Lords Sitting of 13 December 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Deramore—Took the Oath.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
2.36 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons,

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OE DROGHEDA): My Lords, the promoters desire to make a few Amendments in this long Bill. I can assure your Lordships that they are not Amendments of any substance, but are designed purely to correct a few errors. I beg to move that these Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments be agreed to.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill now pass.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

SNOW CLEARANCE PLANS
2.38 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any improvements have been made since last winter, in either equipment or organisation, to deal with snow or ice on the roads.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, your Lordships may remember that we had a discussion on March 3 on snow-clearing facilities. At that time I said that a meeting would be held which would be attended by divisional road engineers, representatives of local authorities, the A.A., the R.A.C. and the British Road Federation. This meeting was held on April 14. Following the meeting my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has made arrangements to increase the snow-clearing plant

3
provided by his Department for use on trunk roads by the addition of 20 heavy lorries fitted with high wing snow ploughs, the equipping of 60 lorries of this type for gritting, and the provision of 68 trailer gritters and one small rotary snow blower. Delivery of practically all this plant is expected before the end of this month. The responsibility for clearing snow on other roads rests with the highway authorities, who are at liberty to use this plant, in addition to their own, for that purpose if it is not more urgently required on trunk roads.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, and I am glad to think that there has been considerable improvement. May I ask him two supplementary questions on specific points? Have any arrangements yet been made to provide local authorities with up-to-the-minute meteorological information—that is to say, local meteorological information—as was suggested in the debate in March? Secondly, has a start yet been made on the practice that is common in other countries of providing wireless communication between snow-clearance teams and their vehicles and their depôts, so that, if a road is suddenly blocked by drifts, the snow-clearance teams can be sent to that place without going back to their depôts for orders?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that there has been some extension of the snow-warning service of the Meteorological Office and, in particular, that it will extend to icing conditions as well as to snow. Whether this goes as far as the noble Lord wishes, I am not in a position to say. I am afraid that I cannot give him any information at the moment on his second point which relates to the provision of radio equipment. I will, however, write to the noble Lord on that point.

BRITISH GUIANA
2.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the improved situation in British Guiana, they will
4
consult the Government of the territory about the possibility of holding elections for the early restoration of a representative Legislature.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, it is the firm policy of Her Majesty's Government to do everything possible to fit British Guiana for a return to representative government. The Governor, Sir Patrick Renison, made it clear in his Address to the Legislative Council on his arrival in the Colony that he regarded this as his primary task, and, as was foreshadowed in reply to a recent Question in another place, he made an announcement on December 11, relaxing restrictions on public meetings. When he has had an opportunity of assessing the situation following the relaxation of the restrictions we shall certainly have consultations with him on the prospects of making further progress in the political field, but it would be premature for me to make any prediction about the time when it may be possible to hold elections.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, which is reassuring, but may I ask him two questions on matters arising out of his statement? The first is this. Will it be possible for British Guiana to adhere to the Federation of the British West Indies before or until it has a representative Legislature? The second question is: If these restrictions have already been relaxed—which is an indication that there has been no disorder or violence in the colony for a considerable period of time—is the noble Lord really convinced that there is a case for retaining the emergency powers, which I am sure he will agree should be terminated at the earliest possible moment?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, as regards the first of the noble Earl's supplementary questions, I think that clearly it would not be proper or possible for a Government which is not representative to commit British Guiana to federation at the present stage. As regards the noble Earl's second supplementary question, I think we ought to proceed steadily but slowly in these matters, and I should like to see how the situation develops. I am bearing the noble Earl's point in mind, but I think we should do one thing at a time.

CANADIAN WHEAT PRICES
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, since it is understood that they have given encouragement to a United Kingdom Mission to the U.S.A. to protest against the unrealistic marketing price of cotton in relation to the abnormal accumulation, and since the massive protection to Canadian wheat farmers has resulted in abnormal accumulations of wheat, Her Majesty's Government will now consider similar representations to Canada with a view to securing some reduction in the cost of wheat supplies for this country.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to dispel some possible misunderstanding about the Canadian arrangements for marketing wheat. As I understand the matter, such protection as the Canadian wheat farmer receives is limited to that afforded by the existence of the Canadian Wheat Board as the marketing organisation for prairie grain. The farmer delivers grain to the Board against an initial payment to him and leaves the Board to market it at prices which are fixed according to what the Board think they can realise. Of course, the Board are free to vary these prices in the light of circumstances affecting the market. I do not think, therefore, that a marketing arrangement of this kind can by itself be said to result in abnormal accumulations of wheat in Canada. In view of what I have said, and having regard to the fact that the continuing world wheat surplus affects almost all the main exporting countries, it would be difficult for Her Majesty's Government to press for unilateral action by Canada in the matter of her export prices.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, I take it that the noble Lord has admitted that the price of wheat is decided by the Canadian Wheat Board and, secondly, that there are abnormal accumulations in Canada. It would seem to follow automatically that the prices are held at a level which protects the Canadian grower. In view of the emphasis put by the Canadian
6
Government on supporting the liberalisation of trade in general and the removal of all artificial control measures, I would ask the noble Lord whether that situation does not constitute a "massive protection" and, therefore, works inimically to the interests of this country so far as the price of wheat is concerned?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have endeavoured to answer the noble Lord's Question within the terms in which he framed it. In his Question the noble Lord compared the situation in regard to wheat in Canada with the price of cotton in America. I do not think that the two are in any way comparable and I cannot agree, as I have done my best to explain, that the arrangements in Canada represent a form of "massive protection" of the wheat farmer. As I have said, the Board fix their prices according to what they think they can realise; and that is the position. The question of cotton may be one of "massive protection" to the grower, but it is not so in the case of wheat. I do not think that the Canadians can be blamed. It is in their own interests to maintain the price of wheat and to get what they can for it. They are perfectly free to vary their prices if they so wish.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be better for the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, to get the Government he supports to re-adhere to the International Wheat Agreement, because apparently many of the price difficulties of Canadian wheat are due to the withdrawal of the support of Her Majesty's Government from the International Wheat Agreement? If they would do that, there might be occasion for the noble Lord to ask for similar treatment for this country.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, replies, may I make it clear that I was not asking for any compassionate treatment towards cotton in the United States? May I also ask the noble Lord (perhaps he will write to me if he cannot answer now) whether it is to be understood from his reply that it is erroneous to believe that Her Majesty's Government have given any encouragement to the Mission in the United States in urging a reduction in the selling price of cotton.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is perfectly correct that such encouragement

7
has been given to the Mission, but perhaps I did not make myself clear. The Mission has gone to the United States to tackle a problem of a nature quite different from that which exists in the case of Canadian wheat. So far as adhering to the International Wheat Agreement is concerned, I can only say that I have no news that I can give the noble Viscount at the moment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess for the purpose of giving Government Business (except with the consent of the Government) precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the aforesaid period.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MOTOR VEHICLES (VARIATION OF SPEED LIMIT) REGULATIONS, 1955
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved by Lord Hawke on Wednesday last, That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 2nd of November last, be approved.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, if I may resume the discussion of these Regulations, I should like to point out that they are in implementation of something which I undertook to do earlier this year in the course of the discussion of the Road Traffic Bill. I think I can say that these Regulations go rather further
8
than I thought it would be possible at that time. I was glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth (who has told me that he is unable to be here to-day), described them as excellent and that he had no complaint to make. I think, therefore, that the House will generally welcome these Regulations. The only question which was asked last time was for a more precise definition of what exactly was being done, and it is to this point that I should like to address myself now.
What these Regulations do is to amend the first Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1934. That Schedule is based on a division of motor vehicles into three classes—namely, passenger vehicles, goods vehicles and others—that is to say, locomotives and motor tractors. The classes of passenger vehicles and goods vehicles are carefully defined and, as your Lordships know, only a vehicle constructed solely for the carriage of passengers and their effects is at present included in the first category (that is, passenger vehicles), so that a dual-purpose type of vehicle is regarded as a goods vehicle. What the present Regulations do is to place dual-purpose vehicles, as defined in the Regulations, in the same category as passenger vehicles and take them out of the category of goods vehicles for speed limit purposes. Let me emphasise here that this classification is effective for speed limit purposes only, and for nothing else.
At this point in our discussion a little confusion arose in our debate [Col. 1188, of the OFFICIAL REPORT for December 7]. The speed limit of a dual-purpose vehicle under these Regulations will in no way be affected by the question of whether or not it requires a carrier's licence of any description. The need for a carrier's licence is decided by conditions laid down in Section 1 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and arises only in cases where the vehicle is used for trade or business or is used for the purpose of hire or reward. Conversely, the reclassification for speed limit purposes in no way affects the need or otherwise for a carrier's licence. The effect of the Regulations, therefore, is that for speed limit purposes dual-purpose vehicles, under the Regulations, are in the same position as passenger vehicles—that is to say, if they have no trailers and are adapted to carry not more than eight persons, including the

9
driver, the 30 m.p.h. speed limit will no longer apply.
The definition of the dual-purpose vehicle is shown in Regulation 3 and in the Schedule. They must be adapted to carry both passengers and goods, and must not exceed two tons in weight. In the second place, they must have four-wheel drive or satisfy the conditions in the Schedule in regard to construction. The conditions in the Schedule are that they must have a rigid roof; they must have permanently fitted transverse seats, with some form of upholstery; they must have windows at the sides and back; the seats must occupy a reasonable area behind the driver's seat, which is here defined as one-third. We think this definition will cover all vehicles which are normally described as dual-purpose or utility vehicles at the present time.
We believe that this Regulation will meet fully and completely what I think many of your Lordships have felt to be a desirable alteration in the Speed Limit Regulations in this sphere. And I do not think there should be any serious difficulty in anyone ascertaining exactly how they stand under the law if and when these Regulations are passed.
In view of a hint dropped by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I may add that the Government have no intention of introducing any other regulations affecting speeding, so far as dual-purpose vehicles are concerned, and the position will not be altered in any way by reason of any powers that the Government may acquire if the Road Traffic Bill which is being discussed elsewhere eventually becomes law. I should make it clear, as I have said before, that if a dual-purpose vehicle is used in a manner which makes a carrier's licence necessary, then that licence must be obtained; but it will not affect the vehicle's speed limit. The big change here is that we are now determining the speed limit by the type of car and not by the use to which it is being put. I think that that is, on the whole, a sensible arrangement, and I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. The contents of the Bill will be fresh in the minds of your Lordships, and I do not think I need say anything further about it. However, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Joint Committee who gave such careful consideration to the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Amendments (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BAN ON HEROIN MANUFACTURE
2.56 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT rose to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, in view of the apparent conflict of expert medical opinion on the banning of the manufacture of heroin in this country, the period of the present licences to manufacture should be extended pending the institution of further inquiries on this subject. The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I would say at the outset, to make it absolutely plain, that this is in no sense a Party question. So far as my own Party are concerned, I believe them to be divided. I do not know what their attitude would be; I have no authority to speak for them, and I have carefully abstained from any kind of lobbying, even amongst my own Party. I do know that my noble friend Lord Haden-Guest, at whose feet I have been accustomed to sit and learn on these matters, takes a strong view against the Motion; but apart from that, I do not know what view anybody takes. Therefore, I need hardly say that we have abstained from putting out any sort of Whip, even a one-line Whip, and I hope

