshackle and haphazard combination of planning regulations and the Public Health Act 1936. The simple fact is that the legislation was seen to be creaking and failing, and by the early 1950s it was not working. Finally, we had the 1960 Act, which, in a sense, was a watershed.
  In 1960, the traditional idea of a tent or a back-packer was very different from what it is today. There was an almost Arcadian feel to them. One imagines people wandering through some sepia-tinted countryside with a tent on their back, laying down their head where they will. The situation is far different now. Many tents are nothing but inflatable caravans. Their size and complexity mean that more often than not they are towed behind a large motor car, not simply strapped to someone's back.
  650
  From my experience of the congested roads in my constituency and in the west country, where I have lived all my life, the development and technology of tents has ensured that the distinction between a tent and caravan has become even more artificial. The Bill defines a large tent as one which exceeds 2·6m in height. In plain English, I take that to be about 8ft. It has been described as something the size of a marquee. It only goes to show that we are not dealing here merely with a small tent. We have moved on from that. Therefore, it is clear that this legislation is required.
  My only other reservation is perhaps a lawyer's point. When one reads a Bill such as this, one almost hankers after a consolidated Act, which would make the thing easier to read. That is an old grouse of some lawyers, but I see no reason why I should not put it forward again.
  Having said that, I must say the Bill is a useful measure. I can understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North has his reservations about it, but we must face the fact that the distinction between a caravan and a tent is largely academic, and therefore it is right that the legislation should be consolidated so that they can be dealt with in the same way.
  2.3 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) on persevering with his private Member's Bill. I can appreciate his frustration, because I see from the Bill that it was ordered to be printed on 20 July 1983 when he came, I think, 10th in the ballot. We are giving the Bill its Second Reading on virtually its first anniversary.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and the Minister referred to the working party. Its members might have an equal or greater sense of frustration, since it was convened in 1969 and reported in 1971 and they are still waiting.
  The main purpose of the Bill is
  "to introduce a unified system for the control of caravan and tent sites throughout Great Britain."
  We should look at the Brill, not as introducing more bureaucracy, but as a measure to extend controls on caravans to camping. The Bill substantially maintains existing exemptions and even makes some relaxations. Hon. Members who are worried about the extension of bureaucracy should be reassured.
  There is a clear need for the Bill, as is shown by the dates of the legislation governing existing arrangements. Much of our discussion has related to the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, but the other legislation on camping goes back to the Public Health Act 1936 and to byelaws made under that Act. Those Acts also govern caravans, but at least there is the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960; there is much more modern legislation on caravans, and it is intended to extend those controls to camping.
  The popularity of caravans has increased considerably. The working party said that it had no precise figures, but my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) will be interested to know that it was calculated that there had been a tenfold increase in tenting in his neighbouring county in a 26-year period. It was estimated in the working party report that there was a general annual

  651
  increase of 10 per cent., which is not as much as a tenfold increase in 26 years, but is a sign of the increased interest in tenting.
  Tents are now much more substantial than the leaky Army or boy scout tents. With tubular frame construction, tents can be larger than caravans and are often significant units of accommodation. That must alter some of our attitudes towards tenting.
  It is important that the control of sites should be proper and orderly, but the Bill is not unnecessarily restrictive. It makes the arrangements for caravans and camping better for all who enjoy those pursuits and for those who are involved with them, because of the location of sites and so on.
  The Bill is of particular interest to hon. Members who represent holiday areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend outlined his interest. I know his constituency, particularly the part near Porthcawl, which has a substantial summer population of holiday residents in caravans and camps.
  Wales has been successful in attracting tourists through the efforts of the Welsh Tourist Board and others. Good progress has been made, though we are far from satisfied. There is still more potential and I hope that the Bill will help us to realise some of it.
  My constituency does not have a large summer population of holiday residents, but, as other hon. Members have extolled the virtues of their constituencies, perhaps I may point out that I can fairly claim to represent the most attractive rural areas of Cardiff and it may be possible to develop camping and caravanning in my constituency.
  I want to ensure that current imperfections are not continued. As the demand increases, proper arrangements should be made so that the balance of advantage is not outweighed by nuisance to the local community. The working party stressed the weaknesses in planning controls. Under the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1963, no limit is placed on the number of tents that can use a site for up to 28 days in any calendar year. Some popular holiday areas have no facilities and become saturated with tents. That can seriously detract from the amenities of the countryside and, in coastal areas, the freedoms can prejudice policies for conserving the coast.
  It is impracticable for local planning authorities to keep a check on all sites to establish whether the 28-day rule has been exceeded. Camping use may be prolonged within the scope of the order by an owner using different parts of his land in succession for camping. It is possible for the general freedom provided under class IV.2 of the general development order to be removed by a direction under article 4. Several hundred directions under article 4 have been made by local planning authorities and approved by the Minister, withdrawing the permission given under class IV.2 in respect of tent camping. Such directions act as a deterrent to landowners who might otherwise make land available for camping sites.
  Article 4 directions do not provide the complete answer. A refusal of planning permission for development covered by an article 4 direction gives rise to a liability for compensation in respect of the loss resulting from the refusal. Some planning permissions have been granted in view of the compensation implications.
  652
  Another difficulty about relying on control by means of article 4 directions is that they could have the effect of moving the problem to the areas outside those to which the directions relate.
  The enforcement procedure under the planning legislation, entailing the service of an enforcement notice, with a right of appeal to the Minister and a possible inquiry, is not sufficiently speedy to deal with temporary contraventions of camping uses. By the time that procedure is completed, the development will probably have ceased and the notice is unlikely to have any practical effect until the following year. The powers in section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, under which a stop notice can be served to prevent further development pending proceedings on enforcement notice, do not apply because they relate to operations and not to uses.
  Public health is a great worry to many of us. Public health legislation contains weaknesses. An extensive period is allowed before camping needs a licence under section 269 of the Public Health Act 1936 — 42 consecutive days or 60 days in total in 12 consecutive months—so it is extremely difficult for local authorities to enforce licensing provisions. Proving that such use has exceeded the permitted period places a heavy burden on local authorities. By the time that proceedings come before the courts, the main camping season is likely to have finished.
  Licensing control can also be evaded by moving all the tents from one part of the land to another so that no one part is used for longer than the specified period. The terms of a licence under section 269 cannot subsequently be modified. The maximum fine for a contravention is £5, and for continuing contraventions £2 per day. A licence cannot be revoked by the courts.
  Because of the absence of effective public health controls, nuisances from tent camping on unlicensed sites frequently arise. These nuisances result from the accumulation of refuse and the disposal of sewage and foul water. Vermin can be attracted and there might be a risk of pollution to water sources.
  If there is no adequate control, water provided at a site might be polluted, nuisance from noise may be caused and close siting results in overcrowding and fire risk. The model byelaws under section 268 of the Public Health Act are not suited to tent camping and enable action to be taken only after the nuisance has occurred. We need a system under which local authorities can ensure that adequate facilities are provided on tent camping sites to prevent a public health nuisance arising.
  I know that reservations have been offered about some of the Bill's proposals. However, having studied the Bill, the working party's reports and other evidence, I feel that we are not talking about an unnecessary intrusion. The Bill will not interfere with casual camping, back-packing, rallies or even motor cycle meets. It will not interfere with the Camping and Caravanning Club or with the Caravan Club, two of the most important bodies in the camping and caravanning world, which have a special position under licensing arrangements with the Department of the Environment.
  The Bill might be somewhat involved, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend sought to describe it, it is straightforward and comparatively simple. It is not an earth-shattering measure, and it is not unnecessarily restrictive. It is a most desirable measure to bring about

  653
  uniformity in caravanning and camping. The holiday areas especially will find it desirable to have it on the statute book, and the same can be said of potential holiday areas.
  I hope that we shall yet find the time in some way to pursue the Bill's progress to a conclusion, or at least lay the ground appropriately so that the Bill can be picked up in the next Session.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the debate but my point of order concerns the actions of the Secretary of State for Social Services today following the occupation of St. Leonard's hospital, Hackney. The hospital was due for closure and acute patients were to be sent to St. Bartholomew's hospital, which is nearby.
  The Secretary of State has sought by means of an application in the courts yesterday and today to obtain a possession order and an eviction order against those persons currently occupying the hospital. There are 49 patients to be moved from the hospital following the closure of six wards and the loss of 90 beds. My concern is whether the right hon. Gentleman's actions in seeking a possession order and an eviction order against the shop stewards and the trade union concerned, which is the National Union of Public Employees, has been taken properly after discussions with members of the district health authority, and whether he should be asked to come to the House, even at this hour, to explain his actions and to make a full statement on this important matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): There is nothing that I can do to help the hon. Gentleman on the issue that he has raised. It is nothing to do with me as the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Statements have been made by Ministers almost on the spur of the moment. Yesterday, at half an hour's notice, we had a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was on an important issue, but not one involving life and death, which is true of the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). We are talking about the lives of people in St. Leonards hospital, Hackney, and perhaps the Leader of the House, who is in his place, could make arrangements for a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security quickly to come to the House to make a statement.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The proper time for statements has long since passed. There was no application from the Secretary of State at the appropriate time this morning to make a statement.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House has heard the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and even the right hon. Gentleman must have some concern for the 49 patients who are liable to be moved. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Leader of the House to contact the Secretary of State for Social Services and to make some arrangement that at least will reassure my hon. Friend that the 49 patients will be cared for properly.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the concern that hon. Members have expressed, but there is nothing that I can do as the occupant of the Chair to assist in this matter.
  Mr. Corbyn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you advise me and my hon. Friends of the best way to obtain an answer from the Secretary of State, because I understand that an application is being made at this moment in the High Court for a possession order and for the eviction of those people who are currently protecting that hospital and the patients in it from the actions of Her Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be very rash, even on a Friday afternoon, were I to try to advise the hon. Member on such matters. I believe that he appreciates that.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House is here. May we have a statement on this important matter?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to wish to respond. I must remind hon. Members that we are taking up valuable private Members' time.
  2.19 pm
  Mr. Barry Porter: I was beginning to believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that no one wanted to hear what I was about to say about an important matter. In saying that, I in no way criticise the hon. Gentlemen who have taken the steps that they have this afternoon on a matter that is apparently of great importance to them. I hope that they will do me the courtesy of treating the remarks that I make about this important private Member's Bill in the same way.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) on his courage, nay even his effrontery, in bringing a Bill of this complexity to the House. I have met my hon. Friend on a number of occasions and found him a most congenial companion. When I find him down to schedule 7, paragraph 3, item 4, I begin to wonder whether that geniality was somewhat contrived. Although I have no intention of dividing the House against the Bill, that might give him some cause for thought.
  Hon. Members may be wondering why someone from the north-west should be interested in such a matter. There are a number of reasons. One is that I am a former camper, and, while my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was busy defending the country in a tent, I was busy in a tent in what was then called Anglesey, and which now by force of the Boundary Commission is called Ynys Môn. It happend to be an Army tent, and of course my hon. Friend the Minister was right: if it rained the rain came through the roof.
  I am minded, as a matter of some boastfulness, to inform the House that as a result of my camping in Ynys Môn I was awarded the Todhunter prize for the best scout at camp. That cannot be gainsaid. In the 23rd Birkenhead that was an achievement. It was the high spot of my camping career, which thereafter declined. For the past 20 years I have not been in a tent save a marquee at Chester races where I intend to go the next time as well.
  There is, however, a more serious reason why I address my mind to the Bill. It is well known—the Opposition should take note of this — that deindustrialisation is taking place in the north and north-west. That will continue regardless of which political party happens to be in power. I welcome it in this sense alone: the great mill towns and the dirty industrial towns of the old north are not proper and fit places for people to live in.

  655
  I have addressed my mind to what can take the place of the employment that those admittedly dirty places provided in the past. By the grace of my colleagues, I am the vice-chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench committee on tourism. While I have listened with great interest to those represenatives of established tourist areas, my anxiety about the Bill is what it might do to those areas which wish to become tourist areas and provide employment.
  There is enormous potential for tourism in the Wirral peninsula. For those hon. Members who know nothing about the Wirral peninsula, may I say that it stretches from the Mersey, which is industrialised and contains Port Sunlight in my constituency—a great Unilever complex —and, at least to date, a shipyard, through splendid farming country to the Dee.
  The other day some farmers came to see me. They were concerned with milk quotas, about which an announcement had been made. I understand that as a result they will have to reduce their herds. I do not pretend to understand agriculture, but that was the gist of their complaint. With fewer cows they will need less land. I was asked for my advice on what they should do with their land. I said, "Why not turn it into a camp or caravan site to attract tourists or holidaymakers to the area? That will also enable you to maintain your standard of living." They said, "Yes, but have you seen the private Member's Bill that is due for debate on Friday?" I replied honestly, as I always do, and confessed that I had not seen it. They said, "If you are suggesting that we should provide camp sites and go into tourism, do you want us, as a matter of ordinary form, to start making the applications in triplicate to the local authorities in the detail required in the Bill?" One of them said to me, "Do you realise that there are to be exemptions on certain sites related to whether people are there for one night or two days? It will be necessary to look at the definition in the Bill, where it says that a holiday means
  " Christmas Day, Good Friday or any day which in the part of Great Britain where the land is situated is a bank holiday under the Bank and Financial Dealings Act 1971".
  He told me—this did surprise me—that that Act was not next to the Reader's Digest on his bookshelf. That sort of bureaucratic nonsense will not attract people to the tourist industry.
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend is trying to tidy up legislation that was originally passed in 1960. I wonder whether, in the course of his activities, he has realised what sort of monster he is spawning. I am not at all certain that the Bill can be tidied up in Committee.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I did not intervene in the previous exchange even though my daughter is a senior nursing sister at St. Leonard's hospital.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned his interest in tourism and the use of suitable sites. I am a camper rather than a caravanner and have no interest to declare. Will he say something about the 4,000 sites that the Camping and Caravanning Club has certified and licensed? Does he think that the Bill needs to be considered in the light of whether a facility which has been organised, governed and strictly supervised for many years could be lost as a result of the passage of the Bill?
  Mr. Porter: I am grateful for the intervention because I share the hon. Gentleman's reservations. Obviously he did not have the opportunity earlier in the debate to listen to his right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), who mentioned that point and also paid tribute to the work of the club in a self-policing way. I do not think that the danger is quite as great as the hon. Member for Brent, South considers it to be, but it is there. I am not certain whether it could be ironed out in Committee.
  Where regulations can be imposed by the bodies involved, without the interference of the state and the local authorities, I welcome that, and I hope that that aspect will be borne in mind when we discuss the Bill on another day.
  I recall the old Erasmic advertisement, which said that things can be too little, too much or just right. I am not certain whether the Bill attempts to do too little or too much, but I am certain that it is not right.
  I listened with great care to my hon. Friend the Minister. Perhaps I should have been better informed at the end of his speech, but I was left none the wiser. I had the impression that the Government are rather keen on tidying up. I cannot believe this when I hear it from a Conservative Minister. In 1979, as a callow youth, I was told that I need not worry about coming here because there would be less legislation than in the 19th century. Since then my wife and children have hardly seen me because I have been legislating away—or so I have told them.
  Mr. Pavitt rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. Porter: This is a serious point. A nascent tourist industry with an important component of camping and caravanning could be strangled at birth in those areas which most need it. The areas which want to regulate it are those which already have tourism on a large scale. Tourism is a major part of their economy. I want to encourage economic activity in the Wirral peninsula——
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Private Members' Bills

  HEARING AID COUNCIL ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Alas, Sir, no day named yet.

  GREEN BELT (PRESERVATION FROM DEVELOPMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 9 July.

  POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: With the permission of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, I beg to move.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 9 July.

  PREVENTION OF DELAYS OF TRIALS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  THEFT FROM SHOPS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES (ENGLAND) (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  MULTI-OCCUPIED PROPERTIES (REGULATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  POLYGRAPH REGISTRATION AND CONTROL BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  GENERIC SUBSTITUTION (NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Pavitt: At the moment, no day named.

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

  TOBACCO PRODUCTS (CONTROL OF ADVERTISING, SPONSORSHIP AND SALES PROMOTION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  HOUSING (EMPTY PROPERTY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  SOCIAL SECURITY (COLD CLIMATE ALLOWANCE) AMENDMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  PREVENTION OF IMPRISONMENT (FINE DEFAULT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  WORKING CONDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT TRAINEES (No.2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Norman Hogg: With the permission of the sponsors, Sir, Friday 26 October.

  LOCAL AUTHORITY (STANDARDS OF SERVICE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  ABOLITION OF STANDING CHARGES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  TOUR OPERATORS (ADVERTISING OF FOREIGN HOLIDAYS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. John Wheeler: With the permission of the responsible Member, Sir, Friday 26 October.

  IMMIGRATION OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [6 April].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  RIGHTS OF LONDONERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CRIMINAL TRESPASS BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  STRAW AND STUBBLE BURNING (CONTROL) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 October.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  MOTOR VEHICLES REAR SEAT SAFETY PROVISIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  PROHIBITION OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  ENTRY CLEARANCE (CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  ROAD TRAFFIC CONTROL (GREATER LONDON) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  GLUE ABUSE (PREVENTION) BILL
  Order of Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: With the permission of the hon. Member in charge, Sir, Monday 9 July.

  LIMITATION OF SALES OF SOLVENTS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Murphy: With the permission of the hon. Member in charge, Sir, Monday next.

  STRAW AND STUBBLE BURNING (CONTROL AND LICENSING) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Roger Gale: I beg to give notice that the noble Lord Alport has said that he wishes to reintroduce the Bill in another place in the next Session of Parliament.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No day named.