11
and believe that the same applies to noble Lords on the other side of the House.
It is perhaps a pity that I should have had to put down this Motion. I confess that I felt that, if no one else put it down, this was a unique opportunity for assisting the Government—and I really mean that—by a pronouncement of this House on this difficult question. The Government, from the highest motives (I realise that to the full), have propounded this ban on the manufacture of heroin, and I think that an announcement by this House may help them to retrieve what I believe to be a mistake, and a grievous mistake. That pronouncement I accordingly intend to ask the House to make, unless the Government, at any stage of what I am going to say, interrupt me to say that, having regard to the considerations—some of which are completely novel—which I am putting forward, they realise that there is a case for further consideration; that they are prepared to give that further consideration, and that in the meantime they will continue the licences as they are at present. If they do feel inclined to make that pronouncement, then I hope that they will interrupt me at any stage in my speech, and I shall avoid the necessity of boring your Lordships with what I fear is going to be a rather long narration.
This is the first time in our history, so far as I know, that the medical profession are being prevented from using a drug which many of them—and I believe most of them—
LORD HADEN-GUEST: No.
EARL JOWITT: —consider to be indispensable in certain cases. Generally speaking, those are chronic cases in which other analgesics have failed to give satisfaction. I would briefly review the history. It started with a convention in July, 1941. In the old days of the League of Nations we all agreed that we would not allow the export of heroin save under stringent conditions, one of the conditions being that the export had to be addressed to the Government of the country to whom the export was being made. That convention was renewed in the days of the United Nations in 1946, and again in 1948. But I stress that the only conventions that there have ever been, and the only convention which exists to-day, are
12
conventions forbidding the export. There has never been a convention forbidding manufacture. I am going to give a colourless and, I hope, absolutely accurate and impartial short review of these circumstances.
In 1949, the British Medical Journal stated that pharmacological opinion held the view that the social dangers of heroin—that is, of course, the danger of addiction—overshadowed its therapeutic importance. Accordingly, in 1950, the monograph on heroin was deleted from the Pharmacopœia. So the matter remained until July 12, 1954, when the Eighteenth session of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations passed a resolution
"Noting that only seven members of the World Health Organisation are not in favour of the dispensability of heroin,"
and urging all Governments to prohibit the manufacture, import and export of heroin, save for scientific purposes. Incidentally, that meeting stressed the increase in the illicit use of narcotic drugs. When that resolution was passed in July, the Council of the British Medical Association passed a resolution, in reply to an inquiry from the World Medical Association:
"That the World Medical Association be informed that it is the duty of the Government to legislate against the misuse of heroin, but the medical profession should not in any way be deprived of the use of this or any other drug which may assist in the treatment of patients."
Then, in December, 1954, after that resolution had been passed, the statutory committee was consulted by the Minister of Health and informed him—to use his own words—that it concurred with the Government's proposal to accept the resolution of the Economic and Social Council. That committee is a subcommittee of the Council, and was set up, under Section 2 of the National Health Act, 1947,
"To advise the Minister upon such general matters relating to the services provided under this Act or any services provided by local health authorities as the Council or the Minister may think fit relating to those services."
The Council contain amongst their membership certain members of the B.M.A. who are appointed by the Minister after consultation with the B.M.A. But, as the Minister of Health made quite plain in a Written Answer in another place on December 5, "they serve in an

13
individual capacity." With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who made a statement on this matter the other day, to the effect that it was a matter of acute controversy as to whether the B.M.A. had ever been consulted, I would say that it is clear that the B.M.A. were never consulted at all before this ban was imposed. Although the President of the Royal College of Physicians is appointed eo nomine, it is a fact that the Royal College of Physicians have never been consulted and the Royal College of Surgeons have never been consulted. It would be most interesting to find out what the result would be if the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons were consulted.
It is no part of my task to denigrate in any way the eminent members who work on this committee. As it has to advise the Minister on all the Services under the Health Act, from the top of one's head to the corn on one's foot, it is inevitable that it must be a very wide committee. It consists, for instance, of three medical officers of health, two psychiatrists, a pædiatrician, a radiotherapist, an orthopædic surgeon and one ophthalmologist—people who, I should imagine, in my ignorance, have very little to do or any knowledge whatever about the use of heroin. But it also includes among its members—and let it be quite plain that I am not going to indulge in any denigration—eminent people whose opinion on this question is of the greatest value. Anybody who has had the good fortune to have Sir Henry Cohen as his physician, as I have, will realise that he is one of the most outstanding figures in the medical profession. Then there is Sir Russell Brain, who I think at present is the President of the Royal College of Physicians, or has recently been President, a man whom I know and for whom I have the highest possible regard. But I say that this committee was the wrong body to consult.
What the Government should have done, I should have thought in a case of this sort, where for the first time it was proposed to ban a drug, was to appoint some high committee, comprising special people who have real knowledge of the use of this drug. If I may say so with the greatest respect, I think the committee failed in that they never revealed to the Minister chat there was a difference
14
of opinion in the medical profession. The Home Secretary has said, and said with some air of natural grievance, that it was not until April that letters appeared in the Press disapproving of the decision he had taken. I believe that the Minister of Health consulted the wrong committee, and I believe that he propounded to them the wrong question, though I am not quite certain what the question was.
The question which ought to have been propounded to a medical committee was simply this: Is there or is there not, in all cases, an adequate substitute for the use of heroin? That is a purely medical question on which other noble Lords and I, in the nature of things, can have no possible opinion. Instead of that, I infer (though I invite correction because it has never been expressly stated) that the question which was propounded was this: Do you agree with the Government's resolution to ban heroin? That is a mixed question. It is partly a medical question and partly a question calling for ministerial judgment, and involving an answer to the question whether our banning of the manufacture of heroin will have the slightest effect on the terrible problem of heroin addiction overseas.
I attach the greatest importance to the opinion of the British Medical Association: they represent, I suppose, 95 per cent. of the doctors in this country. After all, as I understand it (and I have given a great deal of thought and attention to this matter), if people are suffering from cancer, a terminal disease, in the terminal stages they are not in hospital, but are, sent home to die and are under the care of their local practitioner. Therefore, the opinion of these people is of the greatest value. Yet they were never consulted before this ban was imposed. Three members of the B.M.A. have, however, expressed in the Press—and the source of my information is mainly the Press—what operated on their minds when they went to that meeting and how they reacted. One of them is Dr. Wand, a general practitioner in Birmingham, who stated in The Times of May 27 that,
"He had gone to the meeting at which the matter was discussed with a firm opinion that a general practitioner should not have a drug taken from him which he wanted quite properly to use; but he had been convinced that the problem of addiction to heroin was serious and only to be solved by international action."

15
Certainly, but by what international action? On that particular problem Doctor Wand is no better qualified than I am to express an opinion.
Doctor Gregg, who I think was a Chairman of the B.M.A., said this in The Times of June 4:
"I have to admit that in the discussion the dreadful picture of heroin addiction made such an impression on us that we did feel that the small sacrifice which might be involved in our forgoing having it at our disposal, was a very small sacrifice compared with the advantage that would come from heroin not being available."
May I point out to Dr. Gregg that the small "sacrifice" is not a sacrifice which he is called upon to make, and that saying that heroin will not be available is completely to beg the question, because, in my opinion, the fact that you ban the licit manufacture of heroin increases enormously the danger that you may have what we have not had in this country, the illicit manufacture of heroin. Then Dr. Walker of Cambridge, in a letter to The Times of November 28, finished in this way:
"Should we join with other countries in banning the manufacture of heroin, or pursue our proud and selfish way alone?"
The alleviation of the pain of those dying of cancer who can get no other relief from other drugs can surely hardly be described as being "selfish."
On February 18, the Minister announced the Government decision to give effect to the ban. I quote the words of the Home Secretary:
"Accordingly the current licences"—
they are yearly licences—
"for the manufacture of heroin under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1951 which expire on the 31st December, 1955, will not be renewed."
After that date licences will be granted only for the manufacture of such small quantities as may be required for purely scientific purposes. I come now to consider the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951, and to a legal point. I may say at once that I feel rather like a shipwrecked mariner who at last reaches an island because, after being on this sea of medicine, about which I understand very little, I am now on the firm ground of law about which I understand something. I put this cautiously, but I do not think the Lord Chancellor will disagree with me when I say that there is very serious
16
ground for doubting whether the Minister has any right to use his powers under the Dangerous Drugs Act to ban the manufacture of heroin. This is a new point. I have brought it to the attention of Her Majesty's Government as early as I could. It needs careful consideration. It may well be that the Government will admit that and say that they would like further time within which to consider it. If they say that, may I say at once that I should not think any the less of them. The point has now been brought to their attention. It is manifestly a point which merits most serious consideration.
Let me put this legal point to your Lordships as simply as I can. It is doubtful whether the Home Secretary has any right to use this Act as a vehicle for bringing about this ban. Section 8 of the Act is in the simplest possible terms:
"It shall not be lawful for a person to import or bring into, or to export from, the United Kingdom a drug to which this Part of the Act applies"—
and this Part of the Act applies, inter alia, to heroin. There you have a plain statement as curt as the Commandments: you must not import or export it without licence. Contrast that with the next section, Section 9, which deals with manufacture. Section 9 is manifestly contemplating that there will be a manufacture and it is giving, and properly giving, the Home Secretary power to control that manufacture. These are the words:
"For the purpose of preventing the improper use of the drugs to which this Part of the Act applies"—
that is, including heroin—
"a Secretary of State may by regulations provide for controlling the manufacture"—
of heroin—
"and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power"—
which is a power to control manufacture, the regulations may prohibit the manufacture of a drug
"except on premises licensed …"
Then paragraph (b) says that he may require the persons to be licensed. Paragraph (c) says that he may regulate the issue by medical practitioners of prescriptions containing the drug. Paragraph (d) says that he may require the persons engaged in the manufacture to keep books and return information.
So your Lordships will see that the granting of licences is an incident to the