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [18 November].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day?
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Everyone knows that when the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) shouts "Object" to this Bill, he is doing so on behalf of the Government. I remind the House that the Bill has been approved, with modifications, and gone through all of its stages in another place. However, this House has not yet been allowed to have a Division on the Second Reading of the Bill which would assist 5·5 million disabled people. The Bill has the overwhelming support——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's point of order is. He is now arguing the merits of what has happened to his Bill. He must raise a point of order for me to answer.
  Mr. Wareing: This is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, in view of the overwhelming support of disabled people's organisations for the Bill, I feel that I must ask for your advice. I believe that today is the day on which private Members' Bills can receive a Second Reading, unless the Government provide extra time. The Leader of the House is present and he knows that, when eight Ministers were brought back to the House on 18 November last year to prevent the Bill from receiving a Second Reading by means of a closure motion, they were whipped—officially or unofficially——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again but he is now getting into argument. I must know the point of order on which I can help him.
  Mr. Wareing: I should like your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether, through you, I can call on the Leader of the House to give an undertaking, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the Bill, that the Government are willing to allow the House to declare its view on the Bill. I believe that there is cross-Bench support for the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order for me. We have followed the customary procedure today. The title of the hon. Gentleman's Bill was read out, objection was taken by hon. Members and, as a result, no Question can be put.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The objection that
  662
  was raised from a seated position by the Government Whip has no validity in effect, nor is it in accordance with the rules of the House. I had proposed to raise this matter in connection with the Diplomatic Immunity (Revision and Interpretation) Bill, but, as the Government Whips have seen fit, from a sedentary position and with the joys of anonymity shrouding them, to kill off a mass of useful and excellent private Members' Bills without having the guts or the decency to stand up and admit what they are doing or to face up to the electorate or the House, I have no alternative but to raise the issue now.
  I refer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to page 418 of "Erskine May" where it is stated with absolute clarity that
  "Members must speak standing and uncovered."
  other than in
  "cases of sickness or infermity".
  I believe that that reference is to sickness of the body. In this case it says:
  "the indulgence of a seat may be allowed, at the suggestion of a Member"—
  none has been made—
  "and with the general acquiescence of the House",
  which the Whip certainly does not have. It continues:
  "A Minister answering a series of questions has been permitted, on grounds of infirmity, to remain leaning on the dispatch box."
  A number of Ministers have done that this week, due to infirmity of case and of reasoning. It does not apply to this sort of matter, where there is only one question, which is whether the Minister or the Whip has been speaking.
  As "speaking" is not defined in "Erskine May", but is clearly defined in all dictionaries, including the Shorter Oxford, we have no alternative but to follow it. It says that "to speak" means
  "To utter or pronounce words or articulate sounds".
  This "object" is presumably an articulate sound even if it is in inarticulate form.
  In those circumstances, it is clear that the Minister or the Whip is making an utterance from a seated position which is unparliamentary, improper and contrary to the rules of order. The fact that it may in the process destroy the rights of the chronically sick and disabled is one factor. The fact that it may, in the case of my Bill, come on a day when the rules on diplomatic immunity have been shown to be papably, clearly and disgracefully out of order is another matter. But for the Chair, it is a question of order. To speak as the Whip has seen fit to do and to articulate that unpleasant and destructive sound as he has done with such a series of explosions, so far destroying 36 measures, many of which were excellent, is contrary to the rules of order. Therefore, these Bills, if properly moved, should be allowed to continue on their way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Member and the House will recollect that this point was raised by the hon. and learned Member on 27 April 1984. The Deputy Speaker in the Chair then made it clear, as I make it clear now, that the procedure which was followed was in order. If the House does not like the existing procedure, the best thing is to suggest that the Procedure Committee consider the matter. If it wishes, it can make recommendations to the House, and the House can come to a decision. It is my job to uphold the customs and practice of the House as they exist at present.
  Mr. Janner: I accept your ruling of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I have the honour to sit on the Select Committee on Procedure, I shall convey what you have

  663
  just said. Meanwhile would it be proper and in order to invite the Whip to have the guts to stand up and make his objection standing, if he wishes to object?
  Mr. Pavitt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I entirely accept your ruling and am as usual seeking advice. On a previous occasion, an invitation was given to the Leader of the House. You will remember that, when the original Act was passed, the noble Lord, Fred Peart, did precisely what was requested by Opposition Members and gave extra time. The original Act was passed only because of the intervention of the Leader of the House who gave time for it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Pavitt: May I ask you, Sir—on a point of order —whether, in view of the representations already made, which the Leader of the House will have heard, you will through Mr. Speaker's Office make representations to the Procedure Committee to say how highly unsatisfactory the present procedure is and ask for a report in the next Session after the summer recess?
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I deal with this additional point first? The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) will realise on reflection that this is not a matter for the Chair. If hon. Members are dissatisfied with our existing procedures, they have recourse to a Committee which can consider their views. It would not be correct for the Chair to try to lead the Procedure Committee or any other Committee. It is the job of the Chair to carry out the rules and practices which have at some time been decided by the House.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill? My recollection is that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) won a high place in the ballot on this matter. His Bill was defeated by an unprecedented vendetta led by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) on behalf of the Government, and since then the Government have continued the vendetta. Now that all the stages of the Bill have been passed in another place and it could become law, thus freeing many disabled people from the heartbreak and discrimination that they have suffered for so long, it is once again faced with this vendetta by the Government. Can you advise me of any way in which the matter can be raised in the few remaining weeks of this Session so that the many disabled people who are looking forward to some comfort from the Bill can get some hope from this Parliament?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the procedures that have been followed are correct. It may make him feel a little better if I say that many Government motions have been stopped by the word "Object". The procedure does not apply only to private Members' Bills; it applies to private Bills and to Government motions. The hon. Gentleman might feel a little better after that additional explanation.
  Mr. Roger Moate: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have clearly ruled that
  664
  the traditional procedure of being able to object from a seated position should continue. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) suggested that people lacked guts and decency if they remained in a sedentary position. That being so, he is presumably advocating that people should stand to object and be identified. Can we assume that he will urge any of his colleagues who object to a Bill to stand and have their names recorded in Hansard?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: To get back to the business——
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important measure for the disabled, whose rights are being obliterated by one word from a Government Whip. I seek your advice on this matter, because the Government have always disclaimed responsibility. Private Members' motions and Bills are supposed to be debated on Fridays. How can we make it clear in the Official Report that the Government are killing the Bill?
  Mr. Tony Banks: I think we have probably achieved that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The traditional method is that the Official Report records objections. It does not record names, from whichever side of the House the objection comes. I reiterate that, if the House does not like the existing procedures, the remedy is in its hands. It can alter them if enough hon. Members wish to alter them.
  Mr. Janner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any reason why the record should not name an hon. Member who raises an objection if that person stands and raises it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House wishes to change the procedure, that is a matter for the House. It is certainly not a matter for me.
  Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.
  Mr. Wareing: I intend to name a day, Sir, because I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise our strong feelings and that the Bill will return to the House before the end of the Session. Because I believe that the procedure is ludicrous—outsiders will think it ludicrous —I intend to name the day notionally as Friday 27 July.

  CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES FOR STATE RETIREMENT PENSIONERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  AMUSEMENT MACHINES BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
  Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that Labour Members in particular are finding this procedure most unsatisfactory. It will be difficult for people outside to understand what is going on. I should like to ask your guidance on this, as I think that this problem will be compounded when we get to the next Bill. We are being asked, if we take this procedure seriously, to give an opinion on something called the Local Authorities (Prevention of Expenditure on Party Political Advertising) Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that Conservative Members are so interested, because I doubt whether they know what is in the Bill; it has not yet been published. I should like to know whether——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman on that Bill. In this case, the Bill has not been printed, so I should decline to put the Question anyway.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PREVENTION OF EXPENDITURE ON PARTY POLITICAL ADVERTISING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. John Wheeler: With the permission of the Member, Sir, Friday 26 October.

  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY (REVISION AND INTERPRETATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 October.
  Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May it now be put on record that the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) raised that objection from a seated position?
  Mr. Greg Knight: No, I did it.

  TRAVEL CONCESSIONS FOR THE UNEMPLOYED BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading. What day? No day named.

  CHEQUE BOOK JOURNALISM (DECLARATION OF PAYMENTS FOR NEWSPAPER STORIES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 October.

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

  DANGEROUS VESSELS BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Disgraceful —absolutely disgraceful.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not be lost on the House, because of the title of the Bill, that it has passed through its stages in and has the full approval of the other place, with the support of the Opposition. It is favoured by the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea and touches on safety, and the safety of my constituents in the River Thames. It is disgraceful that it has been objected to. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether, in the light of the feelings that have been expressed on the Floor of the House thus far, the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who has not the slightest interest in the matter, should not stand up and declare himself.
  Mr. Tony Banks: He did—he stood up.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) feels strongly, but we cannot debate the Bill now.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know more about the Bill than the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) suggests.
  Sir Bernard Braine: This is a monstrous procedure.
  Mr. Ross: If he and the Government are concerned about dangerous vessels, they have the opportunity when the Merchant Navy Bill is introduced in the next Session to make——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Much as the House wishes to, it is not in order to debate the merits of these measures.
  Mr. Moate: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not challenge your ruling and I shall not consider in any way the merit of the Bill, but, as the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) rose and objected to a Bill that is designed to save lives on a considerable scale—the prevention of its passage means that we are endangering life—can we be certain that the name of the hon. Member speaking for the Labour party will be recorded as an objector to this Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have already explained to the House, it is not the custom for names to be recorded in the Official Report in an instance such as this.
  Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The last thing that any of us wishes to do is make difficulties for you. The Chair has to follow the rules and procedure of the House, and any sensible Member who has been here any time knows that to be the case. In this instance, it is not clear that the hon. Member who objected, whose identity is now known and will appear in Hansard, and who appears very pleased with himself, was speaking for the Opposition, who had given their support to the Bill in the other place. Therefore, it is very important——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must appeal to the House. We are beginning once more to debate the merits of measures. That is not in order at this time, however strongly hon. Members may feel.
  Second Reading what day? No day named.

  RIGHT OF REPLY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
  Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I say to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) that, having seafarers in my constituency, I sympathise with his feelings. But the very fact that I and other hon. Friends have been able to raise——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again trying to debate the merits of Bills—indeed, Bills which we have dealt with already. I cannot allow him to do that.
  Mr. Wareing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on.''] I want to make it clear that it is not my wish to raise the merits of that Bill. I wish merely to point out that, because the hon. Member for Castle Point shares with me and others of my hon. Friends and, I believe, others of his hon. Friends the view that what has happened is quite disgraceful and that the procedure that we are going through now must mystify people in the Strangers' Gallery and the rest of the nation, it is utterly ludicrous and a waste of time——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are some procedures in the House which perhaps mystify some of us who are Members of the House. As I explained earlier, the House has the remedy in its own hands. It is my job as the servant of the House to see that the Standing Orders and the rules are observed.

  GREATER ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
  Mr. Wareing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to abuse his privileges as a Member of the House. I have ruled very clearly on more than one occasion, and I should be reluctant to listen to him unless he had some substantially different point that he wished to raise.
  Mr. Wareing: I merely wanted to ask that what has occurred today will be reported to Mr. Speaker and that perhaps a request might be made to Mr. Speaker to make a statement to the House, which we could discuss, on the procedures that we are going through at the moment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker is an avid reader of the Official Report. But
  668
  I say again that this is not primarily a matter for Mr. Speaker. It is a matter for the House itself. If the House is dissatisfied with the existing procedures, arrangements can be made to have the procedures discussed and, if necessary, amended.

  RENT ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Murphy: With the permission of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Sir, Monday 9 July.
  Mr. Chris Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the Greater Accesss to the Countryside Bill, on which I endeavoured to catch your eye to raise a point of order, and on the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill, we have already heard from the Government that they intend to bring proposals before the House later this year to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I seek your guidance about how we can ask the Government, even though, through their Whip, they have objected to both Bills, when they intend to bring these matters back to the House and what they propose to do.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it would be extremely rash of me if I attempted to respond to that.

  REGISTRATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF CHARITIES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  PAEDOPHILIA (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) BILL
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Wheeler: With the permision of the hon. Member responsible, Friday 26 October.

  PREVENTION OF INTIMIDATORY PICKETING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  PRIVATE TENANTS' RIGHTS BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [27 April].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
  Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a different point of order. I quite understand that, on all the previous points of order, you were right to advise hon. Members that these matters are usually for the Select Committee on Procedure, but I wish to seek your advice. We have now seen 57 Bills pass before the House. As you will know from your experience, the first Friday in July is well known as the slaughter of the innocents because a great many Bills come forward for decision. Is not the manner in which their Second Reading debates are arranged a matter to be dealt with through the usual channels—with the Leader of the House—rather than through the procedures of the House? By what means can a Back Bencher have some influence to prevent the nonsense of 57 Bills being dealt with on the first Friday in July, knowing very well that they will all be slaughtered by the Government Whips or others?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the allocation of time is governed by Standing Orders. I am sure that, as an experienced Member, he will have a good deal of influence if he addresses his remarks to the Front Benches.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had 57 Bills today and I hazard a guess that the majority of them would be supported by the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have some experience of private Members' Bills, having had
  670
  two myself, and I have seen the passage of others such as attempts to amend the Abortion Act, which were supported by the majority of hon. Members, and I have seen them getting nowhere. While one fully sympathises with your position—I agree that this is a matter for the Select Commitee on Procedure—is it not possible for a strong recommendation to be made to the Select Committee that this procedure ought to be changed in future, in the way suggested by several hon. Members today?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, I suggest that the best thing that the right hon. Gentleman can do is to put his point directly to the Select Committee on Procedure, which can then consider it.
  Mr. Janner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As this will probably qualify for inclusion in the "Guinness Book of Records" as the greatest slaughter in the shortest time that the House has achieved, can we have time on 26 October, by direction from the Chair, to discuss those matters which Back Benchers wish to raise and which are to come before the House on that date, which cannot then be removed by a sedentary shout from a Government Whip, whether with his feet on the Table or otherwise?
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been here long enough to know very well that the Chair has no control over such matters as the allocation of time. May I add in parenthesis that I am profoundly relieved that it does not?

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, at the next sitting of the House on which Motions are moved on behalf of the Committee of Selection, such Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first Motion has been entered upon, and, if proceedings on the Motions have not been disposed of by that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the. other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him; and that, notwithstanding the practice. of the House, each Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion. —[Mr. Neubert.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Glazing Accidents
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
  3.2 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I am fortunate to be here today in one piece, as four weeks ago I very nearly became the victim of the subject of this Adjournment debate today—a glazing accident. As I approached a public house in my constituency, I walked straight bang into a plain glass window which I mistook for an opening. I should add that I did that before I had had a drink. Fortunately, the window was constructed from toughened glass and all that I sustained was an egg-shaped lump, largely due to my tough skull.
  While discussing glazing accidents and the need for proper protection, I must place on record my thanks to Mrs. Carla Delaney, an enterprising and energetic young journalist, who has inspired me to investigate these matters and who has done a great deal of research on the subject. I also wish to thank the Yellow Advertiser newspaper group, which has decided to champion the cause. I draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to early-day motion 713, which has all-party support.
  People generally believe that once they shut their front doors they are as safe as houses. But are they? Not if we look at the latest statistics of accidents in the home and, in particular, at injuries caused by glass doors and windows breaking. About 27,000 people need hospital treatment every year after accidents involving glazing in houses. Already this year, three people have died— a teenager in South Shields, a short-sighted person in Hereford and an epileptic in Newcastle. People are misled into believing that they are safe in their homes. Few people have taken the trouble to warn them of the dangers and advise them of the simple precautions that they could take to protect themselves.
  There is no law requiring builders or designers to incorporate safety glazing in homes. Unsafe thin glass has been used for years in the vast majority of housing estates and developments throughout the country.
  I became aware of the need for safety glazing after learning of a Basildon development corporation estate where the glazing is so thin that it breaks with the slightest knock. A constituent approached me after an 18-monthold child tumbled, bumped his head on the large window pane in the house and shattered the glass. Fortunately, the child escaped serious injury, but the family were alarmed by the remaining large jagged sections that hung ominously like a guillotine. They were further alarmed when a glazier said that the glass was fit only for picture frames and not as a protective screen. The estate was built a few years ago, but, according to the glazier, the dangers of installing large ground-to-ceiling windows and internal doors in glass as thin as 3mm or 4mm would have been known to designers at that time. Only in the past fortnight, there has been yet another accident on the estate involving a young child.
  Like today, those designers were not bound by the law and had only a British standard to guide them. The standard has vastly improved since then and the current one is widely used in the building industry. However, it has shortcomings. I seek to resolve that problem.
  According to BS 6262, public buildings should have safety glass to protect men, women and children, but it
  672
  does not require safety glass to be used in homes in large, low-level areas vulnerable to breakage by children. It relies instead on protection by a barrier rail. Experts, including paediatricians Dr. Hugh Jackson of the Child Accident Prevention Trust, who has conducted vast studies into glazing accidents and served on the committee which formulated BS 6262, feel that the standard is inadequate and must in future take into account the fact that children spend a considerable time at home and are in constant danger if glazing remains unsafe.
  When Dr. Jackson conducted a study for the British Medical Journal in 1981, he discovered that out of 62 injuries requiring children to be admitted to hospital, architectural glass inflicted the most serious injuries, affecting major arteries, nerve tendons and internal organs. He concluded that safety glass should be recommended for all glass doors, french windows, patio doors and the lower parts of windows.
  Experience in the United States and Australia shows that after publicity campaigns legislation has followed and been widely accepted by the public. As a result of Carla Delaney's efforts, people in Basildon have generally set expenses aside, shown deep anxiety about her findings and reports of deaths and injuries and been worried enough to seek out safety glazing or safety films for windows to make their homes safer. Glaziers in the locality have been backing her efforts, and that processs proves the case for a national publicity campaign to urge the public to take heed of the warnings.
  Although the British standard has not been included in the national building regulations, the Glass and Glazing Federation warns that architects will be liable for damages if an accident results from glazing installed below the new standard. In 1975, Matthew Kemper, a designer, was held to be liable because he was unable to show why the existing code had not been followed. Only this year an Appeal Court judge in the Rimmer case upheld a ruling that Liverpool city council was negligent in the glazing of a block of flats. Although the original design specified 6 mm glass, the council architect halved the specification to save money. The court decided that the decision created a dangerous feature and a foreseeable risk of accident, and awarded a victim £3,000 damages. The case is interesting, because the flats were built 25 years ago, long before glazing standards were introduced. The decision was deemed to be retrospective.
  It is worrying that, although the new standard is widely accepted, some councils and builders go against it to save money. If the standard were made law, they would not be allowed to slide out of their responsibilities. If the standard is as widely used as the British Standards Institution believes, the cost of legislation would be minimal.
  Designers should be encouraged to eliminate many of the doors and windows installed merely for decoration. It is possible for planners to locate them in less hazardous positions. Planners should be more aware of the dangers of large glazed windows. High windows are less likely to cause accidents. Architects should be encouraged to bear children in mind when they plan family developments such as those in my constituency.
  There is a lack of public awareness of the risks presented by the use of ordinary household glass in the home and about the availability and properties of safety glass. According to a study by Bassetlaw district council, the common misconception is that ordinary annealed glass becomes safer the thicker it is. That is not so. A pane of