17
general power of controlling the manufacture, and the power to control the manufacture is for the purpose of preventing the improper use of heroin. Doctors may be prevented from prescribing heroin and chemists may be prevented from dispensing it, and by those preventions, of course, it would be possible to take heroin off the market. But that method was not employed. A simpler method was employed. The Home Secretary, who obviously could not have had this point in mind and who was, as I think, advised unwisely on these matters, simply said this: "No particular individual can manufacture heroin unless he is licensed to do so. Therefore, if I announce in advance that I shall license nobody, I can indirectly ban the manufacture of herein." That is, of course, incidental, since this Part of the Act applies to all these other drugs—morphine, opium, cocaine and so on. He could, in that same way, indirectly ban the manufacture of any of them. If that is said to be a method controlling the manufacture to prevent its improper use, all I can ask is whether, if I were in charge of a horse, a dog or a child, and was told to control it, and I shot it through the heart, though it would lie still and give us no further trouble I should really be controlling it.
My mind went back to a somewhat similar case. As many of your Lordships will remember, when the Labour Government were in power, the House of Commons, against the advice of the Government of the day, passed a Bill which contained a clause doing away with judicial hanging. The Home Secretary of the day, Mr. Chuter Ede, announced that, that having happened, he was going thereafter to advise the Royal Prerogative of clemency in all cases. The late Lord Simon said this about it. I was Lord Chancellor and was in great difficulty about this matter, but I did the best I could to support my colleague the Home Secretary. This argument of Lord Simon, however, I found quite unanswerable. Let me read it to your Lordships [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 156, col. 112]:
"I want to ask the noble Lord opposite"—
who unhappily was I—
"a very simple question. Does he agree with me that when a discretion is granted to a person to decide a particular case, by reference to particular facts, such a person has no constitutional right to announce—and to
18
announce in advance—that, whatever may be the circumstances, in principle people are all to be treated in the same way? I never heard of such a thing. Many of your Lordships are practising justices. Whoever heard of justices in licensing sessions, who have a discretion to consider the circumstances as to whether they will grant a new licence or not, announce from the Bench through their chairman: 'It may be a convenience to everybody to know that we are never going to grant a new licence, whatever the circumstances.' Anybody who did that would be dealt with by the Lord Chief Justice in the Divisional Court within a week, and he would soon know the result. Where one is given a responsibility which one has to exercise in view of the circumstances of the particular occasion, one has no right whatever publicly to announce that one does not intend ever to exercise that discretion except in one way. Suppose that the Home Secretary instead of taking this course, had said: 'I shall announce that henceforth nobody will ever be reprieved.' What would happen then? The whole thing seems to me to raise a very serious Constitutional question.'
The Lord Chief Justice who was there followed Lord Simon and said, after referring to the Bill of Rights [Col. 117]:
"… if this is not altering the law by administrative action, I do not know what is."
My Lords, in this case the Home Secretary was advised to make an announcement:
"Accordingly, the current licences for the manufacture of heroin … which expire on the 1st December, 1955, will not be renewed."
I imagine that to be absolutely wrong, ultra vires, outside his powers, and I beg the Government to consider this position. If this is going to be done for the first time, to ban a drug which many members of the medical profession think to be of the first importance, it ought to be done by a Bill and not by the indirect method of trying to use the Dangerous Drugs Act. I have been immersed in this question for the last few days. All I can say is that directly I discovered this point I acquainted the Lord Chancellor with it. I asked that the Opinion of learned counsel should be obtained. The Opinion of learned counsel was obtained, and it corroborates the view which I have ventilated to your Lordships. Directly that opinion was obtained, I took it upon myself to show the opinion to the Lord Chancellor. There is, therefore, grave doubt whether what has been done, in perfect good faith and with the best will in the world, has been done legally. That is a matter which I most humbly say that Her Majesty's Government would be welt advised to consider.

19
It does not, of course, follow that if the Home Secretary has gone outside the law inadvisedly he can necessarily be restrained by the courts. If what he has done had been done by a court of inferior jurisdiction I have no doubt whatever in saying that the remedy of mandamus would lie, and that any such proceeding by an inferior court would be quashed; but it does not necessarily follow that the same thing can be done with the Home Secretary. But if it cannot be done there is all the more reason (I am sure the Home Secretary would be the first to say this) why he should be scrupulously careful in not taking any step which in fact is outside the law. If it cannot be done, it is a very good matter to refer to the Committee on Ministerial Powers which is now sitting. Though I have given the Lord Chancellor all the notice I possibly could from the moment the matter came to my attention, the Government have had very little time to consider this legal point, and it would be perfectly natural, and nothing would be put against them, if they said that they would like further time to consider it. If they are going to say they would like further time to consider it, then of course it must be plainly understood that it is on the basis that in the meantime the manufacture of heroin should be allowed to go on, without prejudice, of course, to the possibility of their stopping it in future. Incidentally, if it does go on, then I should most humbly suggest to the Government that they should take the opportunity of further consultations with the medical profession. It is unfortunate that there should be a wide divergence of view on the part of the medical profession, and that it should have to come to us laymen, who can know little about it, to attempt to decide the point.
My Lords, I now leave my little rock in the middle of the ocean and I plunge into the medical details. I need hardly tell your Lordships that I have no sort of knowledge about this matter. I do not pretend to any knowledge, but I have derived information from eminent people whose word carries great weight, and I will try to reproduce their opinions. The first time I noticed anything about this subject at all was in a letter to The Times of May 18. I noticed that there were three members of the University College Medical School who expressed
20
strong opinion against the ban. That aroused my interest slightly, but I was not unduly disturbed. About a week later, there appeared in The Times a letter from Lord Horder, Sir John Conybeare and Sir Geoffrey Marshall—three names that even the layman knows. They wrote:
"No one disputes the value of heroin and its superiority in many cases over other narcotics, such as morphia. Before the Government take so drastic a step as to forbid the manufacture of a valuable and widely used drug surely the opinion of the Royal College of Physicians and perhaps that of other professional bodies should be asked. Heroin addiction in Great Britain is practically unknown and it is difficult to see why administrative action, taken without the advice or concurrence of representatives of the profession, should be allowed to hinder the relief of suffering."
Then, on July 11, six months after the ban had been announced, the Home Secretary received a deputation from the B.M.A.; but, like Pharaoh of old, he had hardened his heart and declined to give way. It would have been so much better if he had seen the B.M.A. before he had made his pronouncement, as it is much more difficult to alter one's decision having once made it.
I will consider the B.M.A. and the general practitioner in a moment, but in the limited time at my disposal I thought I should try to ascertain the views of the great teaching hospitals in London. There are, I think, twelve such teaching hospitals. This is the result. These figures are really so striking that I think it would be utterly wrong for us, mere laymen who can have no knowledge, to go in a converse way. Guy's Hospital has unanimously passed a resolution against this ban—with this qualification: that so far as the Post-Graduate Medical School is concerned, they say they are not insisting on the use of heroin but they are protesting against the ban on the doctor's right to prescribe. They are quite agreeable to their name being used, with that qualification. That applies to the Post-Graduate Medical School at Guy's. The London Hospital, without qualification—wherever I quote hospitals I mean that the medical schools are unanimous: if there is a difference of opinion of course they do not express an opinion. So Guy's agree, with that qualification; London, St. Bartholomew's, Charing Cross, King's College, Hammersmith, St. Thomas's, St. Mary's, University College, the Royal Marsden (which

21
was previously the Cancer Hospital) and the Brompton. This is a terrific body of medical opinion. Who are we to speak against such opinion?
So far as quantity is concerned it is interesting to find this fact. I asked what quantity they used, because, if I understand it aright, this is a drug which one should use only in extreme circumstances after other drugs have been tried. Guy's Hospital, who are prominent in this controversy, use only 6 oz. a year, representing 20,000 doses. All these experts, who are reluctant to use this drug if there is a chance of other drugs being effective, have taken this line. I am particularly concerned with the views of the Royal Marsden (previously the Royal Cancer) Hospital and the Brompton Hospital. The views of the staff of the Royal Marsden were expressed in a letter to The Times newspaper on November 30 as follows:
"Many patients find the side effects of morphia intolerable. These are not experienced with heroin. For this reason we do not often prescribe morphia or any of its substitutes for the relief of pain in this hospital."
They point out, as indeed is obvious, that in the terminal stage of an illness there is no question of addiction. A letter to The Times of November 28, written on behalf of hospitals for diseases of the chest, states that those hospitals feel that
"it is essential that heroin should continue to be made available for their patients, especially for cancer of the lung."
I do not want to bandy about great names, but Sir Cecil Wakeley, Vice-President of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and of the British Empire Cancer Campaign has expressed his view. He thought that to impose the ban was both foolish and immoral. The anæsthetist in charge of the department of anæsthetics at St. Bartholomew's has said, after thirty-seven years' experience, that at least one person in five in intolerant to morphine, and that if one such person suffers an agonising pain, such as that due to an abdominal operation, there is no drug except heroin which will give real relief. He says that
"Heroin is rather like a fire engine: you do not often want it, but when you do, You want it very badly."
Sir Francis Walshe, President of the Royal College of Medicine, and Sir Reginald Watson-Jones have added their protests. I forbear to mention the name of one
22
noble Lord who has also protested; he sits in this House and will, I hope, be able to take part in this debate. Those are great names, though I hope that I have in no way denied that there are great names on the other side. I am not suggesting that all the light and learning are on one side; I merely suggest that medical opinion is deeply divided over this question.
When this ban was announced, the British Medical Association held a meeting on June 3 and passed, with practically no dissentients, this resolution:
"That this meeting protests against the threatened withdrawal of the most excellent sedative, heroin, and recommends that it should still be manufactured for use by medical practitioners but not exported."
There were 450 people at the meeting and that resolution was carried almost unanimously. That is a matter of importance, as indicating the point of view of the general practitioners. As was asked in one of these letters, if the drug produces a condition of euphoria (which I suppose derives from the Greek word, meaning "bearing well") what does that matter in the case of terminal diseases? One doctor wrote to The Times newspaper asking whether the question of relief of burns had been considered. In some frightful cases of burns, heroin, and only heroin, can give relief from pain. We always hope that there will be no use of atomic weapons in this country, but is it wise at the present time to ban the use of heroin? In such an event we should want every ounce of heroin that we could possibly obtain.
I have said nothing from the patient's point of view, but I should like to refer to one letter to The Times newspaper of November 25, from a Mrs. Jean Loudon, who wrote as follows:
"This year I had the privilege of nursing my mother until she died, in full knowledge, of cancer. Although morphine and a heroin substitute were tried, only heroin effectively relieved her pain. If we deny heroin to those few who need it we shall make death and pain sadder arid more terrible than they already are."
One gentleman, I believe a doctor, in a letter to the same newspaper told of someone suffering from a permanent colostomy, which entails violent attacks of colic. He said that the only drug which gives relief is heroin. All the other se-called substitutes have been tried, and none has been found to approach the