  673
  6 mm will break readily when hit by a moving body. Even 12 mm samples have been known to break under test conditions. BS 6262 relies heavily on the use of thick glass in many areas.
  The way in which annealed glass breaks, and hence its capacity to injure, is the same no matter how thick it is, but the thicker it is, the heavier the pieces. Anyone who has seen how ordinary glass breaks into dagger-like pieces will know how lethal it can be. For that reason, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents firmly advocates that no annealed glass be allowed at low levels in the home, whether by standard or by law. BS 6262 has been condemned for allowing ordinary annealed glass in households, which accident data clearly show to be risk areas.
  In the society's view, if a substance or material used by consumers or in consumer goods is potentially dangerous in its commonly available form, as in the case of glass, any safety requirement in a standard must involve a significant improvement in the safety of that substance or material. Otherwise, consumers are misled into believing that they are getting something which is other than the commonly available version, and once they realise this confidence in the standard will be lost.
  My own near accident has convinced me of the need for the greater use of warning signs or labels in public places with large plate glass windows. That at least would help the short-sighted. Cost will be a sticking point, whether in the public or private sector. House purchasers are lured with sales brochures promising double glazing, fridge-freezers and luxury kitchens, so should not the building industry use safety features in its advertising blurb and include the cost of glazing in the overall price?
  Although safety glass is expensive, I would expect more widespread use of a safety product eventually to make it cheaper to produce. There are various forms of safety glazing which will be familiar to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. There is toughened glass, which is produced by subjecting annealed glass to heating and rapid cooling to produce a tough surface. The problem for the consumer is that once glass is toughened it cannot be cut or worked on and, therefore, has to be prepared to predetermined sizes. Delivery delays are often reported.
  Laminated glass is constructed like a sandwich. Reinforced plastic material is bonded to two pieces of glass. Its degree of safety depends on the overall thickness of construction. It is easier to install than toughened glass because it can be cut to size after manufacture.
  There are other products on the market, including plastic and a plastic safety film. Double glazed units come with safety glass fitted. Their safety obviously depends on the type of glass that is used.
  Under the present code of practice, members of the Glass and Glazing Federation undertake to recommend to the public that they follow the safety requirements written into BS6262. However, there is nothing to prevent a nonmember, such as an unscrupulous DIY outlet, selling cheaper and inferior glass to those who are put off by expense. There should be one rule for all to prevent the public being misled. It is true that, when judged overall, glass accidents are not a common cause of death, but the accident figures are sufficiently high to warrant an urgent review.
  3.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for raising an important subject and giving the Government the opportunity to explain their thinking on a matter which is obviously of public concern. We are all delighted that my hon. Friend survived his encounter with the glass outside the pub. A by-election at Basildon would have been entered into with confidence by the Government at this stage of the Parliament, but it would have been sad to have lost the services of my hon. Friend so early in his political career.
  Accidents involving glass can be horrifying and no one reading accounts of them could be indifferent to the effects that they have on the sufferers and their family and friends. I commend the good work that has been done by those to whom my hon. Friend has referred. If we are to take effective counter measures, it is necessary to consider the matter somewhat analytically. I know that my hon. Friend will not construe this approach as one that is lacking in compassion.
  We must avoid rushing to take action which achieves nothing in practice but, by appearing to do so, merely diverts attention from the real issue. We must examine the information available about this type of accident and take our decisions accordingly.
  I propose first to discuss briefly the nature of the problem, and the sources of information we have about it. Then I want to consider the ways in which the problem is already being tackled, and the effectiveness of those ways of tackling it. Finally, I should like to turn to the further steps we might take, some of which my hon. Friend hinted at, and in particular to the legislative or regulatory possibilities available.
  First, how big is the problem and what do we know about it? The main source of statistics on accidents in the home is the home accidents surveillance system, which is maintained by the Department of Trade. The system makes use of a sample of 20 hospital accident and emergency departments selected to be representative of England and Wales. The information accumulated is assessed and analysed every three years: the most recent analysis available is for the period to 1981. Figures to 1984 have just been received and are now being scutinised.
  The figures to 1981 suggest that up to that year the annual rate of non-fatal accidents in the home, connected with glass, which involved hospital treatment was around 27,000, or 2·5 per cent. of all home accidents. Fatal accidents are not recorded by the system, but from other sources it is estimated that out of 6,000 accidental deaths each year at home, about five are the result of accidents attributable of glass. Of course, five is five too many. In the great majority of cases the glass is in doors or windows and most typically the accidents occur to men between the ages of 10 and 29.
  For more detailed analysis, we need to turn to work done by my Department's Building Research Establishment. The BRE examined the site of 50 accidents involving the use of doors and 15 involving windows. It found that the type of door most commonly involved consisted of two panels of glass separated around mid-height by a wooden rail. That finding is important when considering the scope of the relevant British standard, which I shall come to in a moment. It seemed to be the

  675
  upper panel that was broken more often than the lower one, and most of the injuries were to the upper parts of the victims' bodies.
  I shall move on now to the ways in which the risk is at present kept in check. There are no formal legal controls, as my hon. Friend said, but there is a good deal of voluntary self regulation—which has our strong support. The basic test for this self regulation—and indeed the basic test for any possible legal controls—is the British Standard code of practice on "Glazing for Buildings", BS6262 of 1982. This code is a very comprehensive document, giving recommendations for the design, installation and maintenance of vertically glazed glass and plastic glazing sheet materials for the external walls and interiors of buildings. This standard is not mandatory, but has been adopted by many local authorities, and the construction industry widely accepts it as good practice.
  The Glass and Glazing Federation, which has carried out a great deal of valuable publicity on behalf of BS6262, has been instrumental in securing its acceptance. The federation has instructed its members in the retail trade that if they are asked for a sheet of glass in anything that looks like the size for a fully glazed door, they should ask the customer how he intends to use it. If it is for a door, they should point out to the customer the possible consequences of installing it—the frequency of accidents connected with glass doors, the relative ease with which ordinary annealed glass can be broken and the hideous wounds and lacerations which can be caused by the dagger-shaped pieces into which it breaks. Toughened glass costs the customer about three quarters as much again, or more, as annealed glass but, in general, the trade reports that customers accept it if the substantial benefits of safety glass are explained. The extra benefits are that the glass is very much more difficult to break and that when it does, it shatters, like a car windscreen, into small pieces which do not cut or stab as the shards of annealed glass do.
  The National House Building Council, which makes and enforces standards for private housebuilding, has encouraged the use of safety glazing. In a recent newsletter to its members it has pointed out that a recent court judgment to which my hon. Friend referred, Rimmer v. Liverpool city council, could mean that a housebuilder who does not follow a British standard such as BS6262 may be guilty of negligence.
  As to future action, the glazing standard BS6262, is now being reviewed in the light of the experience of the past two years. There has been criticism—from RoSPA, for example—of the adequacy of the safety aspects of this standard. The main criticism is that it does not require safety glass to be used in large low-level areas particularly vulnerable to breakage by children, relying instead on protection by a barrier rail. In other words, while the door which is fully glazed must use safety glass, a similar door with a barrier rail about mid-height is acceptable within the standard if glazed with ordinary annealed glass, although, as I mentioned earlier, the work by the BRE suggests that it is such doors which are commonly involved in accidents, the bottom of the door being the main high-risk area for children.
  The review in progress is looking at the possibility of tightening up this aspect of the standard. Obviously in doing so, the code committee will have to make further study of accident data at a very detailed level.
  676
  At the moment, the evidence we have suggests that British standard 6262 does not deal with one of the main problems — that of annealed glass doors with barrier rails, and its inclusion in the building regulations as it stands could not be justified. After the revision of the standard to which I have referred, we will be able to consider whether to refer to the standard and make a new building regulation.
  At that time we shall have to consider the disadvantages of safety glass as users might see them. Annealed glass is much easier to cut to size than safety glass: indeed, cutting safety glass is hardly within the scope of do-it-yourself. Doors with safety glass tend to be heavier, and to slam with more force. There might be an increase in other kinds of accidents. We know that heavy doors can cause great difficulties for old people and the disabled. Then there is the fire safety factor. Last year there was much concern —indeed an Adjournment debate—inspired by the fear that the increased use of safety glazing was increasing the risks of public being trapped in blazing rooms from which they would not escape through the windows. So the matter is by no means as easy and straightforward as it might at first appear, and there are some serious question marks over the standard and the contribution it can make to increased safety. However, if the review produces an effective standard, and shows that it would really reduce the risk of these horrible accidents the Government would, of course, be ready to take action.
  I come to the third element of the subject — the possible control mechanisms. There are two: the building regulations and the consumer safety regulations.
  The building regulations bite on new building only, and, at a replacement rate of 1 per cent. per annum of our building stock, building regulations on their own would not make a significant difference for a very long time. The real problem is with replacement by builders and DIY enthusiasts, and in that area consumer safety regulations under the Consumer Safety Act might operate. Even here, however, there are major areas where the regulations might not be too effective.
  It would be made illegal to sell doors with annealed glass for fitting in those doors or in low-level windows, but such glass would remain freely on sale for use in other circumstances, and it would be impossible to prevent people buying it and using it where they should not. The temptation to do so would be strong, not only because of 'the substantial price difference — anything from three quarters as much again to two and a half times the price —but also because of the sheer physical difficulty of fixing safety glass.
  Toughened glass, the cheapest sort of safety glass, cannot be cut by a DIY householder, or even by an ordinary glazier. Typically, the waiting period for a sheet of toughened glass in anything other than the standard sizes is three weeks from ordering to delivery. We are looking actively at the possibilities, and at the relative advantages and disadvantages. We shall take my hon. Friend's points into account. Both my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are participating in the review of BS6262, and we shall take our decisions on the basis of its outcome.
  Meanwhile, the Glass and Glazing Federation's efforts to educate the trade and consumers are continuing, and enjoy the Government's full support. They seem to be having a useful effect in raising general consciousness of the damages, and that can only be to the good.

  677
  I am sure that the publicity that my hon. Friend gets from his speech this afternoon will be an added factor in bringing home to people the risks they run in having the wrong sort of glass.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Three o'clock.

WALES
  Cultivated Land
  Cultivated Land
  Drainage Schemes
  Drainage Schemes
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Private Members' Bills
  Private Members' Bills
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Shotguns
  Shotguns
  Blind Persons (Television Licence)
  Blind Persons (Television Licence)
  Repatriation (Financial Assistance)
  Repatriation (Financial Assistance)
  Immigration Officers
  Immigration Officers
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Tribunals
  Tribunals
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  YTS and Community Programme
  YTS and Community Programme
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
  Youth Training (Barnsley)
  Youth Training (Barnsley)
  Information Technology Booklets
  Information Technology Booklets
PRIME MINISTER
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  South African Prime Minister
  South African Prime Minister
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  EC (Own Resources)
  EC (Own Resources)
  Intervention Food Stores
  Intervention Food Stores
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Anti-apartheid Demonstrations
  Anti-apartheid Demonstrations
  EC (Agricultural Expenditure)
  EC (Agricultural Expenditure)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  European Union (Spinelli Report)
  European Union (Spinelli Report)
  Budgetary Discipline
  Budgetary Discipline
SCOTLAND
  Industrial Sectors (Dundee)
  Industrial Sectors (Dundee)
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Job Losses (Dundee)
  Job Losses (Dundee)
  Skill Training (Dumbarton)
  Skill Training (Dumbarton)
  Rates
  Rates
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Open University
  Open University
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
ENVIRONMENT
  Planning Inquiries
  Planning Inquiries
  Rates (Empty Warehouses)
  Rates (Empty Warehouses)
  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Halvergate Marshes
  Halvergate Marshes
  Moorland Areas
  Moorland Areas
ENERGY
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
TRANSPORT
  Tachograph Records (Falsification)
  Tachograph Records (Falsification)
  Waiting Restrictions (Signs Study)
  Waiting Restrictions (Signs Study)
  Sealink UK Ltd.
  Sealink UK Ltd.
  Roads (Weight Restriction Signs)
  Roads (Weight Restriction Signs)
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Spain (Duty Quota)
  Spain (Duty Quota)
  Companies (Kirklees)
  Companies (Kirklees)
  Regional Assistance (Northern Region)
  Regional Assistance (Northern Region)
  Copyright
  Copyright
  Dumping
  Dumping
  Take-away Food Retailers
  Take-away Food Retailers
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Cultivated Land
  Cultivated Land
  Drainage Schemes
  Drainage Schemes
  Milk Producers
  Milk Producers
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Customs and Excise Computer
  Customs and Excise Computer
  High Technology Exports
  High Technology Exports
THE ARTS
  Works of Art (Taxation)
  Works of Art (Taxation)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  NHS (Casualty Units)
  NHS (Casualty Units)
  Towers Hospital, Leicester (High Security Unit)
  Towers Hospital, Leicester (High Security Unit)
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mental Health Act Commission
  Regional Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Regional Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  St. George's Hospital
  St. George's Hospital
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Health Education Programmes (Screening and Check-ups)
  Health Education Programmes (Screening and Check-ups)
  Smoking (Heart Disease)
  Smoking (Heart Disease)
  Hip Replacement Operations (West Devon)
  Hip Replacement Operations (West Devon)
  Mrs. Julia Hollis
  Mrs. Julia Hollis
  Furniture Grants
  Furniture Grants
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Chiropodists and Podiatrists
  Chiropodists and Podiatrists
  Ante-natal Clinics
  Ante-natal Clinics
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Gibraltar: Frontier with Spain
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the partial opening by Spain of the frontier with Gibraltar on 15th December 1982 has had a detrimental effect on the economy and trading community of Gibraltar; and whether there has been any progress in the easing of border restrictions.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the arrangements introduced by the Spanish authorities at the border between Spain and Gibraltar on the 15th of December 1982 concerned only the passage of certain categories of pedestrians; they have not included provision for the passage of goods or cross-border trade. Expenditure by Gibraltarians visiting Spain has not been matched by that of Spaniards visiting Gibraltar; and there has inevitably been a detrimental effect on the Gibraltar economy. My right honourable and learned friend has had a number of meetings with the Spanish Foreign Minister and it remains our aim that there should be the earliest possible normalisation of relations as foreseen by the Lisbon agreement. This would include the suspension of the measures currently in force at the frontier.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, which reinforces the fact that it is a very one-sided arrangement. Could Her Majesty's Government seek the support of our European Community partners to hasten the implementation of the removal of those measures which conflict with the obligations of Community membership—including obstacles to trade between Spain and Gibraltar?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the restrictions on movement which exist between Spain and Gibraltar are incompatible with the obligations which Spain will assume as a member of the Community. I gave this piece of information in answer to a supplementary question earlier this week as well as earlier this year. It would be inconceivable that Spain should become a member of the Community while the frontier is only partially open.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness go a little further than that? Will she assure the House that Britain will not permit the accession of Spain to the European Community unless these restrictions are removed and unless free trading, which
514
I am given to understand is the hallmark of the Community, is fully complied with?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as we have made plain on a number of occasions, we believe in the full implementation of the Lisbon agreement whereby there would be the full opening of the frontier between Spain and Gibraltar. As I have indicated, we wish Spain to become a member of the European Community and we think that it would be inconceivable that this would be the case unless the frontier betwen Spain and Gibraltar was fully open.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not clear from the pattern of these restrictions, which I understand have recently been tightened up, that they are being operated with the deliberate view of doing as much damage as possible to the economy, including the tourist trade, of Gibraltar? In those circumstances will my noble friend make it clear to the Spanish Government that this is not behaviour which is compatible with ordinary, decent relations between European countries, quite apart from any question of Spain's accession to the Community?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer to the Question, we recognise that the present partial opening of the frontier is having a detrimental effect upon Gibraltar. My right honourable and learned friend has had a number of meetings with the Spanish Foreign Minister, Senor Morán, and will see him again in September. This is clearly one of a number of matters which are discussed.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, following on what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has just asked, will the Minister agree that due to a partially opened border and a closing naval dockyard, there has been a considerable decrease in passengers and freight between Gibraltar and London and Gibraltar and Tangiers? Will she recognise the need for increased viability there and an improvement in the persistently stagnant tourist market?—a point which was stressed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Baroness Young: I cannot, without notice, give figures on the point about which the noble Lord asks. The British Government recognise that at the present time there are real, transitional problems for Gibraltar in the changeover of the dockyard from a naval dockyard to a commercial dockyard. It is in recognition of those difficulties that the British Government have given £28 million in aid for the dockyard, have guaranteed £14 million for other work to the dockyard, and have given this on top of the £13 million in aid in the years from 1982 to 1986.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the House to understand from the reply of the noble Baroness to my supplementary question that, if necessary, the Government will exercise their veto?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government wish to see Spanish accession to the Community. I have made plain our position on the opening of the frontier, and I think that it would be very unwise to answer what is, after all, a hypothetical question.

Cruise Missiles: Firing Control
11.13 a.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, since the United States Government has failed to confirm the Prime Minister's claim that she possesses a veto over the firing of cruise missiles based in this country, they will reconsider their refusal on 25th June to produce the evidence to show that the claim is recognised by those whose duty it would be to fire the missiles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave the noble Lord on 25th June.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not completely unsatisfactory that the Prime Minister's statement of a veto over the firing of cruise missiles has been met with a resounding silence on the other side of the Atlantic, and that we therefore have the position of an unsubstantiated claim by the Prime Minister to possess a veto which the Americans will not confirm that she possesses? The people of this country are entitled to a better deal than that. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister ought to ask the Americans for a Royal Air Force finger on that trigger?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have dealt with this matter in response to Questions from the noble Lord on a number of occasions. So, indeed, has my noble friend the Lord President, who spoke in the defence debate on 14th June last—and I would refer the noble Lord to what my noble friend said on that occasion. If the noble Lord wants further information, I would draw his attention to paragraph 210 of the defence White Paper of 1983, which went into great detail.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the statements of both Governments on this subject have shown a notable lack of candour? Would it not be better if the Government plainly acknowledge that political and constitutional difficulties make it impossible for the President to acknowledge a veto on the firing of these weapons?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have said on a number of occasions, the arrangements have been re-affirmed by this Government as being entirely satisfactory. They are the same arrangements as those which were regarded as satisfactory by the Government of which the noble Lord was a member.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that, although the arrangements are the same, the conditions are very different? When those arrangements were originally made no cruise missiles were based in this country under American control. Therefore, are not the Government relying on a 1952 arrangement, since re-affirmed, which is totally inapplicable to present circumstances? Is the noble
516
Lord aware that, until he answers more frankly on this question, I shall continue to press him on it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree that circumstances have changed since the early 1950s, when these arrangements were first made. That is why the arrangements have been re-examined on frequent occasions since then, and have continued to be satisfactory.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, when my noble friend Lord Mayhew was a member of the Government, not only were there no cruise missiles in this country but there were no American missiles in this country at all?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that circumstances have changed even since the time when the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was a distinguished member of that Administration; but, as I said just now to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that is why the arrangements—or it is one of the reasons, at least—are reviewed at frequent intervals.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Nonsense, my Lords!

Dangerous Chemicals: Transportation
11.15 a.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the concern about the transport of nuclear fuel rods by rail, they will examine the provisions for the safe transport of dangerous chemicals which may provide a greater risk to the public than the already well-protected nuclear fuel rods.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the carriage of dangerous goods by rail is governed by British Rail's conditions of carriage and acceptance. The transport by road of dangerous gases and chemicals in bulk is covered by regulations made in 1981 which cover the construction of the vehicles, their labelling and the training of drivers. Earlier this year the Health and Safety Commission published proposals to apply similar controls to the transport by road of dangerous substances in packages. These will form part of a comprehensive system of controls under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the tests which are shortly to take place on the carrying flasks for nuclear rods are important in so far as they will tend to reassure the public, who are in my view quite unnecessarily worried by this risk? But will he also try to persuade the public that as a long-term measure the dangers of transporting these nuclear fuel rods, even if the flasks were not as substantial as they are, pale in significance beside the other dangers of chemicals transported by road, of which I shall give only two instances: first, petro-ethyl lead, which is used in petrol, three drops of which on the skin can be fatal;

517
and, secondly, liquid gases such as propane, where a road accident during transportation could be far worse than is likely with nuclear fuel rods.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the £4 million programme being conducted by the CEGB in connection with the safety of the flasks for containing nuclear spent fuels is part of a programme to do just that which the noble Viscount suggests. There have been no accidents involving flasks and involving injury to persons certainly in the past 20 years. With regard to the carriage of dangerous gases by road tankers, the noble Viscount will know that LPG and petro-ethyl lead is covered by the 1981 road tanker regulations. There are some 2·5 million tanker journeys undertaken each year in this country, and the only incident involving serious injury was in 1972.

Mental Patients: Care
11.18 a.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take to alleviate the situation whereby mentally ill and handicapped patients are being discharged from hospital into private nursing or residential homes and "guest houses" where standards and supervision or care may be at a low level.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, it is for health authorities, in co-operation with relevant local authorities, to satisfy themselves that mentally ill and mentally handicapped people discharged from hospitals are going to appropriate accommodation. Health authorities are responsible for registering nursing homes and local authorities for registering residential homes, and can thus monitor the standard of care provided.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am sure that he will be aware of the serious and growing concern about the policy to discharge mentally ill and mentally handicapped people from hospitals into private nursing homes. The investigations at Southport of his own department, the DHSS, have revealed such absolutely appalling conditions that the National Development Team for the Mentally Handicapped are gravely concerned. Is the Minister prepared to say that the department will not leave this matter to be decided solely by regional health authorities but that the incidents are so disturbing that it needs ministerial investigation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am aware of course of the noble Lord's concern, which I share, for those who, I think very rightly, now leave the large mental hospitals and go into the community. I do not think the situation is quite as bad generally as the noble Lord
518
maintains it is, but I am aware that it is not as good in parts of the country as it ought to be. Where this is concerned, I can assure the noble Lord that we will do what we can to put matters right and there are a number of ways in which this can be done.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Minister how joint planning between health and social service departments is proceeding across the country? Would he agree that all caring professions and agencies ought to get together to tackle this very difficult problem?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is difficult to tell the noble Baroness in a short answer how it is going across the country specifically, but generally it is working quite well. We are taking steps to monitor this in the same way as we are taking steps to monitor specific cases such as those which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, mentioned.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the points made by my noble friend apply equally to the elderly? Would he agree that the provision of private homes is now one of the fastest growing industries in the country? Is he aware that this is largely due to a quite dramatic increase, in many cases, in payments made from supplementary benefits directly to those concerned at a substantial cost to the taxpayer? Is he aware that the directors of social services have already expressed to his department much concern about this and that there is great concern in the medical profession as well?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper relates to the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question on the elderly, I shall be delighted to answer it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what I have said is not simply what I have garnered for myself, travelling all over the nation? It is from the Department of Health and Social Security, who are so alarmed that they caused an investigation to be made; and it is from the national development team for the mentally handicapped, a great voluntary organisation. May I ask him to at least consider contacting the Confederation of Health Service Employees, with their now famous Mallinson report, which is about 10 days old, on The Future of the Psychiatric Services? This is a well informed—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Molloy: —organisation, COHSE, which can contribute to helping the Ministry and the handicapped.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it has been the policy of successive Governments to move mentally ill and mentally handicapped people who do not need to be in hospital into the community. So far as residential mental nursing homes' standards are concerned, failure to maintain adequate standards could lead to registration being cancelled. Unregistered premises

519
mean that the person in charge is committing an offence, and authorities have power to enter and inspect premises believed to be operating as a home.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Chancellor to advance the consideration of Commons amendments to the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [H.L.] from Wednesday next to Tuesday next.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health and Social Security Bill
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 4,

Schedule 2,

Clause 5,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 6 to 11,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 12 and 13,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 14 to 20,

Schedule 6,

Clause 21,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 22 to 24,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 25 to 29.

—(Lord Glenarthur.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nigerian Ex-Minister: Abduction
11.24 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the abduction of a Nigerian ex-Minister which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
The Statement is as follows:
"The Metropolitan Police were informed yesterday at 12.40 p.m. of the suspected abduction of Mr. Umaru Dikko, a Nigerian living in this country, who was formerly a member of the Government of Nigeria. The call to the police by his personal assistant, Miss Elizabeth Hayes, said that at about 12.25 p.m. he had been taken in a van after a struggle.
"Because of the possibility that attempts might be made to remove him from this country a special
520
watch was mounted at ports. As a result, suspicions were aroused by two large crates which arrived at about 4 p.m. at Stansted to be loaded on to a Nigerian Airways cargo aircraft. The crates were not diplomatic bags as defined by the Vienna Convention. The crates were accordingly opened. I understand that members of the High Commission were already at Stansted and a Mr. Idet was invited to inspect the crates. Two people were found in each crate. One crate contained Mr. Dikko, who was unconscious, and another man, who was conscious and in possession of drugs and syringes. The other crate contained two men, both conscious. Mr. Dikko is now recovering satisfactorily under police guard in hospital and will be questioned as soon as he is well enough. A total of 17 people, including the remaining three found in the crates, were arrested by the police and are being questioned. None of those arrested has claimed diplomatic immunity,
"My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary summoned the High Commissioner for Nigeria to see him at 9 a.m. this morning and told him that he took a most serious view of the incident. The High Commissioner undertook to convey a report of the meeting to his Government. He denied any High Commission or Nigerian Government involvement in the incident. The Foreign Secretary said he expected the fullest co-operation from the Nigerian High Commissioner, including the waiver of diplomatic immunity, if that were necessary for the purpose of ensuring justice."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable and learned friend in another place. One's first thought in regard to this grotesque and horrendous incident is to congratulate the Anti-Terrorist Squad of our police, led, I believe, by Commander Bill Hucklesby. The promptitude of their actions, their skill and their observance of their duty have obviously led to this incident not becoming even more grotesque and horrendous.
There are some questions that I am sure will immediately command the attention of the House. One heard in the Statement that the crates were not diplomatic bags as defined by the Vienna Convention. What would have happened if they had been, and is there any definition that can be given which differentiates these crates from what would have come within the Vienna Convention? To what address were those crates consigned? One heard from the Statement that members of the Nigerian High Commission were present at the airport. Have they given any explanation for their presence at the airport? Were they about to use an aircraft or were they going back after a certain time to their High Commission? Why were they there? Has that been explained?
Has any request been made, either formally or informally, by the Nigerian Government to our Government for the extradition of any of the parties who were found in the crates? If that is the case, was there any reply by our Government and, if so, what was it?
I think the House will be very glad to hear of the

521
reaction that has already been given by our Foreign Office, and I feel that it would be not appropriate to probe further into that, because I hope that the noble Minister will be able to say that a further Statement will be made when responses have been received from Nigeria. But is there any truth in a report that I heard—I thought I heard it accurately—that a British Caledonian aircraft has been detained? Is this in Nigeria, and if so what is the explanation? Lastly, can the noble Lord the Minister take back to his right honourable friend and also to the Foreign Secretary the concern which I am sure is expressed in all parts of this House that, following upon that dreadful matter with which the Libyan Government and the Libyan Embassy were concerned, these matters should be looked at internationally and urgently because, really, enough is enough.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, may I first echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord and say how much we congratulate the police, and indeed the customs officials, involved on their prompt action in this matter? Whether it was an independent snatch squad or whether it was done with the blessing of the Nigerian Government, it is a totally intolerable situation, saved from being worse than it was by the prompt action of the authorities in the matter. It is clearly too early to ask too many detailed questions about this matter, but if the noble Lord the Minister can give an undertaking to the House that he will report again to the House as soon as possible that will be extremely helpful.
In the meantime, may I ask two or three questions? First, is it correct that a British Caledonian plane has been held up, and if so on what grounds and how can that possibly square with the assurance given by the High Commissioner for Nigeria this morning that his Government were in no way involved?
Secondly, it appears from a report in The Times that this is the first Nigerian aircraft to land at Stansted for some weeks. Is that correct and, if so, was it a scheduled aircraft? Thirdly, can the noble Lord tell the House how many diplomats from the Nigerian High Commission were actually at the airport at the time when the crates were opened and was their presence in any way explained? Lastly, can he say what progress has been made on the urgent action that was sought to be taken after the affair at the Libyan Embassy and whether we have, as it were, mobilised the full support of our European colleagues on this matter, which clearly greatly affects every European capital?
Lord Elton: My Lords, noble Lords opposite obviously share the proper sense of outrage that we have over this extraordinary affair. If I can try to recall all the questions that I have been asked and answer them in turn, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his words of congratulation to our security forces and I think that the whole House would wish to endorse that. Might I add that the anti-terrorist squad which he particularly singled out for praise was operating in this instance in conjunction with Her Majesty's Customs and the Essex police who share the credit.
522
As to the marking of diplomatic containers or bags, the requirements are set down in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 27, and the relevant parts are subsections (4) to (7). I will at the moment say only that it is sufficient, and it is a matter for relief, that this convention did not prevent the discovery of this crime. Your Lordships will recall that my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary announced a review of the convention on 1st May and he will be taking this further incident into account. I understand that he will be making the outcome of his review known shortly. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, then asked about the address to which the crates were to be sent. I understand that this was the Ministry of External Affairs, Lagos.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked about the possible detention of a British Caledonian aircraft. My information to date—and I would say that this is a fast developing situation—is that we received news early this morning that a British Caledonian DC10 aircraft was recalled to Lagos airport, Nigeria, was surrounded by the military police there, and then seized. There is no news that I have of any second aircraft to which I think the noble Lord may have referred. The extradition arrangements with Nigeria are the normal ones and so far there have been no applications for extradition of any of the people concerned in this event.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the reports are true that there are some 17 crew and 140 passengers on board the British Caledonian aircraft, and whether that aircraft is still sitting at Lagos airport? If it is, I can assure my noble friend that these are most intolerable circumstances in which to be held by the authorities in Nigeria. May I ask my noble friend what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to get these poor people released?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is, I am sure, making urgent representations; but as I say the situation is developing. I cannot bring noble Lords further up to date beyond saying that some of the passengers on this aircraft are British. Whether they are inside the aircraft or elsewhere, I cannot at the moment say.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will deal with the question that I asked. How many diplomats from the Nigerian High Commission were actually at the airport when the crates were discovered?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I understand that there were two chauffeurs and one attaché, but I could not be certain that the information is complete.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, while I share the general sense of outrage, may I ask whether it is not unfortunate that this incident should happen so soon after the arrival of the Nigerian High Commissioner? I was with him on Wednesday and he expressed his earnest desire to consolidate good relations between Nigeria and this country. Ought we not to accept the statement of the federal Government? It is not

523
unknown in other parts of the world for official agencies to do things of which their governments would not approve.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my view goes further. I think it is more than unfortunate. I think it is disastrous that this should have happened at any time, and particularly unfortunate that it should have happened now. I believe that conduct of this sort brings diplomacy into ill repute.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, did the members of the High Commission staff who were found on the spot offer an explanation of their presence? Are they among those who are in custody, along with the gentleman with the drugs and the syringe, and may we be assured that they will be subjected to the ordinary course of British justice?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have no information as to what the people on the scheme may have said when confronted with the situation at Stansted airport. As I said, 17 people are in custody, all of them in the care of the Metropolitan Police, who at present are entitled to keep them even beyond 96 hours.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it has been said that the British Caledonian aircraft was recalled to Lagos. Presumably it was already in flight. Is the noble Lord able to tell the House whether it was threatened with any ill consequence if it neglected the order to return, how such an order is viewed under international law, and whether or not this verges on state air piracy?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if, as I understand, the aircraft was in Nigerian airspace, it was under the orders of Nigerian air traffic control and I understand the recall was exercised by Nigerian air traffic control—in what terms or under what penalties I could not say. But I do not doubt that there are civil emergencies which could justify such a recall with no sinister reason. I do not know more than that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the agency which recalled this aircraft is an agency of the Nigerian Government?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that that probably requires an answer that ought to be given by a lawyer. I know what my layman's answer is, but I would not like to commit the Government to sharing it.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is it not right that today's report in The Times says that this country will not extradite people to a country which has a military government? Does not that make a difference to the fact that there was no request for the extradition of some of these people?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if an application for extradition were to be made it would not be made by us, because the people who are under arrest are already here.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, may I
524
ask my noble friend whether the aeroplane which was at Stansted airport, which we presume was going to take off to Nigeria, was on a normal flight schedule or whether, as the noble Lord suggested, it was a one-off aeroplane?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it was a cargo aircraft. To that extent I believe that it was not a scheduled aircraft, unless there is a scheduled cargo flight, which I do not know. I referred earlier to a second British Caledonian aircraft and said that I had no news that there was one. What may have been in noble Lords' minds was that the British Caledonian company, for obvious reasons, prudently recalled one of their own aircraft which was on the way to Lagos.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the British Caledonian aircraft which was recalled by Lagos was on a scheduled flight?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe so; but my basis for belief is no more than that of my noble friends who have read the newspapers. I ought to emphasise that this is a rapidly developing and recent event, and I am anxious not to be drawn into making statements which are based on supposition.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down finally, may I ask him whether he will undertake, since the House is very concerned about the matter, to make a further statement as soon as there are any developments which ought to be brought to the attention of the House?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe protocol dictates that I should advise the noble Lord to ask the usual and noble channels about how to handle this.

Housing Defects Bill
11.42 a.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Housing Defects Bill which applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales, will have come as no surprise to your Lordships, who will recall the Government Statement on 10th November last year, repeated in this House by my noble friend Lord Bellwin, which announced a scheme of assistance to private owners of houses sold by the public sector and since found to have serious structural defects or potential defects. What may have surprised your Lordships is the speed with which the Bill has arrived before the House today for a Second Reading. It shows how important we think it is to help owners of defective dwellings which have been sold by the public sector. The relatively speedy passage which the Bill received in another place proves that this is shared by all parties. I trust the Bill will be equally well received by the House.
It may be helpful if I very briefly explain a little of the background to the Government's initiative in this matter. Following the investigation of an Airey house damaged by fire, the Building Research Establishment undertook a study of the prefabricated reinforced