23
efficacy of heroin. He says of that particular patient:
"This poor soul is already morbidly apprehensive of the day when our stock of heroin having been used up, another attack is experienced."
It has always been a mystery to me why the Church, of which I am a humble and unworthy member, always prays, in the Litany, against relief from sudden death. I believe that in many of these cases sudden death is a great mercy.
I hope I have established that in the opinion of a large and most influential body of doctors heroin cannot in all cases be dispensed with. I am advised that as a drug for relieving pain in terminal diseases, such as inoperable Lancer, particularly cancer of the lung, it is without any equal. Morphine is often, but not always, satisfactory—and in "morphine" I include all the other variants which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned in his Answer the other day. In some cases the use of morphine results in nausea and vomiting, which may be disastrous after an abdominal operation. Morphia, too, causes a rise in the pressure of bile in the main bile duct. After an operation for removal of the gall bladder this is obviously dangerous because it encourages leakage of the bile through the area of the bile duct, which has been stitched up. Heroin has not this action; pethidine has. Methadone has been proved, in clinical practice, to be a poor drug for relieving severe pain from any cause. The other purpose in using heroin, apart from that of relieving pain, is the suppression of cough. The cough of tracheitis, which often accompanies influenza, can be very distressing and often will not respond to codeine or other remedies. I have that from the very highest quarter.
The Minister of Health, in another place, was asked a straight question which ought to have been asked of the doctors but was not: whether, in relation to the stopping or alleviating of pain, there is any suitable substitute for heroin. The Answer was [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 547, No. 68, col. 28]:
"All one can say on this matter, which is to some extent in dispute, is that we have taken the best medical advice we could find, and that this is the general opinion."
24
In view of the facts I have given to your Lordships about the British Medical Association and the London hospitals I cannot imagine how the Minister came to say that "this is the general opinion." No person can deny that there is a risk of depriving those who are suffering pain and are intolerant of morphine from the relief which heroin could afford.
Lest I am too insular, bearing in mind that Professor Löffier of Switzerland was quoted the other day, may I quote somebody who is considered by doctors to be the greatest authority in Europe on this matter, Dr. Georges Brouet, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine in Paris and practitioner in hospitals there? His paper, which prayed for more careful and exceptional use of heroin, was published in the Bulletin on Narcotics, in which many of the reported lectures and speeches were in favour of the banning of these drugs. I think it is well worth while to read this to your Lordships because it is very authoritative. Doctor Brouet said:
"Only chronic complaints which have reached the terminal stage call for the use of heroin"—
And he mentioned painful types of cancer—
"in which there is an invasion of the nervous system or metastasis of the bone which have failed to respond to any other form of therapeutic treatment."
He went on:
"Heroin, especially by injection, may be useful as a last resort after the action of other analgesics has been exhausted. Its potent analgesic and tonic action can greatly alleviate the sufferings of the final weeks of a patient afflicted with cancer. Among the long diseases the last stages of pulmonary tuberculosis may require the use of heroin. When anti-tuberculosis treatment has met with failure after failure … and when the all too familiar picture of the consumptive who has reached the incurable stage of the disease becomes a reality, the physician should concentrate exclusively on relieving the patient."
The relief of pain, Doctor Brouet stated,
"is an act of charity which the sufferer cannot be denied. During this final stage, heroin, by calming the distressing sensation of asphyxia, soothing the cough and leaving room for hope, can still be used as a valuable medicament which may succeed when all others have ceased to be effective."
My Lords, that is a volume of testimony which any impartial person must admit is indeed formidable. What do we gain—or what does anyone gain—if we deliberately run this risk of depriving our doctors of the opportunity of using

25
this blessing? It may be right that those dying of cancer, or, if you will, that ten per cent. or twenty per cent. of those dying of cancer, should suffer agony which cannot be relieved after other drugs have been tried. But if you are going to incur that frightful, terrible responsibility you must show who is going to gain. You must establish something more substantial than a mere gesture of international solidarity.
Consider the facts. Consider the ease with which heroin can be prepared from morphine—and it is not proposed to ban morphine. Heroin can be prepared from morphine by the simple use of acetic anhydride. I am told, which is a common chemical not banned. Heroin can be made from morphine in a few hours over a kitchen stove by anyone with an elementary knowledge of chemistry. Are you quite sure you are doing the right thing? If you ban the licit supply of heroin, may you not bring about the illicit supply of heroin? In this country heroin addiction is almost negligible. We have some fifty-four heroin sufferers altogether. In the United States, the lowest figure of heroin addicts I have heard mentioned is 50,000, but I have also heard it put as high as 120,030. Incidentally, peihicline addiction in the United States is terrible. In a document which I have it is stated that in one hospital at Lexington, Kentucky, 457 pethidine addicts were treated in the three years from July, 1950. So do not think that by doing away with heroin and having pethidine in its stead you have solved your problem. No one has subgested that we should ban pethidine.
In 1953, which is the last year for which I have the figures, we manufactured 109 kilogrammes of heroin—about 220 lb. That is about 70 per cent. of the world's total. We consumed about 83 kilogrammes and we exported the balance of about 27 kilogrammes, and 23 kilogrammes of that went to Canada. That means that nearly all the balance went to Canada. There are said to be 5,000 narcotic addicts in Canada. Of course, all exports entail a danger of theft. But the Canadian Government in their Report to the Economic and Social Council in 1953 said this—this is the opinion of the Canadian Government:
"The abundant supply of illicit herein is in no way connected with the supplies legally imported. There has been a steady decrease
26
in the number of thefts from legitimate sources within recent years."
The decrease in thefts of legal heroin was said to be due to the availability of illicit heroin, and to improved methods of control over legal supplies.
We want from the Government—if they are going on with this ban—some explanation as to how it is that banning the production of heroin in this country will assist the problem in the United States. I ant sorry to be so long but I would just like to give the House these figures. In the six years from 1946 to 1951 the total amount of illicit heroin seized in this country was 11 grammes—that is, in six years, 11 grammes only. Then in just one year, 1951, in the rest of Europe the total seizure amounted to 62,711 grammes. In North America in the same year total seizures amounted to 28,870 grammes. These figures are from the Bulletin on Narcotics, 1953. The Bulletin in a later issue stated that
"Traffickers do not hesitate to set afoot clandestine production."
My Lords, I am coming to the end of my remarks, but before doing so I should like to quote the view expressed by Doctor Berger, who is Consultant on Internal Medicine to the United States Public Health Service and President of the New York Medical Society. Two months ago, he said:
"It seems a shame that you in Britain who are held up as an example to the world on how to handle this problem are now about to go wrong and do what we did."
Surely they have gone wrong. The manufacture of heroin was banned in the United States in the year 1924—that is, thirty-one years ago. And after thirty-one years the figures of addiction are alarming, and there is reason to fear that they are still increasing. Here we have not banned, but we control, and our addiction figures are negligible. Dame Rachel Crowdy-Thornhill, in a letter to The Times on December 5, 1955—she was for ten years head of the Department of the League of Nations which dealt with drug traffic—wrote:
"It was international control and not prohibition which lessened the illicit traffic in habit-forming drugs."
What then should Her Majesty's Government do? I beg of them to postpone this ban for the time being. If they have prohibition of exports, they should certainly postpone the ban on manufacture,

27
and defer this matter. I think they have to do that, to consider the legal proposition, otherwise the whole thing is going to end up in a lot of litigation in the courts. Will you postpone it and consider constituting a special ad hoc committee of the most eminent doctors, who do know and who are concerned with this particular thing, to see whether you cannot resolve this conflict? Finally, I might add this. Doctor Trevan, a pharmacologist of the greatest repute in this country, and a Fellow of the Royal Society, has written to the British Medical Journal asking for a controlled clinical trial. He said it would be a difficult and protracted work,
"but the issue at stake, the relief of the agony of the dying, is so important that an attempt at a controlled trial should be made."
I am sorry to have kept your Lordships so long, but as I feel this to be a matter of great importance, involving, as it does, the relief of the agony of the dying, I have felt it right to trouble your Lordships. Unless the Government can meet us by taking steps to announce that they will allow the manufacture of heroin to go on for the time being, I must ask your Lordships to divide on this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, in view of the apparent conflict of expert medical opinion on the banning of the manufacture of heroin in this country, the period of the present licences to manufacture should be extended pending the institution of further inquiries on this subject.—(Earl Jowitt.)
3.50 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I think it may be for the advantage of the House if I intervene at this point and try and put before your Lordships some of the considerations upon which the Government's decision to restrict the manufacture of heroin has been based. First, however, I should like to thank the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, for the calm, fair and dispassionate way in which he has put this matter before your Lordships. There is no need whatever for him to apologise for being a little longer than usual, because this is a difficult and complicated matter. I shall come at once to
28
the legal point which he has made. He described it as an island upon which he alighted with pleasure. The noble and learned Earl was good enough to give me as much notice of it as he possibly could, thereby spoiling my week-end. I can assure him that I found it a very uncomfortable island. We shall have to look at this point carefully. It is a difficult one, and I must say at once, in all frankness to the noble and learned Earl and to the House, that I think his point has more than considerable merit. My noble friend Lord Woolton will have more to say about that when he comes to wind up this debate.
As the noble and learned Earl has already told the House, addiction to heroin is not a serious problem in this country. There are only fifty-two addicts in England and Wales and two in Scotland, and so far as I am advised, there is, happily, no reason to think that addiction is becoming more serious. The system by which we control the manufacture, supply and possession, as well as the import and export, of drugs is one of the most successful in the world. There is not much illicit traffic in heroin in this country and there is no evidence that any substantial quantities of our supplies have found their way into the black market abroad. On the other hand, I readily agree that there are doctors—eminent doctors—who are sincerely convinced that heroin is essential to relieve the suffering of some of their patients, and they resent the fact that they may be deprived of it. However, I was glad to hear the noble and learned Earl admit that on the other side there are equally eminent and equally sincere doctors who disagree with that point of view. Why, then, your Lordships may ask—indeed, I have just been asked forcibly by the noble and learned Earl—have the Government decided to ban heroin? I must apologise if I traverse a little of the way that the noble and learned Earl has trod, but I want to give your Lordships as coherent and consecutive a picture and as clear evidence as I possibly can.
The Government's decision to restrict the import, export and manufacture of heroin was taken as a result of a resolution passed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in July, 1954, a resolution to which the noble and learned Earl referred. I should like to quote a little more fully the text of this

29
resolution because I think it sets the initiation of the problem, so far as we are concerned as a Government, in the proper perspective. The resolution runs:
"The Economic and Social Council,
"Considering that in 1931 the Conference for the Limitation of the Manufacture of Narcotic Drugs recommended that Governments examine the possibility of abolishing or restricting the use of heroin and that the Committee of Experts of that Conference believed that heroin could be dispensed with entirely;
"Considering that the Sixth World Health Assembly expressed its conviction that heroin was not irreplaceable for medical practice, and passed a resolution recommending that member States not already having done so abolish the importation and manufacture of the drug;
"Noting that only seven out of 82-odd members of the World Health Organisation are not at the present time (that is, 1953) in favour of doing without heroin,

1. Urges all Governments to prohibit the manufacture, import and export of heroin, except for such small amounts as may be necessary for scientific put-poses only;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to communicate this resolution to all Governments for such action as they may be in a position to take."