525
concrete system of construction used in that type of dwelling. Their findings, published in May 1981, were that the reinforced concrete components in all Airey houses were liable to cracking and eventual disintegration because of carbonation and, in some cases, the presence of excessive levels of chloride in the concrete, resulting in the corrosion of the steel reinforcement in the concrete.
The Department of the Environment informed all local authorities of the Building Research Establishment's findings so that they could consider the implications for any dwellings of this type forming part of their stock and inform private owners of such houses.
These owners were faced with immediate and serious problems. They had bought at a price based on a valuation which took no account of the latent or potential defect identified by the Building Research Establishment. On discovery of the defects, these owners found themselves with a greatly depreciated asset, because such properties were unmortgageable. In September 1982, the Government announced a discretionary scheme of financial assistance for private owners of Airey houses, many of whom had sunk their total resources into the purchase of their home. The scheme was brought into operation in February 1983 and most local authorities are now helping owners under it.
But by February of last year, we were receiving reports that the problems of carbonation and chloride attack were not confined to Airey houses. The Government therefore asked the Building Research Establishment to investigate six other types of prefabricated reinforced concrete house. Their findings revealed that the problems associated with prefabricated reinforced concrete houses were far more widespread than at first thought, and on the day these findings were published the Government's intention to legislate and bring forward a statutory scheme of assistance to the many more private owners therefore affected was announced to both Houses.
I must point out that in the vast majority of cases we are not talking about dwellings which are structurally unsafe; they will continue to provide perfectly good housing for a long time to come. I stress that because many have criticised this Bill for failing to provide help to tenants and local authorities. Local authorities do not need new powers to deal with the prefabricated reinforced concrete houses that remain in their stock, and as many of the houses will not need repair for many years, in some cases not for 20 or 30 years, local authorities' expenditure on repairing their own houses can be spread over a long period.
But the private owner's problem is that he has sunk his resources in his house and now finds that its value has been greatly reduced, because building societies will not issue mortgages on it because it will not last for the 50 or 60 years that societies normally look for if they are going to lend. This is a serious and immediate problem and the object of the Bill is to provide assistance to private owners in these circumstances. They purchased in good faith from the public sector and, through no fault of their own, the value of their homes has been substantially reduced. We think that
526
it is entirely right that the public sector which produced these defective houses in the first place should give help to them.
I should say that the further investigations by the Building Research Establishment indicate that there are 28 types of house designed before 1960 which use prefabricated reinforced concrete load-bearing components and which are likely to suffer from the faults which the Building Research Establishment has investigated. Initially, it will be the owners of these types who will be assisted under the Bill. The 28 types are: Airey, Boot, Butterley, Cornish Unit, Dorran, Dyke CC, Gregory, Hamish Cross, Lindsay, Myton, Newland, Orlit, Parkinson Frame, Reema Hollow Panel, Schindler, Stent, Stonecrete, Stour, Tarran, Teebeam, Underdown, Unitroy, Unity, Waller, Wates, Whitson-Fairhurst, Winget, and Woolaway.
In the time available I do not think the House would wish me to go through the Bill clause by clause. We have tried to be helpful in explaining what is in some respects a complex scheme by providing a rather full Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I shall be very happy to make the Notes on Clauses available next week. However, I should like to describe briefly the outline of the scheme.
As I said earlier, the object of the Bill is to provide for financial assistance to private owners of dwellings which have been sold by public sector authorities and which are defective by reason of their design or construction and which, as a result of these defects having become generally known, have been substantially reduced in value. For the purpose of establishing the scope of the scheme of assistance, the Secretary of State is given a power in Clause 1 to designate classes of buildings which appear to him to fall within the category I have just described. As I have just said, designations will initially be made in respect of the 28 types of prefabricated reinforced concrete house already identified by the Building Research Establishment.
Local authorities will have a duty to give assistance to eligible owners, either by way of reinstatement grant or, in certain circumstances, by way of repurchase under Clause 3. The Bill makes provision for certain criteria to be met in determining the form of assistance, the most important being that before a reinstatement grant can be given the local authority must be satisfied that the repaired dwelling would be likely to be mortgageable immediately after repair by a lending institution in the private sector. Reinstatement grants will be at the rate of 90 per cent. (or 100 per cent. in hardship cases) subject to an expenditure limit specified by the Secretary of State. In repurchase cases, the owner will be entitled to 95 per cent. of the defect-free value of the dwelling, plus any costs reasonably incurred in negotiating the transaction. Additionally, in the case of repurchase the owner is to be granted a secure or protected tenancy. Schedules 1 and 2 make detailed provision for the payment of reinstatement grant and the terms of repurchase.
There will be a specific Exchequer contribution towards local authorities' expenditure under the Bill. For reinstatement grants, this contribution will be at the very generous rate of 90 per cent. In the case of

527
repurchase, the Exchequer contribution will be 75 per cent. of the difference between the price paid to the owner of the defective dwelling and its defective value.
Those are the essential ingredients of the scheme as it will apply in cases where a designation has been made by the Secretary of State at national level. But there is also provision in Clause 10 of the Bill for local authorities to designate classes of buildings which have not been designated by the Secretary of State. This will enable local authorities to deal with defective dwellings with problems of a local nature, where a particular design or method of construction may have been used at a local rather than national level. Once a local authority has designated a class of buildings, owners of the dwellings concerned will be eligible for assistance on exactly the same terms as when the Secretary of State makes a designation.
I ought perhaps, before finishing, to make mention of one provision in the Bill which is not concerned with the scheme of assistance for owners of defective dwellings. The provision concerned is contained in Clause 21. The Building Societies Association at present recommends building societies to lend on new houses only when the buildings are registered with the National House Building Council. This recommendation is a registered agreement under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. As such, it could be referred to the Restrictive Practices Court by the Director-General of Fair Trading. The recommendation, first made in 1966 with the full approval of the then Labour Government, has worked well.
The Government believe that the public interest can best be served by ensuring that new houses are built according to high standards and sold with a warranty such as that offered by the NHBC. That can be done by ensuring that the present or any future BSA recommendation is not open to possible legal challenge. The new clause will remove the BSA's recommendation from the scope of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 and from the register of restrictive practices that is kept by the director-general.
I am sure that there are some aspects of the Bill which I have not dealt with today, and I await with interest any points your Lordships may wish to make in the context of this debate. I shall endeavour to deal with any outstanding points in my winding up.
As I have said, this is a much needed Bill, and an important one in that owners of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses have had a raw deal through no fault of their own or of their surveyors. I hope that your Lordships agree, and in those terms I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
11.52 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin by echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in saying that there will be no opposition or undue delay in putting this Bill on the statute book. However, I was concerned by the latter part of the noble Lord's speech, when he said that in the time available it might not be proper or possible to
528
deal with the Bill more fully today. So far as we are concerned, we attach great importance to this Bill and we are not prepared to lose the opportunity that we have today to debate its impact. Certainly we are not minded other than to give this Bill the maximum scrutiny it needs because of its importance, not only to those who are directly affected but also to the millions of people who will be indirectly affected.
I begin by welcoming the principle of assistance for private owners of defective houses, but I have to say that this Bill provides no help for more than a million families who remain tenants of publicly-owned, non-traditional and industrialised defective homes. Further, the Bill itself is defective in that it will place another burden on ratepayers and local authorities. Also, it fails to place a duty on Her Majesty's Government to help all occupants of defective non-traditional and industrialised homes, irrespective of tenure.
If those opening words sound familiar to the Minister and to his advisers, it is because they were the terms of the Opposition amendment on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place. I sincerely hope that, other than when it comes to the remedy, there will be little time lost in seeking to apportion blame for the catastrophe facing the nation.
When we are talking about the state of public housing, I believe that the nation is facing a catastrophe. That catastrophe is due to the latent defects which emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, the seeds of which were sown in abundance in the 1950s and 1960s. I must declare an interest. More than 20 years ago I served as a housing chairman, as a chairman of planning and as the leader of the council for the London Borough of Enfield. I know from speaking to other noble Lords, and in particular to my noble friend Lord Stallard, that we on this side of the House can parade similar credentials, about which we are not ashamed.
The 1950s and the 1960s were exciting times. After the first dash for 300,000 houses per year so vigorously pursued by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, in the 1950s, there was a lull. But pressure from families desperate for a place of their own built up and created an incessant demand for housing. And why not? The owner-occupier route was neither universally popular nor possible for millions of people in housing need. I can recall the fierce arguments: do we build more new towns? Can we consider the concept of not only a first generation but also a second and third generation of new towns? That concept was enthusiastically embraced by Governments of both complexions in the 1960s and 1970s.
Sadly, those who are directly associated with the Association of District Councils will recall the enormous problems which the new town councils experienced, born out of the problems of derelict housing. The aftermath of the policies of those councils in respect of new towns has not only been felt in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, but, alas, will be felt also into the 1990s, with very little understanding by the Government of how these new town authorities will solve their problems.
The other question was: shall we not merely build new towns, but shall we build traditional housing with

529
a density of 60 or 70 habitable rooms to the acre within urban areas where land is at a premium; or shall we use the fast-developing industrialised systems for both low- and high-rise buildings to reach a density of as much as 200 habitable rooms to the acre? We considered the opportunity which that latter policy would give to long-waiting families to obtain the key to their dream home; more often than not, a key to a flat in a tower block. Without the hindsight which all smug and self-righteous pundits acquire, I plead guilty, with no plea of mitigation, to the charge of trying to house as many families as we could in the 1950s and 1960s—and to do so as quickly as we could. I stand at the Dispatch Box and confess to shedding tears of despair when standing in the middle of rat-infested hovels called homes and to sharing the tears of joy with the self-same families when they received their key; out of darkness and into the light—very often, a flat in a tower block. Ronan Point changed all that, and gave us an opportunity to re-examine the policy we had been following and the advice we had been receiving.
The Minister has, as usual, been fair and helpful to the House in introducing this Bill, but I believe that he used certain words in order to put a gloss on the purpose and the intent of the Bill. He could equally have told the House that that most privileged category of citizen—the council tenant who buys his house—is due to receive a further layer of protection. For those who qualify for a state handout of 50 per cent. (now 60 per cent.) in regard to an asset—often a gift worth up to £20,000—there will be further benefits denied to less-favoured groups; that is, less favoured by the Government.
This Bill will give 16,500 former council tenants who have purchased their houses two new and unprecedented rights. First, those tenants covered by this Bill (and we shall speak later of those who are excluded) will have a right to sell back their house if it is found to be defective. Secondly, they will not only be given their money back, and more, but will also have the right to rent. That is not bad. If only 1 million other families who are living in comparable worrying circumstances could be so lucky.
Perhaps either today or in Committee we shall be given an up-to-date assessment of the Government's estimate of the proportion affected who will ask for reinstatement grant or for repurchase. Can we be told that proportion today? Our assessment, backed up by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, but based also on experience of human nature, is that more owners will sell back than will rent and will then exercise their right to buy again. Does the Minister have any idea of just how unfair that will be? First, it will be unfair on the councils who will bear the sharp end of this largesse and, secondly, on the million other families living in comparable defective housing whose crime in the eyes of this Government is that they chose not to buy; often because they could not afford to.
We know who will benefit from this Bill, and we do not cavil at that, but why should other tenants and other ratepayers pay? Why should the effect of this Bill on reducing waiting lists penalise those who have already waited a long time? Thus, the burden of our disquiet rests not on the ability of those who have to
530
get a bit more but on the totally unfair way that that bit more is to be obtained by heaping more burdens on those who suffer equally—from poor housing, defective systems, tight budgets. The beneficiary is the couple who bought and thus already enjoy state largesse to a considerable extent.
The unfairness of the unmet problems after the solution in the Bill for private owners cannot be overstated. The potential cost to the public purse of this scheme is estimated to be £250 million. The Minister needs to reply—and I know he is taking a careful note of what I am saying; I repeat, I know he is taking a careful note of what I am saying—on where this extra £250 million of public resources is to come from. We need Government understanding and an undertaking that they are talking about new additional money and not money which is to be filched from other heads with hardpressed budgets. We want a direction from the Government to councils, "Certainly bail out these deserving cases but do not diminish the available resources for others in desperate need".
Housing improvement programme allocations are an imperfect instrument to solve this particular problem. We must have new money or the Government will stand condemned of a cynical piece of jiggery-pokery in helping those who have already helped themselves to a slice of public assets at the expense of millions of equally deserving families. When we are looking at what is required to treat others in the same generous way, what kind of money are we talking about? The Bill assumes a cost of a reinstatement grant at £8,000 and the cost of repurchase at £18,000. A global total to satisfy all the 16,500 owners affected is between £170 million and £200 million. However, the Bill makes no financial provision for dwellings once they have been repurchased. Will not the council then be under an obligation to carry out repairs? Where will that money come from? Will the Minister tell the House of the fate of the 150,000 families living in the selfsame kind of properties which are still in public ownership for which the total cost of reinstatement will be in the region of £1·5 billion?
In another place, and by Statements, Ministers have rested their answers in this field on the HIP allocations providing the sums required. That is a dangerous and fallacious premise and I shall tell the House why. The magic ingredient in the Government's housing formulas is called capital receipts; the retention by authorities of a portion of the capital raised by selling council houses. Last year councils had to rely on retaining 50 per cent. of such receipts. This year they have been assumed to retain 60 per cent. However, we all know the trend in council house sales is going down. The peak has been passed. That is why the latest Housing Bill increased the discount from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. This means that as authorities are forced to budget to find millions of pounds to meet their obligations under this Bill it will inevitably result in a worsening crisis for all others: tenants, those on waiting lists and improvement grant users. In my view, that is an incredible priority.
Shelter has provided Members of this House with some graphic illustrations of the crippling effect of

531
implementing this Bill in some areas. Bristol faces an estimated bill of £ 10 million to £15 million. Its annual HIP allocation is £12·6 million. Epping has to face a bill of between £4 million and £5 million but its annual HIP allocation is about £2·5 million. Rochester faces a bill of between £6 million and £9 million and its annual HIP allocation is £2·5 million. I know that the Minister will tell us that the repair bill may be, and must be, spread over a number of years; but it still represents a resented additional impost on hard pressed councils, and it is resented by councils and councillors very much indeed.
This is a crazy policy which will force councils to reduce their monies for the homeless, the waiting families, those who wish to repair and renovate their homes—private and council—so that those in the designated categories can sell their houses, get another council house as of right and eventually buy again. It is a good illustration of the mess into which the Government's housing policy has fallen.
I turn to the vexed question of designation of the class of system to be eligible for treatment under the Bill. On Second Reading in another place—and today the Minister has kindly repeated them—the criteria and the types were given that will be dealt with as prefabricated, reinforced, concrete houses that have been designated. He mentioned the 28 types. But setting aside those that were built after 1960, what about the many thousands in other classes which fall as squarely to be designated as those listed?
My honourable friend Mr. Terry Davis, the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, has drawn my attention to the deep concern of many of his constituents who live in what are known as Smith houses. As I would expect of him, he has been most diligent in pursuing their interests. On Second Reading in another place he challenged the Minister to get a move on with his consideration—that is, the Minister's consideration—of designating Smith houses and outlining the persistence that he—that is, Mr. Terry Davis—had deployed in getting him to do so over many years, but especially in the past 12 months. At his request the Minister visited Birmingham to see the problems.
What were those problems? Walls with internal movement; internal cracks at wall and partition joints; movement between external walls; external cracking; repointing, matched pattern of cracks. Floors with cracks at the centre and junction with walls; heaving and waviness; doming; jamming of doors; door frames disturbed. On the windows, window sills have fallen; gaping and cracking at the base of windows.
I can assure the Minister that Mr. Terry Davis will not let this matter go away. He is a good Member of Parliament and a good constituency Member. Ministerial noises that it is possible to have local designation—the Minister said it is perfectly possible for the Birmingham council to designate the Smith houses—are certainly not the answer. What a terrible dilemma for the Birmingham council and Birmingham councillors to have to decide who to push to the hack of the queue to allow those unlucky homeowners to jump to the front for access to limited housing funds. Mr. Davis wants a favourable answer soon; so do his constituents; and so do I.
532
The Bill is riddled with anomalies in that it seems to help some lucky and then unlucky individuals but puts the most outrageous burdens on innocent councils. For example, let us take the Rotherham metropolitan borough council. The Bill requires local authorities to provide assistance to owners of houses formerly owned by other public sector authorities. This means that they not only will have to provide grants but will have to repurchase houses which were never previously owned by a local authority but were sold by other agencies such as, in this instance, the National Coal Board. The National Coal Board will have the benefit of the capital receipts. My honourable friend Mr. Peter Hardy, who has been tireless in his efforts on behalf of his authority and his constituents, tells me that there are 189 National Coal Board sales of properties that fall within the Bill. Rotherham will have to find £2·5 million to repurchase those houses. Where is it to get that kind of money from?
My honourable friend Peter Hardy draws my attention to the problems arising from difficulties in getting building societies to grant mortgages on reinstatement houses. I realise that the Minister will need to take advice, but can he say a little more about the understandings that the Minister has with building societies and the associations on how helpful they will be about the repurchase of those houses? It is all very well to put the house in what your Lordships may agree is a saleable state, but what happens if it cannot be sold because of a phobia or other psychological factor? What is the building society to do? It is not easy for the building society. We need to consider that further.
The Southcote Residents' Association is well known to my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who is in the Chamber at the moment. He lives in Reading, from where the association operates. It has written to both my noble friend and myself, and I believe that the House should know the burden of its distress, which arises from the Bill as it presently stands. The secretary, Mrs. Caswell, of 9 Frilsham Road, Southcote, Reading, writes to me in the following terms:
"There has so far been no positive outcome with the building societies that we know of, and this seems to form the core of the Bill".
That touches on the previous point that I made. I know that, if he can, the Minister will be helpful there.
The letter continues:
"The Bill is solely for home owners, many of which live in blocks of houses along with tenants. As these blocks were constructed as one, the need to repair them as one is of great structural importance to the unit.
"As we understand the Bill, reinstatement grant would cover the work to be done in certain cases up to 100 per cent depending on hardship. In the event of owners having to vacate their property, there is no provision in the Bill for hardship cases to assist with any cost incurred by storage of furniture and alternative accommodation.
"In the event of a person who in the local authority's opinion is eligible for reinstatement and after the work has been carried out could still not sell due to the blight on the house type, as the house would be non-defective, would re-purchase still be possible, and, being non-defective, at 100 per cent?".
I think that the burden of that last point is that, if having gone for the reinstatement grant, a person finds that he still cannot sell the property, will the council purchase it on the same terms? In other words, can

533
these people gain access to the two sprigs of the legislation? That letter came to me only today. Other points have been raised.
From this side of the House we look to the future against a background of what we consider to be mounting catastrophe. That is the view among those who care and who are concerned to see all families enjoy a good standard of housing as a basis for good family life. I believe that there is gloom and despair in a great many quarters. I am a local government man, and proud of it. It is depressing beyond measure to view the task facing councils. Eighty per cent of housing authorities no longer receive any form of subsidy towards existing or new loan repayments. If those authorities have to spend money because of this Bill, it will almost certainly come out of tenants' resources.
Because we are talking about schemes appraised, and in many cases designated, by Government agencies, the Government should accept much more responsibility for the solutions and not leave the problems to be solved at the expense of other necessary housing activity. Ways in which that could be done have been urged on the Government, not least by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I declare an interest as a vice-president. First of all, there should be provision of adequate subsidies to offset the burden of loan charges on the capital costs of remedial work—demolition costs and compensation costs. There should be a take-over of the existing loan debts on dwellings demolished as beyond redemption. The Government should provide a subsidy for dwellings erected to replace those already demolished. There ought to be a special subsidy arrangement for additional management costs associated with tackling industrialised building defects.
We shall in Committee come to the problem of asbestos removal. If we face up to the cost of putting right in the remainder of the century what we did wrong in the past, mind-boggling figures will emerge. I have been told of a total of £10 billion, but it is likely to prove to be an underestimate—and that is just to remedy the errors of the past. The figure of £10 billion is enormous and mind-boggling. It is against such daunting factors that we view this Bill as a modest attempt to bring relief to a tiny number of the people in need of such direct assistance—16,500 out of 150,000—but a million families now live in houses of the industrialised building type and face uncertainty and have no security of mind.
I repeat that on this side of the House we do not oppose the Bill. We welcome its main thrust and approve the relief that will be given by it to 16,500 families, but in Committee we intend to press for comparable relief for others and for a better understanding by the Government of the burden that they are heaping on the backs of councils and council tenants. Above all, we shall use our opportunity to remind this Government that there is more to a housing policy than simply selling off our housing stock and delivering those who buy a bad bargain from the misfortunes which beset the owner-occupier. A housing policy should also be about housing the people—all of our people—and we shall remind the Government of their responsibilities there.
12.15 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, whatever criticisms are made of this Bill, I believe that we must all welcome its intent. Nearly all the points which I was intending to make have already been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, but I should like just to repeat some of the figures which I think have already been given.
Let us take the reinforced concrete houses. It is estimated that about 16,500 are privately owned, but the total owned by local authorities is almost 10 times more. There is therefore a problem of people living in potentially unsatisfactory accommodation, and an eventual commitment on that type of housing alone could cost £1½ billion to cover the whole problem. I am of course taking the figures given by the Government in the Bill. I therefore understand the Government's reluctance to extend their commitment, and the commitments of the local authorities, and, in a way, their cheeseparing contribution of a 90 per cent instead of 100 per cent grant. I should, however, be interested to know how they can morally justify this reduced grant. It cannot be on the caveat emptor principle, because nobody could reasonably have known that the defects which now appear would arise.
Other worrying points, which have already been mentioned, are the mortgageability of houses after restoration (in other words, can the buyer get a mortgage, and therefore is the house easily saleable?) the financial help which the Government are giving to the local authorities; and whether that will come out of an already inadequate housing grant. The doubts about this Bill are therefore not about its intentions, but about how it will work in practice.
There are many areas where the Bill could be unfair, and there is doubt as to whether the Government will be able to control its workings in practice. That of course was why in another place there was a major amendment put down to set up a quango to oversee its operation. I do not support that idea, but I believe that a full annual report should be made to Parliament, so that we can see where improvements can be made and what is going wrong. With the complications, and the fact that the Government have apparently not worked out their policy in detail, I cannot help believing that things are bound to go wrong. Nevertheless, I welcome this Bill.
12.18 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I had not intended to speak at this stage on the Bill as I had only some points to make in Committee, when we reach Clause 15. But I find myself provoked by what has already been said to say a few words now. I share the view of my noble friend on the Front Bench that this is an important Bill which must be got onto the statute book with all due dispatch, but I also certainly share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that it would be quite wrong to assume that this House is ready to pass it on the nod, because a very large sector of the housing stock of the whole nation is involved. Very important, very large sums of money are involved and very important judgments and balances have to be taken between the new increase in the private sector and the public sector and the expenditure required of central Government and of local government.

535
For instance, when my noble friend says, passing quite quickly over it, that the public sector has produced all these houses, of course that is true. Yet it disguises the fact that the public sector, the Coal Board, the local authorities, the housing authorities, the new towns were operating under enormous pressure from central Government to get on and to build. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, they were glad to do so.
However, this has the effect that it is quite inappropriate for my noble friend to talk about a rate of 90 per cent. being generous, as though it were generous in every case. When we get to Clause 15, I will endeavour to show, and I am sure other noble Lords will as well, that nothing less than 100 per cent. will be essential if any degree of fairness is to be achieved in some cases in respect of houses put up by other authorities like the Coal Board, which are having now to be dealt with by the local housing authorities. There is absolutely no reason why the local authorities, who certainly have the necessary powers, should be required to put into that any of their own resources at all.
These are matters to which we can return at Committee stage. However in view of the way the debate has gone and the amount of detail we were getting into, I thought it proper to say that now.
12.22 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I want to refer to the debate so far. I should like just to say that, although very few noble Lords have spoken, it does not necessarily mean that the House does not think that this is an important Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who has just spoken, outlined that this is an important Bill. I take the view that the fact that the Government have decided to slot it in, albeit on a special day as far as this House is concerned, underlines the importance that the Government attach to this particular measure.
My noble friend Lord Graham referred to his personal experience in local government. That experience is shared by many of us who were involved in local authorities in the 'fifties and 'sixties. I would not necessarily agree that we were all enthusiastic. I can assure your Lordships that certainly amongst individuals, architects and traditionalists there were great pockets of resistance to this innovation, as it then was. There is also this traditional resistance in local authorities—and, thank God! it still remains. They are always suspicious, to say the least, as to whether the man in Whitehall knows best. Certainly in those days the pressure from Government, from Whitehall, was quite intense.
I can sum it up by quoting from a Ministry of Housing and Local Government circular in the 'sixties, which said,
"The Minister proposes to launch a concentrated drive to increase and improve the use of industrialised methods in house building for the public sector …
"The advantage for housing authorities …
On numbers"—
he says,
"this is the only way to build the number of houses we need.
"On speed of erection: most industrialised techniques show worthwhile savings.
536
"On price: for flats, industrialised techniques are already slightly cheaper … but efficient organisation of supply and demand can bring down promotion costs.
"On design: the use of carefully prepared standard designs will release scarce professional time to concentrate on raising the quality of layouts.
"On construction quality: industrialised methods facilitate quality control."
On top of that, special subsidies were given for councils who were prepared to accept this kind of industrial factory-built houses (as we called them in those days). Positive encouragement in the way of more and more circulars was given to local authorities. You can therefore imagine the pressure under which local councils were in those days.
I can remember an experience that I had. I visited a Reema factory in Salisbury. I was extremely impressed by the efficiency and the way that these houses come off a conveyor belt like motor cars. It was a very impressive sight. I had been a critic. That is why I had been invited to visit the place to see how they were produced. Having witnessed the method of production and the end product, with the vast variety of finishes that were available, a lot of my criticisms certainly subsided. I think that on this particular type of house there were about 350 different finishes from which you could choose. Certainly, although I was never totally convinced, I was converted to the fact that smaller units could usefully be built. Further, I was convinced when Reema, amongst others, were prepared to cut their costs to a bare minimum in order to get sites. That was because there was great competition at that time to get the sites that were already very short in the London areas. So all these pressures were placed on local authorities from the centre and from Governments in order to get into this field.
That affected all councils; not just councils of my own persuasion but those of other persuasions as well. I have said that just to illustrate that there is no point in seeking to find out who was to blame for this particular exercise. We shall share a certain amount of responsibility. Some of us can be a wee bit more righteous than others if our conscience says that we certainly objected. I did object to high rise, battery type tenancies in these great blocks of flats. I do object and I always will. I always maintain that we ought to try to replace in horizontal lines rather than in vertical lines the streets that have been destroyed. That is my own conscience salve. However, it does not exonerate me from responsibility for the part I played in encouraging some of the non-traditional types of housing.
So I was in local authority when all that was going on. I remember the Ronan Point disaster. As my noble friend Lord Graham has said, that was a turning point. People said, "There must be something wrong here; things do not happen like that".
Then there was a shift in the opposite direction, thank goodness. I was in the other place when the Building Research Establishment surveys were carried on and reports were debated in that other place. I can also remember the pressure from all sides of the House, from our side and from the other side, for assistance to tenants who had purchased or who were living in these kind of houses. So again the pressure was from all sides and there was nobody looking for anybody to blame.

537
I remember the Airey proposals. They were very generous proposals, far more generous than seems to be the case now with this particular Bill. That has also already been referred to by my noble friend. So we moved on from the Airey houses that we thought were a problem. Later, in February 1983, there were further statements made about Orlit houses, mainly in Scotland, though there were some in England as well. It began to appear that it was possible that many more of these non-traditional type houses could be in trouble. I remember my noble friend Lord Dean saying in the course of that statement that in his opinion we were seeing the tip of the iceberg; there were literally scores of types of houses, runing into millions and millions of pounds, that would be involved if a proper inquiry and programme of research were conducted.
I have checked the figure: 20 other speakers participated in the debate on the Statement given by the then Minister of Housing. They all made similar points. Again they were proved absolutely correct because further surveys showed that there were many more types. We are not yet convinced that we have reached the end of the list. Although the noble Minister read out a long list, there are a lot of people who think that that list will be much longer before all the inquiries and researches are complete.
The Bill deals with three main problems. They have dominated all the discussions both in the other place and so far this morning here. First, there is the plight of the private purchasers who purchased their houses from the local authority. Secondly, there is the plight of thousands of tenants who will still be forced to live in what are apparently, in their minds and in the minds of a lot of people, potentially dangerous houses still owned by local authorities.
The third and probably the most serious problem of all mentioned by noble Lords today is the financial one affecting local authorities. As already stated, we shall want to develop all these points in Committee. I should however like to say a few words about the matter now. On the point about private purchasers, there is general agreement and no argument in my experience on the need to assist purchasers of these homes from local authorities. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, mentioned a figure of 16,500 private owners who had bought defective houses. That may be an under-estimate. It is a matter that will be developed in Committee.
According to my understanding of the Minister's remarks and after reading the debate in the other place, three new rights have been given to tenants who purchase these properties. They have the right to sell back. That is welcomed by all of us. They have the right to rent another property. They also have the right to purchase a second time. After having sold back and rented, they can then purchase a second time. I do not suppose that any of us will quibble in present circumstances about those rights. However, when posed against the problems of tenants who will be forced to remain in the original dwelling, the situation begins to take on a slightly different appearance. As well as that, these three rights will exert tremendous pressures on local authorities, both housing pressures and financial problems. I speak in relation to the inner
538
London scene that I know reasonably well. I am aware of the tremendous pressures already faced by local authorities. These were discused in a recent debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. We dealt with some of the problems facing London boroughs, in particular, in regard to homelessness and so on, and the tremendous pressures under which councils are working. Those pressures will be intensified in areas where many of these houses exist. People will have to be re-housed. Their names will go to the front of the list and take priority in re-housing and other matters.
Noble Lords have also mentioned the financial pressures. These were examined in great detail by my honourable friend Mr. John Fraser who spoke for the Opposition in the Second Reading debate in the other place. I anticipate that we shall spend a great deal of time on this aspect in the forthcoming Committee stage. A number of questions arise in relation to tenants who have purchased from local authorities. I should like to know for instance whether a tenant will be able to appeal against a decision about defectiveness. The decision will be taken elsewhere. It will be taken by the local authority and in some cases by the Secretary of State. Will the tenant be able to appeal against the cut-off date to be fixed by the Secretary of State? Will the Secretary of State consult with local authorities before designating new types of non-traditional building. The Minister may be able to give us some satisfaction on those questions.
A big question to which we shall want the answer is what is to happen to tenants living in defective houses still in council ownership. What is their expectation of improvements? Inevitably, repairs to these houses will be delayed because some of the funds will have to be used to finance the grant to owner-occupiers even though, in some cases, those houses still in council ownership will be in a worse condition. That is more than a possibility. Will those tenants be forced to live in what many would consider to be dangerous conditions? If it is dangerous enough for people to be moved out and to qualify for grants and assistance in another rented property, or possibly another purchased property—a proposal with which we agree—is it different for people who are left in some of these houses? We shall want to develop those points.
It is possible that councils will be forced under pressure to empty some of those houses. There will inevitably be campaigns against people being forced to live in houses from which other people have been moved. Will they have to remain in those houses until the council closes them? If the council is then unable to repair them, will they remain empty? Are we developing another slum programme where there are many of these industrialised or factory-built houses? The Government must bear responsibility for this situation in view of the pressures exerted by all Governments on local authorities in the first place to build these places, and in view of the pressures on tenants to accept them and live in them. The Government must go much further than they propose in the Bill. They must pick up the bill for the results of the pressures that they themselves put on local authorities now that the whole scheme has apparently gone wrong. Resources must be made available to local authorities.

539
I have mentioned that the Minister read out a list of 28 types of houses that were suspect at this moment. I have seen figures elsewhere from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and also from Shelter of from between 167 and 300 types of houses. The Minister put the cost at about £250 million. Even if we accept his figure, the amount in relation to the numbers that I have just mentioned will be astronomical. I want to know, in that event, what provision is being made. Will sufficient resources be made available to local authorities? From what I have heard and the comments I have read, it seems that the Government expect the Bill to operate within present HIP allocations. I know that they have said that they will take into account this and that and therefore make additional allocations.
However, the payments, in the initial stages, are mandatory and councils will be obliged to make payments without reference to any other priority. They cannot say that they have not the money at the moment and that they will provide it when they can. They have to find the money at that moment and in those amounts. The Bill, as Shelter says, effectively puts owners at the front of the queue for limited resources. All of us echo that worry and that fear.
In another report, Shelter, with AMA support, has outlined the plight of various local authorities. Many of the repair bills of local authorities in respect of these houses are far higher than their HIP allocations or even higher than their HIP allocations will be. According to the list and the table published, the repair bill in Leeds is £60 million while the HIP allocation is £28 million. Wakefield has a £20 million repair bill and an HIP allocation of £10 million. There is a long list. I know from my experience that Camden has tremendous problems. We estimate a repair bill there of £32 million. Many of our industrialised building consists of high rise and tower block types. The HIP allocation for 1983–84 was only £33 million. That has been reduced I understand by about 80 per cent. for 1984–85.
We are therefore talking about a local authority in inner London with massive problems. It has 23,000 people on the waiting list and thousands of others applying for homes because of homelessness from all parts of the United Kingdom. Its repair bill at the moment is far greater than the HIP allocation. The Minister will have to give the House some indication of how the Government view the problem and what they intend to do about it.
My noble friend Lord Graham has mentioned the position of the National Coal Board houses. There are others in this situation. There are houses, I understand, built and owned by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. There must be many of those, and I believe that some of them may well fall into this category. We know that there are houses owned by the water authorities. Will the local authority be expected to purchase these houses, and on what terms? We have to know that, and local authorities are entitled to know that because of the way it will affect their financial burden.
I reserve my right to go into much more detail on the Committee stage. When we look at the size of the
540
problem, when we hear the kind of figures that are being estimated, we recognise that the Bill is a very limited measure and will have to be improved in Committee if it is going to be meaningful. We hope that we shall be able to convince the Government that finance must be made available to local authorities.
I end by quoting from the AMA brief that I received recently. It says:
"This Bill is discriminatory and unfair, and we believe that assistance should be available according to the need, irrespective of the tenure of the dwellings concerned. Not only will local authorities receive no extra financial aid to assist with their defective housing problem, but this Bill will increase the financial burdens of local authorities".
The Government must address themselves in realistic terms to the financial burdens they are placing on local authorities with this Bill. We welcome the assistance given to the owner-occupiers, and on Committee stage we would expect to improve the Bill along those lines.
12.42 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we have had a useful debate on this most unfortunate subject. It is heartening to see such a broad measure of agreement on a Government Bill, and I hope it is indicative for the passage of this measure through its later stages in the House. I feel that noble Lords have been unusually gentle with me today; but even so I should like to comment on as many as possible of the points which have been raised in the debate. For example, I am most grateful for the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. However, I would say that he misunderstood my phrase, "in the time available". I mean that in the context of today's debate; I was not referring to any other stage which the Bill may or may not have.
He referred to the history of housing in the 1950s and 1960s. I am well aware of the problems caused by the pressure of the need for housing at that time. I am glad that today I am not answering the charge of, "I told you so", which earlier this week was levelled against the Government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that no one knew the dangers of system building at the then stage of the art.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, should not be allowed to leave this debate with the idea that this Bill is needed solely because of the Government's right-to-buy policy; it is not. Defective houses have been sold under the local authorities' right to sell, which they have always had. I would agree with him of course that the problem may or may not have been made slightly worse because of the right-to-buy policy, but it is not due solely to the right-to-buy policy of this Government.
Talking about rights, I should like to say that people should not be denied their legal rights simply because their home might require structural repair, any more than it would be right or reasonable to deny people's right to buy, in the private sector, houses that may need structural repairs. Indeed, I bought such a house. The key requirements are that people should be informed fully about the structural condition of the house that they are buying, and its potential condition, and that the position should be reflected fully in the valuation.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, both raised the point—and

541
I think it has run through this short debate—as to why, under the Bill, there is no action for public sector tenants. There is no unfairness to local authority tenants in a Bill to give assistance for private owners. Local authorities do not need new powers to deal with houses which remain in their ownership, and under the Housing Act 1961 they have obligations to repair those houses.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I am grateful. He keeps saying that local authorities do not need new powers. What they need is new money; they need the resources. Is the Minister acknowledging that the tenants in properties at present owned by councils are entitled to the same benefit—that is, better housing and security of mind? The release for these people is that they can get out or have the house improved. We are saying that the same right and relief should he given to council tenants. I am sure that councils would want to do it. The enormity of the global sums frightens anyone. The Minister should be a little bit more sympathetic to the inability of councils to do what he says they have got the opportunity of doing.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Graham, would allow me to make my speech in my own way, I think he will find the enlightenment that obviously he is seeking. I was going on to say that there is no need to make special financial arrangements for the cost of repair of defective houses in local authorities' own stock. First, present subsidy arrangements take into account expenditure on redevelopment and capitalised repairs. In general, 75 per cent. of the loan charges on capitalised repairs, improvements and redevelopment count towards an authority's subsidy entitlement. Secondly, we have said repeatedly that special needs for expenditure of this kind are being taken into account in deciding the HIP allocations of the authorities concerned. It is for each local authority, in its responsible role as landlord, to decide, in the light of this and its other priorities, how it should spend its allocation.
We were well aware of the need for spending on prefabricated reinforced concrete houses in arriving at the total provision for housing capital expenditure in our expenditure plans published last autumn. I stress again that there is no need for panic spending. Local authorities need to understand fully the nature of the defects associated with PRC houses. In many cases, for a good many years the houses will remain sound and the gradual deterioration of the concrete will have no discernible adverse effect on the occupiers' living conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and others talked about waiting lists, which is germane to the point I am making. Before the noble Lord, Lord Graham, again leaps to his feet, let me point out that I shall have much more to say on the subject of HIP allocations.
In regard to waiting lists, for exactly the same reason it will make a negligible difference, because in most cases a usable house will pass back to the public sector and the owner can remain in it as a tenant. It would then be repaired as part of the council's normal repair programme. Therefore, it is most important that
542
authorities should consider very carefully programmes of repair or replacement so that they take into account the present condition of the dwellings and their likely future life. They may well conclude that there is no immediate need for action. Where the dwellings remain in local authority ownership it would make no sense to spend large sums repairing them at the expense of other, more pressing priorities for capital expenditure on housing.
By contrast, the private owner is faced with the immediate problem of the mortgageability and blight of his property—a factor which has been raised in the debate this morning. Living in a house he cannot sell, the private owner's position may be one of extreme distress. It is this problem to which our scheme of assistance addresses itself. It is this distress which our scheme will alleviate. In my book, it is quite irresponsible to encourage tenants to believe that this very necessary scheme represents discrimination against them; quite simply, it does not.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, and my noble friend Lord Sandford raised the question of the £250 million in the financial memorandum. The cost of the scheme will be a charge on the HIP allocation, plus capital receipts. But the Government have said that they will take into account this need in varying the size and distribution of HIPs.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me? I promise that this will be my last intervention. I understand what he is saying. Suppose an authority is faced suddenly with the reality of having to solve the problem of the private owner, plus what is laid upon it by law. It may be that, without that, it would have been making a bid in a HIP allocation of, say £20 million, and perhaps getting £14 million. Then along comes an obligation to find £3 million or £4 million more for this particular problem.
Is the Minister saying that, outwith all of its other considerations, the increase in the HIP allocation will be sufficient to take account of the additional burden? Is the Minister able to say that in the future an authority will be in no worse position than it would have been in without this? Is that what he means when he talks about things being taken into account? I have heard the phrase, "taken into account", in respect of many other things, not least the terrible defects in new town housing. I am bound to say that I am suspicious, but that suspicion can be allayed if the Minister will be helpful and say there is every intention that the future HIP allocations for those authorities will fully take into account their additional responsibilities.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's question because it explains the framework of his thinking on this Bill. The noble Lord starts from a false premise. He asks me what would happen if the local authorities were suddenly faced with this problem. I have been at pains to stress that they are not suddenly going to be pesented with this problem with their own stock or, indeed, with private stock, and I shall go on to explain that in a minute.
We fully appreciate the local authorities' concern that they should have the resources under the housing investment programme system to discharge their responsibilities under this Bill and their responsibilities