This resolution states briefly the reasons which persuaded the United Nations and the expert bodies who advise them, after studying this question for very many years, to recommend that heroin should be banned. I should like to look at these reasons a little more fully and tell your Lordships how and why I think they particularly affect this country.
Heroin is one of the most addicting drugs known and produces appalling changes in the individual, which progress faster than with any other drug. All the faculties of the mind are weakened, so that the addict rapidly becomes a mental and moral degenerate, and eventually, an animal. Whilst there is no serious addiction problem in this country, there is such a problem in ether countries. In Canada there are some 3,000 addicts, of whom over 2,000 are criminals. In Japan, I believe there are about 7,000 addicts. The figures for the United States are a little in doubt, but from 50,000 to 60,000 addicts is probably the, right figure.
It has been suggested that the banning of heroin in other countries has led to an increase in addiction there and may have the same result here. I have not been able to find much evidence to support this. The noble and learned Earl referred to America. Heroin was banned in
30
America in 1924, and after that date the number of addicts fell steadily until just after the war, when it started to go up again as a result of the large amount of heroin smuggled from Europe and the Near East; so that evidence at least is open to some doubt. The majority of these addicts use heroin which they get through the black market. This traffic is international and, as an example of its extent, your Lordships may remember that a few months ago three large seizures of heroin, amounting to over 80lb. of the drug—enough for nearly 2¼ million doses—were made in American and Canadian ports.
It is the considered view of all those countries which are struggling with this problem that the difficulty of controlling the illicit traffic is increased by the existence of lawful manufacture and trade, such as ours. More than fifty countries have already banned the use of heroin. In all these countries the doctors have found that there are satisfactory and effective substitutes for use in medical practice. Your Lordships will remember that I gave particulars of those substitutes to the House last Thursday. From none of these countries has there been, so far as I know, any suggestion or request from the doctors that they do need heroin after all—doctors who may originally have felt exactly the same doubts as some of our doctors feel to-day.
There are, then, five main reasons for advocating this restriction on heroin. First, heroin is one of the most dangerous drugs known and gives rise to an addiction problem of world-wide gravity. Secondly, heroin is easy to handle and easier to smuggle than opium, the place of which it is taking. It can be administered without any apparatus such as a hypodermic syringe. Incidentally, I do not think that it can be manufactured in the back kitchen quite so easily as the noble and learned Earl seems to think. Thirdly, the existence of a serious black market in heroin requires the taking of exceptional measures for its suppression. Fourthly, if the manufacture of heroin were made illegal, the task of suppressing the illicit traffic in the drug would be made much easier; and, lastly, less dangerous substitutes are now available.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, why would the prevention of manufacture in this

31
country make it easier for the American authorities to deal with the illicit traffic in heroin?
LORD MANCROFT: The complete banning of the manufacture of heroin throughout the world is our ultimate object. Those countries wrestling with the problem believe that that would be facilitated by our acceding to the ban. As I have already told your Lordships, the expert and carefully considered medical advice given to the Government is that these substitutes are reliable, effective and equally beneficial. Without that assurance, of course, the Government would never have taken this decision. Most of the member countries of the United Nations have now agreed to ban heroin, and I think that only four countries still oppose the ban.
In recent years, the United Kingdom has been by far the largest manufacturer of heroin, manufacturing in 1953 (the last year for which figures of world production are available) 69 per cent. of the total world production. Since the beginning of the century this country has played an honourable and leading part in securing the adoption of international measures for the control of the illicit drug traffic. If we, the largest manufacturers and exporters of heroin, were not to agree to the United Nations request to ban it we should lay ourselves open to the charge that we were disregarding the fine example which we ourselves have set in the past and were obstructing international measures to stamp out the traffic in this most dangerous drug.
It has been suggested that the Government accepted the United Nations' resolution without giving the matter proper consideration and without proper consultation with the medical profession. This is the opposite of the truth. Let me remind your Lordships of the events leading up to the Government's decision—and the noble and learned Earl has touched on two or three of them. In March, 1950, the United Nations had stated that although twenty-four countries did not use heroin at all the figures of consumption had greatly increased in some other countries. The World Health Organisation then sent a circular letter to member States asking for the views of their Governments and the medical profession
32
"concerning the necessity for the use or the dispensability of heroin and the reasons therefor."
A few months later, the then Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan) asked his Standing Medical Advisory Committee to advise him whether, if an international agreement prohibiting the use of heroin were proposed, there was sufficient medical reason why the Government should not support the proposal.
Let me here say a word about this Standing Medical Advisory Committee. It has twenty-seven members who are appointed by the Minister after consultation with representative organisations. The members, as the noble and learned Earl said, quite correctly, serve in an individual capacity, and include the Presidents of the three Royal Colleges, the Chairman of the Council of the British Medical Association, the President of the General Medical Council, and the Chairman of the Council of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. At the relevant time there were, in all, three members of the Council of the B.M.A. sitting on the Advisory Committee and five general practitioners, whilst the majority of members were in active practice. I have taken the liberty of having the entire composition of the committee typed out, and I have put it in the Library in case your Lordships are interested to see exactly who was on the committee at that time. If you read it carefully your Lordships will observe that this committee includes the most eminent medical opinion in the country. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health is satisfied that this was without doubt the most suitable body to consult. Beyond holding a referendum of all the doctors in the country, not all of whom belong to the B.M.A., I suggest that my right honourable friend could hardly have taken more comprehensive advice.
The Standing Medical Advisory Committee then decided to consult the British Pharmacopœia Commission, who in their turn consulted a large number of bodies, including the Medical Research Council and, be it noted, the Science Committee of the B.M.A. So much for the suggestion that the B.M.A. were not "consulted in any way." The British Pharmacopœia Commission expressed the view that although heroin was still claimed by some practitioners to be of great value as a

33
sedative after operations and in inoperable malignant diseases, and to a lesser degree in severe coughing, the advantages so claimed did not outweigh the grave consequences of widespread addiction in certain countries. They said they were prepared to delete the monograph on heroin from the British Pharmacopœia if international agreement on prohibition were reached. The Standing Medical Advisory Committee agreed with the views of the British Pharmacopœia Commission and advised Mr. Bevan that it would be justifiable to prohibit the use of heroin in Britain if international agreement were reached to prohibit its manufacture and sale. The Scottish experts advised likewise.
In January, 1952, the World Heath Organisation reiterated its concern about
"The continuing gravity of the heroin situation."
Seeing that fifty countries had discontinued, or expressed a willingness to discontinue, the medical use of heroin, and feeling that the complete abolition of legally manufactured heroin would greatly facilitate the struggle against the illicit traffic in this drug, the World Health Organisation asked that a further approach should be made to countries which had not replied to earlier inquiries or which were not yet satisfied that it was possible to discontinue the medical use of heroin. In 1953 the World Health Organisation recommended that the few member States which had not already done so should prohibit the import and manufacture of the drug. In the 1953 edition of the British Pharmacopœia the monograph on heroin was omitted. In July, 1953, there appeared in the British Medical Journal (the journal of the B.M.A.) an article which clearly suggested that heroin was no longer indispensable. This article elicited one solitary letter of protest, from Dr. Douthwaite, who I readily admit has consistently opposed the restriction.
In July, 1954, the United Nations Economic and Social Council adopted the resolution which I quoted earlier urging all Governments to prohibit the manufacture, import and export of heroin except for such small amounts as might be necessary for scientific purposes. Then in December, 1954, the Minister of Health again consulted the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and asked for their views on the United Nations resolution.
34
The Standing Medical Advisory Committee considered the United Nations resolution and agreed with the Government's proposal to accept it. In view of the expert advice they had received I confirmed to your Lordships in April last the Government's decision that at the end of this year no further licences for the manufacture or export of heroin would be granted except for small quantities needed for scientific purposes, and that the present policy of not permitting imports would be continued. In all fairness, I do not see how Her Majesty's Government could possibly have taken any other decision.
In April this year, nearly five years after the matter had first been put before the medical profession, a number of letters began to appear in the medical and lay Press from doctors disapproving of the restriction. About the same time the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, launched his campaign in your Lordships' House. On May 3 the B.M.A. revealed to the Ministry of Health for the first time that in the preceding November its Council had adopted, on the recommendation of the Science Committee (who appear by then to have changed their mind), the following resolution:
"That the World Medical Association be informed that it is the duty of the Government to legislate against misuse of heroin but the medical profession should not in any way be deprived of the me of this or any other drug which may assist in the treatment of patients."
Whether that decision of the B.M.A.'s Council reflects the views of its 47,000 members in the United Kingdom more accurately than does the contrary opinion of its members on the Standing Medical Advisory Committee it is not for me to say.
Whilst it is true that members of the advisory bodies are appointed as individuals, and not as representatives of organisations to which they may belong or in which they hold office, there were in 1954, three members of the Council of the B.M.A. serving on the Standing Medical Advisory Committee. It is, to say the least, surprising that, when the Minister of Health asked for the Advisory Committee's advice in December, 1954. none of the members of the B.M.A. serving on the Advisory Committee objected to the proposal to ban heroin, despite the resolution against the ban passed by their own Association in the

35
previous month and the existence of which they never even revealed.
At the request of the B.M.A., the Home Secretary, the Minister of Health, the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I received a deputation on July 11 and discussed the proposed ban very fully. The Home Secretary and his colleagues then gave the most frank consideration to the representations which the deputation had made. Therefore I can assure the noble and learned Earl that there was no question of "Pharaoh hardening his heart." My right honourable friends, thinking the matter over carefully, adhered to the advice which they had originally tendered to the Home Secretary, who informed the B.M.A. on October 17 that the decision must stand. On November 10, the Chairman of the Council of the B.M.A. wrote again to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary protesting against the ban and stating that the Council was convinced that he had been wrongly advised and that his decision was an unfortunate and regrettable one. In view of this and other protests against the ban, the Government gave further anxious and sympathetic considerations to this very complex problem, not forgetting the attitude and experience of other countries. The Government came to the conclusion, as I informed your Lordships a fortnight ago, that the proposed ban must stand.
I should like to make it clear that the ban on manufacture of heroin will not mean that supplies will cease as soon as the ban becomes effective. I believe that stocks of heroin are sufficient to last for two or three years at the present rate of consumption. Doctors and others who have authority to obtain dangerous drugs should therefore have no difficulty in obtaining supplies of heroin for some time to come. This interim period will give an opportunity for doctors to gain experience in the use of the alternative drugs with which they can in future treat their patients, and with the full effects of which they may not yet be wholly familiar. The Government naturally intend to keep the working of the restriction under constant and searching review, but they cannot go back on a decision which has only been confirmed after the most conscientious investigation—conscious of our duty to other civilized
36
countries and even more conscious of our duty towards a sick man in pain. I earnestly hope that your Lordships will see fit to endorse that decision.
4.12 p.m.
LORD MORAN: My Lords, I feel that, before I turn to the medical aspects, which I am more competent to discuss than the legal ones, something ought to be said about the points raised by the noble and learned Earl. He said, for example, that the Central Health Services Council was the wrong body to consult because its composition, in his belief, was not suitable. Nevertheless, later he quoted the teaching hospitals as ammunition in favour of those who opposed this ban. But, surely, the medical committees of the teaching hospitals suffer from precisely the disadvantages that the Central Health Services Council does, in that every single medical committee has on it many members who have not personal experience of the use of heroin against pain—people like radiologists and the like. Therefore, if the Central Health Services Council is unsuitable because there are members on it who are not really accustomed to the treatment of pain, the same objection applies also to the teaching hospitals who have been quoted the other way. I should have thought that no body more suitable than the Central Health Services Council could be chosen. The members have behind them great corporations whom they can consult, not necessarily in an open debate, and they have many means of knowing what is the opinion of their colleges and the British Medical Association. It would be very difficult to think of any body that would be more suitable to give the Minister advice. Here let me say that I think the criticisms of the Minister have not been fair. He consulted the only body which is set up by Statute to advise him, and I do not think he could have done anything else. I consider he was wise to take the course that he did.
Another point brought forward by the noble and learned Earl was that members of the British Medical Association serve on the Central Health Services Council as what might be called private members. I think your Lordships ought to understand what the position is, whatever may be put down on paper. When I was a member of the Central Health Services Council it was because I was