543
towards defective housing in their stock as well as towards their other housing needs. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has met representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the whole question of defective housing. The total for gross capital expenditure by local authorities has been set at more than £2·5 billion for 1984–85. In this connection I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, mentioned a total sum of £1·5 billion for the entire problem, which is likely to be spread over 20 or 30 years, and I would say that, in spite of the enormous sum involved, it does rather pale into insignificance.
Despite the £2·5 billion for 1984–85 on the HIPs, we took into account the result of the BRE's investigations which pointed to the eventual deterioration of 170,000 PRC houses built before 1960 and what evidence we had of the extent of defects in local authority housing more generally. We also took into account the likelihood of spending as a result of designation of PRC houses under the Bill. Where local authorities had definite plans for spending on these houses and other defective dwellings, such as some Bison schemes, the department's regional controllers took these into account in distributing the local discretionary element of HIP resources at the regional level. We shall continue to take account of these needs in future in fixing both the overall total and individual authorities' allocations, but local authorities are largely free to spend as they wish the HIP allocations as enhanced by the prescribed proportion of capital receipts. Accordingly, there is no sum identified for expenditure under this Bill or on defects more generally.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has suggested that we should provide additional subsidy to help local authorities in financing their capital expenditure on defective housing. I take it that that was what his hollow laughter was indicating just now. The Government see no reason to do that. The subsidy system in England and Wales is devised to help those authorities where the need to spend on housing exceeds the resources which the Secretary of State considers should be available to them from local sources. Expenditure on defective housing is, of course, considered in deciding whether housing subsidy is needed. In fact, 75 per cent. of its loan charges in respect of both improvements and capitalised repairs are admissible for subsidy. It would be wholly unjustified to provide a special subsidy in excess of what an authority can be expected to raise locally in order to meet a particular type of housing capital expenditure.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked—as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in rather more horrendous terms—about extending the scheme to cover other types of defective housing. The scheme will cover only dwellings which suffer from, or can be expected to suffer from, structural defects or potential defects resulting from their design or construction and which were not generally known at the time of purchase. I have no reason to believe that this is true of any dwellings nationally other than those built before 1960 of prefabricated reinforced concrete.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I understand that further research is already taking place into—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord is pre-empting me again.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a preemption right.
Lord Skelmersdale: It obviously is a pre-emption right, my Lords. If the statutory criteria were met, it would be possible for the local authority to exercise its discretion to help owners in respect of those houses. That, I think, answers the noble Lord's point.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to his honourable friend in another place and again asked on his behalf about Smith houses. The Building Research Establishment has completed a thorough study of the Smith house. It is constructed not of structural prefabricated reinforced concrete, but of foamed slag concrete blocks. The most serious problems which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, described, as regards this type of house are caused by the shale fill used in the foundations in some places. We are now considering whether it would be justified for owners of all Smith houses to be eligible for mandatory assistance under the scheme. We hope to reach a decision on this matter shortly.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does that mean soon?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, shortly is shortly.
What the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was really asking at one point in his speech was what would be my advice to the unfortunate owners of these particular houses—not the Smith houses, but the defective houses in general. Local authorities know who live in these houses; the owners have been told and we shall shortly be in a position where owners of 18 out of 28 types will have had a detailed report on their type of house and what to expect. This covers 98 per cent. of the privately-owned dwellings. My advice, therefore, to the individual owner, would be that if he or she intends to remain in the house, then considering the upheaval caused by building works while one is resident—an unhappy experience that I have undergone in the past—he or she should wait until effective repair methods are available. If, however, they need to move for a change of job or for family reasons or whatever, they should apply to their local council immediately, and either the local authority will reinstate the house—in other words, put it back in a mortgageable state—or if that is inappropriate, repurchase it. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and I think possibly the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has the idea that these were options that the owner could exercise. In fact this is a matter entirely at the disrection of the local authority.
The Bill does not give a free choice between reinstatement and repurchase. The proportions depend on whether, and how quickly, effective repair methods are developed and whether the institutions will consider them mortgageable. So there can be no clear answer. It will change over time towards reinstatement.
The range in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum assumes limits of 25 per cent. repurchase and 75 per cent. reinstatement on the one

545
hand, and 75 per cent. repurchase and 25 per cent. reinstatement on the other hand. It is expected that in time the proportion of repurchase will fall and reinstatement will definitely become the norm as there emerge reinstatement methods which are mortgageable.
That brings me to the subject of a guarantee or warranty for repaired PRC houses. It may be helpful if I say that over some months we have been in discussion with the Building Societies Association and the National House Building Council about a proposal that the council should operate a scheme for approving requirements for, or methods of, repair of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses and providing a warranty similar to that offered by the NHBC in respect of new houses built by the private sector. Discussions are continuing to see whether such a scheme could be devised.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked why there was a 90 per cent. instead of a 100 per cent. grant and he said, "Wasn't it mean?". I am paraphrasing the noble Viscount; those were not quite his actual words. Without the Bill, the owner would carry all the risk, as I know the noble Viscount will understand. It is reasonable that owners should be left with a small degree of this risk, given that the public purse is taking over most of that risk from the owner. The noble Viscount also asked about a full annual report on this subject being laid before Parliament. No, my Lords; this matter came up in the Commons and was resisted as unnecessary because the Secretary of State will undertake extensive consultation and study before making a designation and, therefore, he can be questioned directly because these days the results of consultations are known almost before they have happened.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I should like to make only one point. The Minister must realise that one must know what question to ask, but without the information one cannot know. It is like "Yes, Minister", and all that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, without the information one does not know what question to ask. But since noble Lords on all sides of the House are briefed by outside advisers, I do not think that there will be any difficulty in their coming up with the right question, which may or may not be extremely difficult for me to answer at the time.
The primary purpose of this legislation is to assist people who have bought their homes from the public sector, only to discover that the value of their homes has since been substantially reduced because of serious defects in their design or construction. The Government's prompt action in bringing this legislation forward is in recognition of the public sector's responsibility towards people who bought their homes in good faith, and of the need to bring them early help. I trust that your Lordships will endorse the Government's intentions. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1984
1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1984, which was laid before Parliament on 12th June this year, be approved. As your Lordships will know from the speech of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place on 2nd July this year, in the coming months the Government will be offering and, indeed, encouraging discussions with and among the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. Our objective will be to achieve some measure of agreement among the parties on arrangements for enabling locally-elected representatives to assume at least some responsibility for administering Northern Ireland's affairs.
We have been heartened by the indications of a readiness to talk, to examine ways round the difficulties which confront them, which were shown by Northern Ireland Members in another place during the debate on 2nd July. But the Government do not underestimate the difficulty of achieving agreement, and we have always recognised that time will be needed. Meanwhile, it is necessary to renew the direct rule provisions which provide that legislation which could be passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly after devolution can continue to be passed at Westminster by Order in Council, and that the executive responsibilities of a Northern Ireland administration should be exercised by the Secretary of State.
In commending this order to the House, the Government recognise that direct rule is not ideal. It is generally viewed throughout the community as a second best, because some aspects are remote from the close network of local politics and people cannot easily identify with them. Nonetheless, there is wide recognition that the Northern Ireland departments carry out their duties effectively and, above all, impartially. I should like to add my own warm tribute to that paid by my right honourable friend to their staff, to which, even from my short experience in the Province, I can attest, and I do so most warmly.
Despite the shortcomings of direct rule, its quality has, I believe, been greatly improved by the deliberations and advice of the Northern Ireland Assembly over the past two years. My ministerial colleagues and I are answerable to Parliament, including, as it does, Members from Northern Ireland, to whose views we attach great importance. But we have found the detailed work of the Assembly, and its committees, to be of value in focusing attention on particular as well as on general issues. This has helped the Government to be more responsive to Northern Ireland views.
Since March 1983 some 46 Assembly reports have been laid before Parliament. Each one has been examined carefully by Government, and we have replied fully to the Assembly's proposals. A number of proposals for draft Orders in Council have been changed to take account of Assembly views. My ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office

547
have met the Assembly's committees frequently. These exchanges enable my colleagues and Ministers to explore issues in depth and to hear the views of elected representatives at first hand on a wide range of matters. Indeed, it was only yesterday afternoon that I addressed the Assembly on the continuing and thorny problem of milk quotas, and I had great pleasure in listening to the debate which ensued. But all of us in the Northern Ireland Office have found the Assembly's contribution to be a useful and, above all, an informative addition to debates in Parliament, where the decisions are taken.
The Government are pleased that the Assembly report committee, which has been established to consider proposals for devolution, is under way, and we are glad that the Ulster Unionist Party, by rejoining the Assembly, is playing its part. I should like to make it clear that we welcome any constructive proposals. That is the spirit in which we approach the ideas which have been put forward recently; for example, the Ulster Unionist Party's suggestions for administrative devolution entitled The Way Forward, and the report of the New Ireland Forum. In their tone, in their attempts to recognise the validity of both traditions, and in their recognition of the need for consensus, they have helped to create a new and more positive atmosphere for dialogue.
The Government are determined not to let this opportunity pass. During the coming months we want to see practical and realistic talks between the constitutional parties. The seriousness of the security situation and the economy cannot be remedied without agreement among the constitutional parties, reached through peaceful political dialogue on durable and stable arrangements for running Northern Ireland's internal affairs. We are glad that the parties are seized of the urgency of the need to move forward and of their willingness to examine genuine attempts to accommodate each other's requirements.
None of us, and above all your Lordships today, must lose sight of the realities in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State described these on Monday of this week in another place. Although much of what he said will be familiar to those of your Lordships who live in, who have studied, or who have been associated with the Province for many years, I think it is worth spending a moment or two on these realities, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I draw quite closely on what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State mentioned in another place earlier this week.
First, the majority of people in Northern Ireland are totally committed to maintaining Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, and are as firmly opposed to Northern Ireland becoming part of a united Ireland on any terms. At the same time, we recognise that there is a substantial and significant minority of people in Northern Ireland strongly committed to Northern Ireland sooner or later becoming part of a united Ireland.
The second reality is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is recognised internationally as such. It is right, therefore, both in principle and in practice, that the costitutional position of Northern Ireland should only be amended by the freely-given
548
consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That has been recognised by successive Irish Governments.
The third reality is that as long as Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, its Government and administration must ultimately remain a matter for this Parliament. Parliament has to take account of the wishes and the strongly-held principles, not only of the majority in Northern Ireland, but also those of the minority. It must be satisfied that there is the necessary degree of acceptance, for without that no democracy will operate efficiently.
Fourthly the Government and administration of Northern Ireland must be undertaken in the light of the needs and the responses of the people there, and the resources available to the United Kingdom as a whole. We believe these needs are best met in a devolved administration which has the support of both sides of the community. Arrangements should be directed at recognising the Irish identity and at developing the minority's participation and confidence in all the structures and processes of Northern Ireland. Some aspects of our practices and administration are not sensitive enough to these requirements. We are ready to talk with the constitutional representatives of the minority to identify what these are, and to see what we can do to help.
Finally—and we regard this as the fifth reality—geography, as well as the fact that many people in Northern Ireland feel an allegiance to Dublin, calls for a close relationship between the Government of the United Kingdom and that of the Republic.
As I have said, the Government's preferred way ahead is a devolved administration which has much to offer both unionists and nationalists, and it would complement well the development of normal Anglo-Irish relations. But there are other possibilities. The important point here is that any arrangements should, so as far as possible—for we have to accept that neither side will achieve its ideal—meet the different needs and requirements of both traditions. The Government will be looking to see what both are prepared to accept. Against the background of the realities which I have just described, agreement will need the utmost flexibility, imagination, and generosity of spirit.
We hope that the political parties will talk to each other in the next months without preconditions for the sake of the peace and prosperity of all the people of Northern Ireland. For our part, we shall want to have talks with each of the parties involved and with the government of the Irish Republic. These discussions should be a quiet, patient and steady process. But, meanwhile, direct rule must continue to enable the Government to administer Northern Ireland properly, and for that reason I commend the order before your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
1.11 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I think in general we welcome the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has introduced this order. We recognise that the continuing circumstances in Northern Ireland necessitate

549
the approval of the order for the renewal of direct rule, although, as I have done on previous occasions, I must emphasise that we agree with some reluctance because it is now 10 years since the interim provisions Act 1974 was introduced.
The statements which the noble Lord the Minister has made on the realities of the situation almost tempt one to go into a discussion on the whole constitutional position and possible future developments. But I recall that when we last discussed the extension order it was the last day of Parliament before the general election, and I said on that occasion that that was hardly a fitting time for a discussion upon possible developments.
I do not think that this is the occasion for a long discussion upon that in view of the helpful debate we had on 20th June on the whole question of the New Ireland Forum introduced by my noble friend Lord Hatch. Therefore, I do not intend to open a discussion on the general constitutional position and possible development, except to say that I welcome the reiteration in the noble Lord's statement of discussions that will take place with the constitutional parties of Nothern Ireland and his emphasis on the need for discussion with the Dublin government. This is important, and I am glad that the noble Lord has reiterated that statement.
I must make one further comment. When the Act of 1974 was passed no one envisaged that we might, 10 years afterwards, still be in a position of an "interim period". On previous occasions I have complained about what this has meant. We have a system of Orders in Council. Often the order is one which, but for direct rule, would be the subject of primary legislation in the form of a parliamentary Bill. This is particularly emphasised by an order coming before your Lordships on 16th July. It is an education order of 66 pages; 38 articles and 10 schedules. It can only be accepted or rejected. There is no opportunity for amendment. But for the position of direct rule, if this House were still directly responsible for legislation it would be a parliamentary Bill.
We have a system where substantial numbers of orders are issued without any effective parliamentary scrutiny. It has been said—it was said in the other place in the debate on this order the other day—that this is an injustice to the people of Northern Ireland. It is also an injustice to those of us in Parliament because we have the position of considering large orders which would normally be parliamentary Bills capable of amendment, and yet we are unable to amend because of direct rule.
I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said about the work of the Assembly. I am able to see the reports of the Assembly. Naturally I read them only when I have to read them, or parts of them, but the parts that I am able to read indicate the usefulness of the discussions in the Assembly. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Office for the amount of information that they supply. Not just the Assembly reports but all manner of documents are supplied automatically, and I find them extremely useful. I have also noticed that on many occasions the Government have accepted the advice and recommendations coming from the Assembly and
550
have varied orders which have been discussed in draft by the meetings of the Assembly.
Naturally, I should like to see all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland taking part in the work of the Assembly, but we should be foolish if we did not recognise the problems and difficulties which confront the SDLP in taking part in the Assembly. There are other things that must be done in order to encourage them to take part. I welcome the reiteration by the Minister that there will be no question of devolvement of any responsibilities to the Assembly unless there is a wide measure of cross-community agreement. That is important.
I am also pleased to note the emphasis that the noble Lord laid on the points put forward not only by the New Ireland Forum Report but also in The Way Forward. He expressed the hope that in these documents there is a basis for future discussion. I want to leave this afternoon in the belief that there is a basis there, it needs to be worked on patiently, but a move must be made. We cannot continually have direct rule in its present form. On the other hand, we cannot have devolvement which in no way meets the needs of the minority community. I think we have a chance. I echo what the noble Lord said about patient work. Again, with reluctance, we recognise the need for this order and will give it approval.
1.17 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing this order with an interesting survey of today's position and reference to the report of the New Ireland Forum. As we have been reminded, this order is necessary for direct rule to continue for a further 12 months, and while so much thought is being given to the whole future of Ireland, I imagine that none in the House today would wish it otherwise at present. It is often pointed out that the Act was passed 10 years ago, and I quote,
"to make temporary provision for the government of Northern Ireland;".
The tragedy is that it is still necessary, and that the problem has proved much more intractable than it seemed at that time.
The Northern Ireland Assembly has been set up with the task of scrutinising the activities of the Northern Ireland departments, but overall responsibility still remains with Parliament at Westminster. I need not remind your Lordships that much time is spent in both Houses in considering relevant Orders in Council. This would be better handled—and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, touched on this—by those often more intimately involved, but such an arrangement is not at present possible, and some Members of Parliament from the province play a valuable part in the other place. I believe that it is our duty here at present to carry on as before, and we support this extension order.
1.19 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, with my noble friend Lord Underhill last Monday evening I sat in the gallery in the other place when the debate on the New Ireland Forum took place. I was left with the impression—and I am certain that it was the impression left with other

551
people who were listening—that there was not a great deal of unity to be found in the speeches that were made during the course of that debate. We had three sets of trenches on the Floor of the House of Commons, and there are three sets of trenches in Northern Ireland.
There is the set of trenches commanded by the right honourable gentleman, the Member for Down, South. He leads the Official Unionist Party. His belief is that there should not be any institutions in Northern Ireland at all. No political institutions should be created, but Northern Ireland should be governed from this House by way of total integration. That is his belief, and over a number of years he has marshalled a good deal of unionist opinion behind that belief. I remember that in the early 1970s there were very few unionists who would have given any support to the idea of total integration. But now it would appear that that is the policy of the party as enunciated and promulgated by the right honourable gentleman for Down, South.
On the other side, in the other set of trenches, we have the party led by the honourable gentleman for North Antrim, the Leader of the DUP. I think that there are some variations in their policy; but, in the main, it is to bring about a restoration of majority Unionist Government at Stormont as it was before the abolition of Stormont in 1972.
Then we have the Leader of the SDLP, my successor as leader of that party. I believe that they would settle for something approaching the agreement which we found at Sunningdale in 1974; that there would be power sharing in Northern Ireland with an Irish dimension. Each one of those three policies, as they are at present constituted, makes it totally unlikely that there will ever be any constitutional agreement found between the three main parties in Northern Ireland—and they are the constitutional nationalists! There are 91,000 people who voted for the unconstitutional nationalists; in other words, the provisional Sinn Fein, the party which supports violent means to be taken.
So, leaving them aside, you have the three main constitutional parties, and, I would hope, it would be the will of this House that they would find some agreement to the constitutional problems. We must remember that it was a Labour Government that put on the statute book the Act that we are discussing today. And I say this as a supporter of the Labour Party: I do not believe that if the Labour Party had been in power since 1974 they would have been any nearer to a solution than this present Government; because this Government, the Government of the United Kingdom, be it Labour or Conservative, cannot impose solutions on the Northern Ireland problem.
One government deliberately (and I think with great courage) did so. It was the Conservative Government which abolished Stormont in 1972. That was certainly a very traumatic and dramatic experience for the Unionist population in Northern Ireland. Then the succeeding Labour Government in 1974 were met with the total opposition of almost all brands of Unionist opinion, from moderates to extremists. They
552
were not going to accept the type of Executive that we had found at Sunningdale. They brought that Executive to an end. And there was nothing that the Labour Government could have done about it. The gut reaction in the Catholic minority population in Northern Ireland, the gut reaction among all sections of nationalist opinion, the gut reaction of all the political parties in the Republic of Ireland, is that had the Labour Government decided to do so in 1974 they could have used the Army to quell what was in fact a mini-modern rebellion against the Government of the United Kingdom, and it would have stopped that rebellion from taking place.
Looking back on it now in retrospect after 10 years, I am not certain that they would have been successful. The Army in those circumstances, had they been used for any long period of time, would have had to have been prepared to use force, to use killing, in an attempt to prevent that rebellion from succeeding. The gut reaction of Catholics and nationalists in the island of Ireland is that the Labour Government ran away from that problem when they were faced with it.
I do not think that the Labour Government ran away. I think that they had great difficulty at that time, and I wonder about any other government. I know that a former Prime Minister, the right honourable Mr. Heath, gave the impression in broadcasts that, had he still been Prime Minister in the elections of 1974, the Army would have been used to stop that rebellion by the Protestant population of Northern Ireland. I am not sure whether he would have done so or not. There are questions that can never be answered; so that, 10 years after, I ask whether we have advanced politically in any direction which would allow us to vote this order out of existence.
One has only to look at the debate which took place in the other place. There were 119 to 9 voting against this order. All sections of the Northern Ireland community represented in another place voted against the extension of this order. But they all voted against the extension of this order for their own reasons. The right honourable gentleman for Down, South led his supporters into the Lobby because he does not believe in this order, because he wants total integration. There was only one DUP Member there. He allied himself with the official unionists. I have no doubt that had the Member for Foyle been in attendance when the vote was called on Monday night he would have voted against this order as well because he said that the 1974 Act contains within it a guarantee given to the Unionists that there will be no change in the Constitution.
So here you have the three leaders of the three different parties all voting against this order, and all voting against this order for their own reasons. Let us say, for example, that this Government were to take some action which was not acceptable to the Unionists in the North; or say that the next Government was going to be a Labour Government and that they were going to take some action. The one precedent that we have had has been the abolition of Stormont. That was the one thing which a United Kingdom Government was able to abolish—because they had created Stormont; so that that was the one thing that we were able to abolish. I have no doubt that if any government, be it Conservative or Labour, were to try

553
and impose conditions in the Northern Ireland political arena without the support of the whole of that population, it would be doomed to failure.
We have to face the realities. The right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State, speaking on this order (in column 108 of Hansard) said, almost at the conclusion of his speech:
"The practical and psychological benefits across the community of a measure of agreement would be considerable if the parties were to get together. But as I said in our earlier debate today, progress requires recognition of the realities rather than repeat them. I would simply appeal to the constitutional parties to build on what they have in common, in particular, their shared desire for peace and concern about the economy".
And his final sentence is:
"and to show that their own proposals for constitutional development holds no threat to others".
That sentence defeats all the words and all the sentiments which he expressed in the previous sentences.
I know that everyone in all the political parties is concerned about the economy. They are all concerned about unemployment; they are all concerned about the social deprivation that exists in Northern Ireland. They are concerned about bad housing. But, after expressing their concern and showing unanimity on these very important facets of life, then comes the crunch, the constitutional question. And that is something which is behind the whole Northern Ireland problem. The Official Unionists do not accept this Act because they do not trust whatever Government is implementing it. The Official Unionists believe that, whatever protestations are given at the Dispatch Box that the Government are in support of them, in some way or another they will do a deal which will isolate Northern Ireland and lead to steps being taken which could lead them into a Northern Ireland republic.
The same fear is held by the other section—it is one more extreme; or I would think so—that is, the DUP section of the Protestant community. I know and repeat it—and I do so with a great deal of sadness and regret—and without having any answers. But, having admitted that I do not have any answers, I think that it poses to this House the problem which is continuing and ongoing.
I was a member of the Sunningdale Executive. I was the deputy chief of that Executive. I believed that that was one of the most hopeful political developments that had taken place since the creation of the Northern Ireland state. A great deal of good will, integrity, sincerity and sheer guts from all concerned went into the creation of that Executive: from the leader of the Unionist Party, the late Lord Faulkner; from the leader of the then Government, Mr. Heath; and from myself as leader of the Catholic population and the then leader of the Catholic political party, the SDLP. We all did our damnedest to ensure that we created something out of the chaos that had been the political consensus in Northern Ireland since the creation of that state.
I know (this is where I differ from the SDLP; this is why I am not the leader of the SDLP) that power sharing would have been accepted, and was being accepted, very reluctantly, and with a lot of ill grace, by the vast majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland. They were accepting it, though they did not
554
like it. They regarded it to some extent as an imposition because they themselves had had total control of all power and privilege in Northern Ireland since the setting up of the Stormont Government in 1920. It was understandable that, having had power from 1920 until 1972, they were not going to give that up very easily, or without some form of protest.
But I do know that on the very day we were leaving the Sunningdale conference the late Lord Faulkner and myself spoke privately about our hopes of what we had done and about our hopes of achievement. We recognised how difficult it was going to be to try to construct those political institutions in Northern Ireland that would last for a considerable period of time. Lord Faulkner said to me, "Gerry, I believe it will be with a great deal of difficulty, but I think I can succeed in selling power sharing to the Unionist population in Northern Ireland". Despite all the opposition that we were then seeing on our streets from a former Minister of Home Affairs, William Craig, as he then was, ably aided and abetted by the now honourable Member for Antrim, North, Brian Faulkner was confident that he could sell power sharing.
Power sharing meant co-operation in all those everyday issues that affected the everyday lives of every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland. It was a power sharing Executive: that is what it meant. We were going to sit there and deliberate and reach consensus on all those issues which were so important to the lives of people in Northern Ireland. Brian Faulkner said to me—and how right he was!—"Under no circumstances, Gerry, can I sell an Irish dimension. It will scare the living daylights out of the Unionists. They will see things written into that Council of Ireland which are actually not there at all". When one analyses the agreement that was reached at Sunningdale, there was no danger to the Unionist community at all. There was a power of veto which would have been held by each and every member who sat on the Council of Ireland. I certainly would not have appended my name to any document which would have scared or frightened away that Unionist population when I was trying to find agreement with them on the power sharing plane.
I say again, with sadness and regret, that it was the Council of Ireland proposals which killed the Sunningdale Executive. There was absolutely no doubt about that, because those who were opposed to it were able to mobilise opinion on the streets of Northern Ireland—and it was not against power sharing. When one looks back at the speeches that were made then by the opponents of Sunningdale, they were not about power sharing. Certainly they did not like the fact that members of the Roman Catholic minority community were now holding ministerial positions in the Executive—and, indeed, some of the most important ministerial positions in relation to commerce, health and social services and housing. But I say this at a distance of a number of years, and I say it now that I am no longer a member of the SDLP. Of the Ministers who were members of the SDLP, each and every one of them—there were five of them including me: John Hume, Austin Currie, Paddy Devlin, myself and Ivan Cooper—not one of those gentlemen was in any way motivated by emnity or

555
one-upmanship against the Protestant community. They were all there desperately trying to do what they could to bring together the two communities. But it was on the Council of Ireland that the Executive failed. Now we are back in exactly that position.
I listened to the debates in another place. The Unionist document, The Way Forward was discussed. There were even very friendly talks being promised by the leader of the Democratic Unionist party. They are all in the business of extending the hand of friendship, but if the SDLP goes into those talks saying, "Yes, we need power sharing. We will not accept anything less than power sharing. We will not accept second-class citizenship. We are an artificial minority in our own country and we demand, and will accept nothing less than, equality", I believe that those demands would be acceded to. But then the leader of the Official Unionist Party and the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party will say to the SDLP, "Yes, but you have appended your names to a document which is the report of the New Ireland Forum, and however you may say that it does not really matter and disregard it, one of the main proposals—in fact the only proposal, as has been said by the leader of Fianna Fail is, 'We want to bring about a unitary state.'".
If that is the main proposal in the New Ireland Forum, there can never be any hope of agreement between the political parties in Northern Ireland. That is a fact of life. That is exactly what happened in 1974, and 10 years later the same mental attitude prevails. In saying that, there will be people in Belfast today—if they read of my remarks in this House or hear of them by way of radio—who will say "Gerry Fitt is a traitor; he has sold out and he does not believe in a united Ireland." "Gerry Fitt is a Brit. He might as well be a Unionist with either a big 'U' or a small `U'." Those are the tribal attitudes which prevail in Northern Ireland. You are either on one side or the other. Well, I am not on one side or the other in the constitutional senses. I am—as I always have been—on the side of the ordinary people in Northern Ireland, no matter from what tribe they may come. I am on the side of the ordinary, under-privileged people. But should I now say, as it would appear the Labour Party is going to say, "the SDLP will not take part in your Stormont, in your Assembly, unless you give them an Irish dimension".
What form is that Irish dimension going to take? What does it mean? What does consent mean? What does agreement mean? All sorts of words are contained in these documents—"a United Ireland by consent"—but I have yet to have it explained to me what "consent" means. Do you coerce the Unionists into consenting to a united Ireland or do you coerce the SDLP into consenting to go to an Assembly and to forget about an Irish dimension? Everyone has their own bottom line in this, and I do not think that the British Government are in the business of coercing anybody into doing anything.
With regard to the New Ireland Forum, I feel that it was a genuine attempt—I say this advisedly—by most of the parties who were involved. I do not think that every individual or every representative who was taking part in those deliberations on the New Ireland
556
Forum wanted to find agreement. I think there have been some of them who were staking their own claim on civil war attitudes, and I think that was the attitude particularly of Charlie Haughey, the leader of Fianna Fail. I believe that if his demand, repeated day after day, is going to be part of the deliberations that take place in a search for a formula, then there will be no agreement.
I remember very well, in one of the elections which took place about two years ago—there were three elections which took place in the Republic within a period of three years—I was in the Belfast City Council and was talking to one of Paisley's acolytes about the possible result of the election in the Republic. I voiced the opinion that I would be happy if Garret FitzGerald was to become the next Taoiseach. Paisley's acolyte expressed disappointment. He said that he wanted Charlie Haughey to continue as Taoiseach. When I explained that I thought Haughey was hard-line and that he would not want to reach any agreement with the Protestant population in Northern Ireland, the chap to whom I was speaking said, "That is exactly why we want him." And that is exactly why they wanted him—because they feed on each other. That was the position then and that is the position now.
So I say that the Forum document was certainly something to be considered by the Government. It was an agenda. I do not think that the Government could say "Yes, we are going to accept that, or one or the other of the proposals", because if they did they would be immediately putting themselves on one side or the other. It is a document which is unlikely ever to be repeated. It has put down for the first time the attitudes of the Irish nationalist political parties. But, having said that, one has only got to look at the response it has generated from even the most moderate—I repeat, "the most moderate"—opinion in Northern Ireland. They have said they do not want anything to do with the Forum document.
So, can institutions be set up between the two sovereign powers, between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic? I think they can and I believe this Government have the right to do it. I do not think the Government can say: "We are afraid of frightening off Unionist opinion", because the Unionists can say: "We do not want to be driven into a united Ireland". But they cannot say. "We refuse power sharing and we refuse to give our support to actions which are likely to be taken by the United Kingdom Government".
So it may be that the actions which are taken in that way will lead discussions to take place between the two governments which will allow the SDLP to say, "Our Irish identity has been recognised by the United Kingdom Government and in such circumstances we are prepared to go back to the Assembly."
A Unionist said during the course of a debate in the other place—and I said it before him; I said it in 1974 and have been saying it ever since—that there is no answer to the Northern Ireland problem which is going to be found in Dublin, London, Brussels, Strasbourg or Washington. The only hope for Northern Ireland is that people in Northern Ireland—those who live in the streets, towns and villages of Northern Ireland—may

557
go out to search for and find agreement. This Government, or whichever government are in power, must do everything they can to help them.
1.43 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, any of your Lordships who have sat and listened to the debates which we have had on Northern Ireland—there have been many over the years—will agree that the contribution just made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has been well worth the wait. I personally believe that it has been an outstanding contribution and I say straight away that I shall make sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is aware of all the interesting things the noble Lord has said and, above all, that he is aware of the points of wisdom which are of great interest to comparative newcomers to the Province like myself. I hasten to add that I have been a student of the affairs of Northern Ireland certainly over 15 or 16 years.
The Government are most grateful for the constructive way in which this order has been examined today by your Lordships: of course it is typical of the way in which we do things in this House. I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his guarded welcome but, above all, for the nice things that he said.
The noble Lord raised one point, possibly justifiably, about the use of Orders in Council. He will have noted from my preliminary coments that we too, believe that direct rule is not a perfect solution. We would wish for improvements, but it is a compromise for the moment. I would stress to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and indeed to your Lordships generally, that the use of Orders in Council is reasonable. We think that it is also reasonable to point out that there is what we call a proposal stage which gives the Assembly—and the noble Lord drew attention to the Assembly and its good works, for which we are grateful to him, and I am sure that members of the Assembly who read the debates of your Lordships' House will note the praise bestowed on them by the noble Lord—the opportunity to make detailed scrutiny and, above all, to offer detailed comments on the proposed order. This, as the noble Lord pointed out, will be discussed by your Lordships later during this Session. I would stress to him and to the House that these direct rule arrangements are not ideal, but that is why there is a pressing need for some kind of agreement on a scheme of government which is acceptable across the community in Northern Ireland.
I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his tribute to the Northern Ireland Office here in London. I shall certainly see that his tributes are passed on. I would agree with the noble Lord regarding the report of the Assembly—I think I understood him to say that we can call it the Official Report—that we read in our House. It was the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, at an earlier stage who chided me gently about reading the reports of the Assembly as "light reading". But any of your Lordships who take the trouble to read these reports will certainly find them interesting. To say that they are merely lively would be almost libellous: they are exciting, lively and very amusing. Above all, they are interesting, and we believe that they are very, very useful.
558
I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his continuing interest and support on Northern Irish matters, and I would of course reiterate what he said, that once again we come to the renewal of direct rule. We shall just have to see what will happen within the next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made an outstanding contribution to our debate today. I was fascinated by his break-down of the three positions, as he saw them, during the debate in another place. I noted what he said about the imposing of a solution—I think that "imposing" was the word he used—and that took me back to the notable speech which he made during the earlier debate that we had on 20th June this year in response to the Forum report. The noble Lord used then a word that he used again today. He said that no acceptable solution would be found in Northern Ireland where a Government in the United Kingdom used "coercion". The noble Lord used that very strongly in the previous debate. I do follow his comments and I find them most interesting.
I am sure that those of your Lordships who have studied the affairs of Northern Ireland over so many years were most interested by what the noble Lord had to say about the proceedings at Sunningdale, and following Sunningdale; and, above all, by the noble Lord's very clear thinking on what might be acceptable to bring together the main strands of constitutional politicians in Northern Ireland and on what should be avoided. For that reason, I shall read and note his remarks very carefully.
The noble Lord raised one particular point about the constitutional guarantee and the workings of political institutions and of government in Northern Ireland. I would stress that the Government in the United Kingdom remain firmly committed to the principle that Northern Ireland's constitutional position as part of the United Kingdom can be changed only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. This principle has been accepted by successive Irish Governments and it was reaffirmed in the Forum report. To alter the constitutional position of Northern Ireland against the firmly held opinions of the majority in Northern Ireland would be indefensible, undemocratic and—as the noble Lord went so far as to say; I think that we would agree with him—unworkable.
But—and this is important—that does not mean that the majority in Northern Ireland have the final say in the way that Northern Ireland is to be governed as part of the United Kingdom. That last sentence, which I stress, bridges a major measure of agreement between what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said and what this Government are trying slowly and, I hope, surely to achieve. I may have harped slightly on the debate in another place earlier this week, but your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, have, quite justifiably, raised the point in discussing the order which is before us today. We have had a good debate and I am very grateful for the thought which has gone into the remarks of your Lordships. Without further ado, I wish to commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes before two o'clock.