37
President of the Royal College of Physicians. The moment I ceased to be President, at that moment I ceased to be a member of the Central Health Services Council; I was there ex officio. The same applies to the chairman of the British Medical Association Council; he is also ex officio. If there is any misunderstanding about the capacity in which members of my profession are on this Committee, I think it should be cleared up. I always understood, whatever was put on paper, that I was there as the representative of my College and I should have been reluctant to bring before that Council views which I thought were not in harmony with those who had elected me; and I am sure the Chairman of the Association felt the same. Why do I think that? Because when he found at a representative meeting that there was a majority against the ban, he promptly reconsidered his view. In fact, to put it briefly, he changed his mind. It seems to me that this is not merely a question of procedure. If the Minister consults his professional advisers, if he takes advice and then later some of them recant and take the opposite view, and whereas they who earlier supported the ban now lead a crusade against it, surely, here must be an end of all confidence between the Minister and his professional advisers. It is upon that smooth working between the two that so much of the efficiency of the Service depends.
But I am sure your Lordships are not primarily interested to-day in questions of procedure. As the noble and learned Earl has said, you want to know whether there is, or is not, an adequate substitute for heroin if it is banned. Let me say at once that it is obvious, from the division of medical opinion, how extraordinarily difficult it is to answer that question, and, bewildered as you must be by the division of medical opinion, you may clutch at what I might call a controlled inquiry which would settle the question once and for all. Your Lordships are familiar with the difficulties. Not only would you need to have an immense number of patients to make your answer statistically valid, but in every single case the doctor, as well as his patient, would have to be completely ignorant of which of the two tablets or the two rival drugs was being given. The difficulties seem great, but, realising the importance,
38
I went to the quarters which I think the Government might possibly consult, and asked their views. I would commit them to nothing because, lifter all, they had riot much time to consider the question. I was advised that one could compare morphine and heroin, but with great difficulty. Those who give morphia or morphine instead of heroin, now combine it with another drug so as to obtain a euphoric effect. The problem is, can you compare a combination of drugs with a drug like heroin? I am told that the difficulties in the way are almost insuperable. These difficulties are such that it would be almost impossible to devise, a trial which would lead to a satisfactory result, and I think anybody, without being a prophet, could say now that that result, whatever it was, would not be generally accepted.
As your Lordships know, pain is subjective; its measurement is extremely difficult. One man suffers from agony and the same pain in another is discomfort. I think this measurement of pain will always defy an inquiry of this kind. If that is true——and, of course, it is a matter of opinion; it cannot be asserted as a fact—then, naturally, one turns to individual judgments and asks whether they are likely to be more helpful. At once that raises the question: What is the scientific value of all these letters which have appeared in The Times? What are they doing? They are pronouncing what we already know—that heroin can be an extremely effective drug. So far as my inquiries have gone—and they have not gone very far—those who have written these letters have not had the opportunity to compare, or have not compared, the drugs in, the way that I have just mentioned—that is to say, compared heroin with a combination of drugs. If that is true, their observations are uncontrolled observations in the sense of an uncontrolled experiment. That is really very important, because it would mean that these letters from some of the most eminent men in my profession were satisfactory as giving an opinion upon the efficiency of heroin but were entirely unsatisfactory because they did not compare it with other combinations of drugs which since the war have multiplied and are much more efficient than ever before.

39
That is not the only difficulty when we are dealing with individual opinions. In the first place, I do not think any of your Lordships can have read some of the letters without feeling, quite naturally, that some of them were rather more emotional than scientific. That is inevitable. The man who is deprived of a drug which he believes is effective and which he wishes to use for his patients is naturally aggrieved. Further than that, he is even more aggrieved because he attributes this deprivation to the Minister of Health who, he thinks, should not interfere between him and his patient. Take that attitude of mind and add to it what I think your Lordships cannot possibly remove or ignore from these opinions—the question of the influence of habit. A consultant of my acquaintance, who was educated at a great London medical school, found, when he qualified and became a resident and a registrar, that the hospital's pharmacopœia contained a standard analgesic and a standard linctus, both containing heroin. He got into the way of prescribing these. Three to four years later, when he was elected to the staff of another teaching hospital, he found that their pharmacopœia did not contain any heroin prescription, and gradually he got out of the way of using it. He tells me that he has not used it for years. Your Lordships must not build too much on a single instance like that, but I think that habit plays a great part. Obviously, if we find a drug which does all we want we are inclined to go on using it, to the exclusion of all others.
I admit the weakness of these arguments; it is difficult to keep to the issue, because there are so many shades of the whole subject. But supposing I am right in thinking that a controlled inquiry will be very difficult, and that these expressions of opinion are not really a comparison of two drugs but a statement about one, does that mean that we are at the end of our tether? Is there nothing else that we can do? I do not think that is the position. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence. There are fifty-four countries in which heroin is banned and where the doctors seem to get on quite well without using it. I suggest that to a certain extent it appears that the substitutes have been found satisfactory. One of those countries is the
40
United States of America. It is important that we should know as far as we can what is their experience.
An American physician, who was President of their College of Physicians and, later, President of the American Medical Association (which is their equivalent of the British Medical Association), and who is a highly respected figure of great experience in America, has sent me the following cable on this subject:
"American experience is nobody objects to ban on heroin except the addicts. Medical substitutes entirely satisfactory."
That statement carries a certain amount of weight. It is from a man of judicial temperament who before he sent that message would consult other people; he would not do it on his own. He has been in a position there, as head of the American College of Physicians and later as President of their Medical Association, to gather opinions. He is at the end of his life. Therefore, I think that his opinion stands for something.
But, quite apart from this question of what different countries do, there are many hospitals where heroin is used sparingly. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has cited the case of teaching hospitals. I need not remind him, because he would know it much better than I do, that it is possible to address a question to a teaching hospital which really admits of only one answer. But if you were to ask any doctor, or, for instance, were to ask me whether I wanted any drug cut off, I should of course say "No." If, however, somebody took the trouble to inform me of the advantages of cutting it off and what might happen abroad, I might alter my opinion. Like the noble and learned Earl, I thought it important to find out the position of teaching hospitals, because they are the centres of inquiry and of enlightenment in our profession. Accordingly, I communicated with them all, though I received only ten answers. The average consumption of heroin in the year 1953 at those ten hospitals was 432 grains. It is a disputable point how much an addict takes. In general, it is said, the amount is from 15 to 20 grains; but if we assume that it is ten grains, that means that a teaching hospital with 500 to 600 patients uses in a year as much heroin as would keep an addict going from six to eight weeks.

41
Moreover, these quantities, small as they are, seem to be accounted for largely by one or two cases. One hospital, for instance, used 258 grains in one year. The next year the amount rose to 711 grains. Why? Entirely because of one case.
From all this, one fact stands out perfectly clearly; that is that the teaching hospitals use heroin extremely sparingly. Guy's Hospital has already been mentioned to-day, otherwise I should not have mentioned their figure, which arrived last night, and which shows that 2,800 grains were used, as has been stated. That is three times the amount that any other hospital has, but I think it only fair that it should be mentioned so that my "ten hospitals" figure may be corrected, for I have not included the figure from Guy's. Another hospital, a hospital for incurables (though it is not now called that) which deals with nothing but incurable diseases, and therefore largely with cancer, in the year 1953 used 14 grains.
In a debate at the Royal Society of Medicine on the treatment of inoperable cancer, heroin was not mentioned. There are important textbooks, some in the eleventh edition, in common use by students in which heroin is not mentioned at all. I cannot put aside and ignore this body of evidence of those who do not use heroin. I should entirely disagree with any suggestion that all these people, in all these countries and in all these important hospitals, are oblivious to the sufferings of their patients. I do not believe that they would do without heroin unless they were satisfied that it could be replaced adequately by some other substance. This circumstantial evidence—perhaps it might more correctly be called observational evidence—is significant. It is no more. In all that I am saying, I do not wish to speak with mere conviction than the facts allow. All these things are matters of opinion. We are on very difficult ground.
Then we come to another matter where really my opinion is of no value. Would this ban be effective or would it be useless? It is said, on the one hand, that heroin can be easily made from morphine—though I agree with the noble Lord who so ably put this case for the Government that it is not so easy as it sounds. First of all, it is necessary to get morphine. Again, I understand that
42
hardly any of the heroin in this country gets into the illicit market from which addicts get their supply. Moreover, in the United States, though the ban has been there since 1924, the number of addicts has gone up. On the other hand, on the other side, we have the World Health Organisation, with its enormous experience and its great body of experts, deliberately saying, "We shall get nowhere without a world ban." I must leave that aspect to others. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who follows, will be able to deal with that much better than I can, and probably he will not draw the same conclusion. His experenee is much greater.
Finally, there is one point which The Times has called the most important point, and which I think does influence enormously the members of my profession—namely, did the Minister, advocating this ban to the Home Office, offend or not offend against the fundamental belief of the profession that no-one should interfere between a man and his patient; that no-one should prevent him from giving a drug which he thought would be efficient? That point needs to be considered dispassionately, without prejudice. There is not the slightest doubt that it is felt keenly in many quarters in the profession. It must be remembered, how-ever, that before the National Health Service Act came in doctors were individuals, and many of them came in reluctantly, dreading that their liberty would be curtailed. They became restless, and when this ban appeared they said, "This is the thin edge of the wedge. Where is it going to end?" I think that accounts for some of the depth of feeling which we have witnessed in this controversy.
Nobody would interfere between a patient and his doctor without some good reason, but, when that has been said, surely this freedom of the doctor can never be absolute. Supposing, for a moment, that the Government of this country decided to abandon the manufacture of atomic bombs, do your Lordships think that the country would tolerate a scientist who said, "I am going to make them in my laboratory in order to demonstrate the freedom of science"? Surely we must not push a principle beyond the point of common sense. It was well said in the Lancet that if there were 10 per cent. of addicts in this country there

43
would be little patience with a doctor who criticised the Minister of Health for promoting a ban. Surely the freedom of a doctor carries with it also responsibilities and some recognition of what is due to the community. I understand that, in the first instance, when the Minister went to the Central Health Services Council, he said to them, in effect, "I want to know whether this ban can be imposed without unnecessary suffering on the part of your patients. If it can, then I should like to help the World Health Organisation in their struggle with the tragedys"—and it is no less than that—" of drug addiction."
As I have already said, I am a doctor and am quite incapable of saying whether or not this ban is going to be effective. But, provided that the Government are satisfied on that point, I believe, after much thought, that your Lordships may be reassured that, if heroin is banned, adequate substitutes are available to take its place. In those circumstances, your Lordships may feel, on reflection—though I know the sense of the House is against me—that you can support the Government in their attempt to help the World Health Organisation. For centuries we in this country have lived an isolated, happy life, enjoying the benefits of national sovereignty. The hydrogen bomb put an end to that. We are faced in the future with grim alternatives. Anybody can see that there is no hope in the world unless there can be a measure of understanding amongst the nations, some degree of common action. I think it is because some of us feel that that is so important that we should like to see your Lordships to-day take a step towards that goal, and to make a contribution, however small, to what I know is the far-off ideal of the brotherhood of nations.
4.35 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I find myself, not for the first time, in conflict of opinion with a brother member of my profession. The point with which I may bore your Lordships, but which I think is important, is whether the Minister of Health was right to use the Standing Advisory Committee as an advisory body in a question like this. I maintain that the Government have not yet had expert advice on the value of heroin as a therapeutic agent. In regard to propriety, I hope your Lordships will forgive
44
me for taking this opportunity to point out that, when this Committee was formed a most carefully drawn provision was included in the National Health Service Act to prevent the Central Council and the Advisory Committee from being used as supreme bodies for giving advice on medical matters. It was foreseen that the representative bodies of the profession might be short-circuited and ultimately superseded. Many safeguards against this danger are therefore to be found in the National Health Service Act.
It is laid down, for instance, that the duty of the Central Health Services Council shall be
"to advise the Minister upon such general matters relating to the services provided under this Act…"
Again, it was laid down that standing advisory committees could, by order, be constituted for the purpose of advising the Minister and the Central Council "on such of the services aforesaid." First, there was the Central Council itself; then there was the authority to establish standing advisory committees, and they were all for the purpose of "the services afore-said." Then it is said that it shall also be the duty of the standing advisory committees
"to advise the Minister and the Central Council upon such matters relating to the services with which the committee are concerned, as they think fit and upon any questions referred to them by the Minister … relating to those services."
While I am quoting from the Act, I venture to note that the Minister has described himself as having had laid upon him the comprehensive duty of providing health services for all the people in this country. He has the duty
"to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service."
That is his job. Lastly, it is laid down in the First Schedule to the Act that
"Any standing advisory committee may appoint such sub-committees, as they think fit, to consider and report upon questions referred to them … and any such … subcommittee may include persons who are not members of the … standing advisory committee."
The machinery for the Central Council or Advisory Committee to obtain expert advice is there, but in regard to the value of heroin as a therapeutic agent it was not used. In my view, a question concerning such big issues ought to have been referred to representative bodies of the

45
profession. If the British Medical Association and the Royal Medical Colleges are to be supplanted, and if advice on medicine in general is to be sought from the Ministry's standing medical advisory committee, serious notice must be taken by the profession of the improper use of a committee set up under the National Health Service Act. Meantime, I suggest, such advice as has been given and received might be withdrawn until such time as consultations have been held with those who have had the necessary experience to qualify them to advise. In future, the Advisory Committee would be wise to refuse to advise on matters which ought to be referred to representative bodies of the profession, while in matters which quire expert investigation they should appoint a sub-committee to report. I urge that Her Majesty's Government should reconsider whether they should
"adhere firmly to the view that they took all the consultation that they properly should have taken."
I feel convinced—and I believe I have shown—that proper advice was not taken.
What can be done if time is given? An intensive scientific study can be made of substitutes for heroin and of the clinical advantages claimed for the drug. Your Lordships would be wise to recall the words of the late Lord Rutherford in this House:
"Sound policy can only be formulated in the light of a knowledge of facts."
Like most members of the Advisory Committee I have never used heroin. I start level with them; therefore I am riot in a position to give an opinion on the true value and advantages of heroin. But though I cannot judge its value from experience, I can be impressed by the testimony of the consultant staffs of the Brompton and London Chest hospitals and by the alarming and changing position in the incidence of cancer of the lung. I am also impressed by the testimony of numbers of general practitioners as to the value of heroin, where other drugs have failed, in easing the closing chapters of some incurable illnesses.
We in this country have been wonderfully successful in preventing addiction to habit-forming drugs. Let other coun-
46
tries follow our methods. Should not other countries sometimes follow Britain? Our methods have been successful both in our own country and through the licence exchange system which, according to Home Office reports, has continued to operate successfully. Above all, do not let us follow along the path of prohibition—a bad and dangerous way, the tragedy of which I saw with horror. We in this country are ready enough to accept controls when we see the need for them. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, can now hear me well. He did not hesitate to change his plans when he was shown that there was danger in the method he was following—in milk zoning, for example. We are used to control by the Medical Research Council and gratefully take notice of the warnings of scientists, as in the case of penicillin, which, if given in inadequate doses, may give bacteria a chance of getting tolerant of it so that it becomes habit-forming. We accept the delay necessary for the careful investigation of reputed life-saving remedies before their general release. We are quite ready to accept the delay necessary for the careful investigation of the position in regard to heroin. Why not give time now in the case of heroin?
Get the facts from doctors, from sisters and nurses, those who hear the cries of distress during their lonely vigils, the still, but not quiet, watches of the night. Emotional, some may say. But is there any disgrace in pitying those in pain, those whom Kipling described as suffering
"the shameful nakedness of pain"?
We may recall the last verse of his poem:
"Send here the bold, the seekers of the way—
The passionless, the unshakable of soul,
Who serve the inmost mysteries of man's clay,
And ask no more than leave to make them whole."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that it has been arranged that the Motion on customs facilities, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, will not be taken to-day but will be taken to-morrow.

BAN ON HEROIN MANUFACTURE
4.46 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, if the issue raised by the Motion submitted by the noble and learned Earl had to be decided on a balance of professional opinion, your Lordships would, I am sure, be confronted by a most difficult and, indeed, a most invidious decision. The issue presents itself to my mind in much simpler terms. May I say at once that, having been Home Secretary and, what is perhaps more significant, having been for ten years, as Permanent Head of the Home Office, responsible for advising the Home Secretary of the day on the administration of the Dangerous Drugs Acts, I profoundly disagree with the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in this flatter. It must be manifest to your Lordships that on this issue professional opinion is fundamentally divided. There are many professional men of the greatest eminence, whose judgment is entitled to respect, who regard the administration of heroin for therapeutic purposes as wholly unnecessary. There are also unquestionably many competent, able, experienced medical men who take a diametrically opposite view. I have always regarded medical practice as a highly individual activity, and I take the simple view that for a Government to deprive an able, responsible and conscientious medical man of the opportunity of prescribing what he genuinely believes is necessary in the best interests of his patient is indefensible in the absence (I make this qualification) of the most cogent and compelling reasons.
What is the position here? We are told that it is necessary to prohibit the manufacture of heroin in this country in order to make effective an International Agreement to which a large number of countries are party and which is designed to assist in putting an end to a most horrible abuse, the abuse of addiction which, in the case of heroin, we are credibly informed is worse than in the case of any other drug—cocaine, morphine or whatever it may be. I wonder what possible good the prohibition of the manufacture of heroin in this country is going to do to any other country. Every country has its own problem to deal with. I feel I may claim that we in this country have been very successful in handling, the problem
48
of addiction, and I was glad to hear the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to the effectiveness of the organisation that has been built up under the Home Office in this country. Whatever may be said, heroin can be prepared from morphine with the greatest ease. Morphine circulates very freely and it can be converted into heroin without the use of any appliance or any material which is not most readily available to any man or woman.
I speak from my own personal knowledge in this matter, and I say that if it were desired to give encouragement to those in other countries who are confronted by a most difficult and painful situation by "showing willing" in this country, the proper course would be to prohibit the export of heroin, and not that alone, but to accompany the prohibition—and as it can be and is, I believe, being accompanied—by the most complete and effective control of manufacture. Prohibition of export with complete control of manufacutre, can, I believe, effectively ensure that no heroin produced in this country can possibly contribute to the aggravation of this grave problem by which other countries are confronted. Our experience has shown that to deal effectively with the problem of addiction requires, first, complete and effective control of manufacture; second, sound police administration; and, third (and this is most important), stringent penalties.
My Lords, if I may quote for one moment from my own experience, let me tell you this. Many years ago it was my painful duty to send for the head of one of the most important and highly reputable firms in this country, a firm well known as manufacturers of alkaloids and hypnotics, and to produce to him evidence showing that because of laxity in the organisation under the control of his firm drugs produced under licence were being allowed to pass into illicit channels. And I told him that in those circumstances it would be the duty of His Majesty's Government to withdraw the authority under which that firm—very well known and highly reputable—had been for many years carrying on the manufacture of these drugs and exporting them in large quantities all over the world. The decision was accepted without a murmur because the facts were indisputable. I mention that only as an illustration of the kind of action that has

49
to be taken if the control of these drugs of addiction is to be made effective. That is the sort of line on which, in my humble opinion, other countries have to act. If we wish to show our sympathy, let us by all means not prohibit the manufacture, but prohibit and effectively stop the export to other countries which are not so favourably placed as we are in regard to the control and use of drugs of addiction. That is all I have to say. It gives me no pleasure to express disagreement with the view of a successor of mine at the Home Office, which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I have done so only because I felt that as a matter of duty I had to come here and give the House the result of my own experience.
4.54 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, it falls to my lot to be the first layman to address your Lordships in this debate. I am not an eminent lawyer; I am not an eminent doctor, and I am not an eminent administrator, as are those who have spoken before me. But in the course of an ordinary life as a man in the street—neither a very long nor a very short life—I have come across, as all your Lordships must have come across, many people of responsible thought and intelligence who have considered this matter: not merely doctors, surgeons and physicians, nurses and welfare workers, but others, people who have had direct or indirect experience of the use of heroin in desperate cases. In the cupboard in a doctor's surgery there are things in bottles and in tins which can subject one to sudden death, slow death, torture, or to the effects of a drug of addiction. So far as I am concerned. I have chosen my own medical adviser in the full knowledge that he has these things, and in the full confidence that he is at liberty to use them on me as and when he thinks fit. And I am very glad to think that he can do so
It has been said we have a great responsibility in the international, aspect of this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has touched on this. May I suggest that this international aspect is bilateral; and we should consider that if we are going into this particular obligation without the real support of the opinion of the people of this country—and it seems obvious that there is a great body of opinion against this ban—we may indeed damage that leading position
50
which we enjoy in the international sphere. I am not going to keep your Lordships long. I rose to speak merely because I felt it my duty to help to indicate that there is a strong division of opinion in this House and to show which side I take.
Answering the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, about a fortnight ago, Lord Mancroft, as your Lordships may remember, gave a very courteous (as usual) but completely negative answer to the Question raised by my noble friend Lord Elibank, which was virtually the same question as is being raised to-day. It may have been the result of a verbal infelicity—something to which few noble Lords are less prone than Lord Mancroft—but the answer had upon me a somewhat disturbing effect. The last part of the noble Viscount's Question was in these words:
"Whether in all the circumstances"—
that means all the things which we are discussing to-day—
"Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of appointing an ad hoc committee to inquire into the position and of postponing the operation of this ban pending tint committee's Report."
That was a modest request: the Government were asked only whether they would "consider the advisability." The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I admit did not say: "No, Her Majesty's Government will never consider even the advisability of appointing a committee," but it is a little disturbing that that might be the impression given by the noble Lord's Answer. I appeal to the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, to say that Her Majesty's Government will give some consideration, and I hope very sympathetic consideration, to the views which have been so forcefully expressed this afternoon.
4.58 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, we have to look at this matter from two points of view—the national and the international: we are faced with two conflicting loyalties. In making up our minds over this, there are only two questions that we should consider. The first is this: is there, in fact, no adequate substitute for heroin, and will hardship and pain be caused by its banning? The second is: does the manufacture of heroin for legitimate purposes in this country lead to its abuse, here or elsewhere?

51
Several noble Lords who have spoken today have been questioning whether Her Majesty's Government took the right advice in coming to the decision which they did. I would say that that question is not relevant here. It is important that Her Majesty's Government should consider whether they have, in fact, taken the right advice, and, if they find that they have not, that they should make the necessary alterations, so that, should another problem like heroin arise, the advice they get then will be right. What we have to consider now, however, is not whether the right people gave the advice but whether they gave the right answer, and whether Her Majesty's Government's decision on that answer was right.
Medical opinion is divided on this issue. The experts disagree, as your Lordships will have noted from the speeches of the eminent doctors who are Members of your Lordships' House. When two experts disagree, the layman who is accustomed to take their advice has three courses open to him. He can toss up a coin in order to decide between the two. He can consult a third expert—though when his opinion is obtained the position will be much the same. Or, thirdly, the layman can hear both points of view and make up his own mind. That is what we have to do this afternoon. That is why a question like this is a moral one, and not so much a technical one. Your Lordships must all consider it. It is the duty of all of us to make up our minds as to whether the Government's decision is right.
Medical opinion is divided. On December 3 there was an article in the Lancet, which is one of the chief supporters of the Government ban, entitled "Doing without Heroin." Under a sub-heading, "Alternatives," it gave a list of suitable alternatives for heroin which can be used under given conditions. Before coming to speak to your Lordships this afternoon I took the advice of several doctors, and I could have come here armed with a list of their answers to these alternatives, but your Lordships would have been left in exactly the same position as you were before: confronted with the opinion of one doctor against the opinion of another. It is enough to say that a considerable body of opinion disagrees with that article in the Lancet.
52
Giving one of the reasons why heroin is not a unique drug which we cannot do without, the article says:
"In his study of Good General Practice, Stephen Taylor lists the drugs carried in the bags of general practitioners: these included morphine, pethidine, compound tablets of codeine, papaveretum, and methadone, but heroin was not found in any of the bags examined."
It has been said in the Press and elsewhere that about one in five people are intolerant of morphine. I am advised that that is a slight exaggeration and that 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. would be a more conservative estimate. That gives a doctor who stocks his bag for emergencies only one in fifteen chances that in any given emergency a given patient will be intolerant of morphine. But that does not mean to say that the same doctor will not have a supply of heroin at very short notice in case it should be necessary.
I asked a well-known London general practitioner about the number of cases he had treated with heroin in the last year or so and he gave me details which I think I should give to your Lordships this afternoon to serve as an illustration. Last year this doctor had not treated any patient with heroin, but before that he had four cases at short intervals. The first case was of a man dying from cancer of the stomach who took a very long time to die. He was treated with morphine, not being intolerant of that drug, but the doses went up until eventually he had to be switched on to heroin and kept on heroin until he died, which was about three weeks later. The second case was of a man who had gallstone colic, which I am told is very painful. He was intolerant of morphine, treated with heroin while he was in pain from the disease, and eventually got better. The third man suffered from angina pectoris and was also intolerant of morphine. He had an attack of coronary thrombosis, was treated with heroin and recovered. That man is still alive to-day, but is dreading the possibility of another attack after heroin has been banned.
Those who support the ban suggest that one of the chief reasons why doctors want to keep heroin is because of its euphoric effect. I looked up "euphoria" in an ordinary dictionary and in a medical dictionary. The ordinary dictionary said: "ability to bear pain well." In the

53
medical dictionary, the definition was: "a feeling of well being not always justified by the circumstances." I suggest that euphoria combines both those conditions. It is just the feeling of well-being that drug addicts "go for" that is of such use to doctors. When a man is dying in great pain, it is not only an advantage to relieve the pain, it is also a great advantage to have the euphoric effect that only heroin can give. It is a great advantage to give the patient this feeling of wellbeing not justified by the circumstances.
Some doctors use heroin, some do not. Many of those who do not would be the last to interfere. The doctors and medical bodies who are for and against the ban have been quoted in your Lordships' House this afternoon, and I will only summarise them. The British Medical Association are fighting the ban as a body. Your Lordships will have received a circular from them, giving their three reasons, which have already been quoted. Many letters have been written to The Times, notably from the Royal Marsden, formerly the Royal Cancer Hospital, and from the Brompton Chest Hospital. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, gave a list of the teaching hospitals in London who are against the ban. I am informed that the chairmen of the medical committees of eleven out of twelve of the London teaching hospitals wrote to the Minister deploring the ban, after having taken the full advice of the medical staff.
I submit, and I think your Lordships will agree, that there is a large number—if not a majority, at least a big minority—of doctors who are against the ban. We are confronted with two different opinions and cannot call in medical opinion on which side to take because medical opinion is itself so divided. I think there is a reasonable doubt on both sides. There may be substitutes for heroin, but it is reasonable to assume that there may not be one. The noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, mentioned a reply given to a Question in another place. In a Question for written reply, an honourable member asked the Minister of Health what drug he would recommend to be used far heroin for those patients who cannot take morphia. The Minister replied [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 547, No. 73, col. 126]:
54
"It is not for me to recommend the use of any particular drug. The drug or drugs to be used must be decided by the patient's doctor."
That seems to me like going into a butcher's shop and taking away the butcher's meat axe. Then, when he asks what he is going to cut up the meat with, you turn to him and say, "You are the butcher. You ought to know; don't ask me."
My second question is this. Does the manufacture of heroin for legal purposes in this country lead to the abuse of it, here or elsewhere? Drug addiction is a terrible thing. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has given some details, and I should not wish to minimise the horror of it. There are fifty-four addicts in the United Kingdom and many more in the United States of America. A letter to The Times put the figure at 50,000, but I do not know how accurate that is. There are two ways in which the legal manufacture of heroin for legitimate purposes in this country could lead to addiction. The first is addiction as the result of the prescribing of heroin. I am advised that if the patient gets better, with care and moderation by the doctor it should not lead to addiction. If the patient dies, as has been said in your Lordships' House this afternoon and will no doubt be said again, what does it matter? Her Majesty's Government could perhaps tell us what percentage of the fifty-four addicts in this country became so after first having heroin prescribed by a doctor. The second way it could effect addiction is for supplies of legally made heroin to go astray and get into the wrong hands. The record in this country of the number of addicts shows that, if it is going astray in this country, it is not to a great extent. But if it is going astray at all, why cannot the precautions be tightened up?
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said that they would concede the point that heroin exports might be banned. Why should they? The safe guards for exporting heroin legally made in this country are colossal. Your Lordships may not have seen the second circular of the British Medical Association, which I do not think went to all Members of both Houses. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has already quoted the Articles of the 1931 Convention and the control exercised by the Home Office as the result of that. I will

55
not bother your Lordships by reading all the safeguards to prevent exported heroin from getting into the wrong hands, but they are considerable, and the final one, which the noble and learned Earl has already quoted, is:
"That the Government of the country where the heroin is received is responsible for its distribution."
It is possible to stop the open manufacture of heroin. What we need to stop is not the open, but the underground, manufacture of heroin. Will those who make it secretly and for nefarious purposes stop making heroin out of the goodness of their hearts, just because the open manufacture of heroin is banned? It is doubtful whether supplies made illegally in this country are exported, also illegally, to other countries where addiction is rife—but that is beside the point, because we are dealing only with the legal supplies. The Home Secretary, in a written reply in another place, reported that the proportion of heroin made in this country was 69 per cent. of the amount made in the world. This figure can only be a proportion of the heroin made openly; and surely a lot more is made that is not known and not accounted for. A noble Lord has already quoted the ships of Canada and America that have been stopped. There was an article in the Daily Telegraph of November 12 this year about that. The result of the ban in this country would mean that sufferers would not get heroin and the addicts would.
To sum up, there are one or two further points that could be considered. A large body, if not a majority, say that there is no substitute. From these people, who really earnestly believe that there is no substitute, we are taking one of their most potent weapons against disease and pain. Not only that, but another of the weapons of a doctor is variety: having put a patient on to one drug, after a while he takes him off that drug and puts him on another; it is the change that does a lot of good. For that reason, it is a pity to reduce the number of drugs even by one. It is the addict's own fault or stupidity that he gets into the fix he is in; a man gets cancer through no fault of his own. Legal manufacture does not seem to lead to abuse; clandestine manufacture would continue, and might even increase. We are asked to follow America.
56
Our record is so much better than that of America, that, as the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, has already said, rather let them study our methods.
We are asked to ban the drug because fifty countries have already done so and we, as supporters of the United Nations, must not lag behind or, as one correspondent of The Times put it, "pursue our proud and selfish way alone." Surely, this is no argument. If we are right to use heroin, then we are right, even though fifty countries say we are wrong. Let us get this quite straight. I suspect that the other countries are anxious for us to ban heroin not just for the good that our having the ban would do to ourselves. The name of this country in the world still carries a good deal of weight, and I suspect that the other countries hope that if we ban heroin still further, countries whose record of addiction and of drug traffic is not so good as ours will follow our example. If that is the case, it would be much better to say so openly. With only fifty-four addicts in this country, and with the safeguards that we already have, our own house is in order, unless it can be proved that heroin made legally in this country is getting into the wrong hands abroad. We are being asked to deprive those who really need heroin of its pain-relieving qualities, which there is good evidence to show may well be unequalled, merely in order to give moral support to America and other countries. That, if your Lordships will excuse the expression, is just not good enough.
5.17 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, my first duty on rising is to congratulate the noble Lord who has just spoken on his maiden speech, which is one of the best I have heard. I have to add, however, that I do not agree with a large number of his remarks, since I, being a doctor, am one of those who are particularly anxious that we should carry out this ban on heroin. Let me remind noble Lords that what we are really discussing to-day is whether we shall adhere to the decision of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations at its Eighteenth Session, which urged all Governments to prohibit the manufacture, import and export of diacetylmorphine—that is the medical name for heroin. Heroin has been medically used for

57
about fifty years and is recognised as the most dangerous of all drugs of addiction.
I will quote from an article in the British Medical Journal in January, 1949. That article was written some time ago, when there was no crisis in this matter, and it gives the opinion of the B.M.A. It states:
"The dangers of Heroin are well known. Addiction is acquired more rapidly than with any other drug; once acquired, the disorder progresses with greater speed and is marked by a more profound and disastrous moral degeneration than in any other addiction … In the light of these facts it is clearly the duty of the medical profession to examine again the therapeutic value of this substance and to weigh it against its social danger."
Further, the article goes on:
"Pharmacological opinion has long held that its social dangers overshadow its therapeutic importance. It must be granted there is justice in the Permanent Central Opium Board's claim—that of 'an a priori case for its total abolition'."
That was in 1949, and the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, which has been mentioned several times during the course of this debate, has remarked on it. I do not want to bore your Lordships with more recitations of statistics, but rather to point out some of the matters which are more immediately necessary fart us to consider—for instance, the comparison between morphia and morphine and heroin. And to quote from Martindale's Extra Pharmacopœia, morphine or some related drug can always be used as effectively as heroin. Since 1931, the profession has been deprived of heroin in sonic twenty-six countries. Opinion has long been held that its social dangers overshadow its therapeutic importance. That, I think, is an important issue. I also want to quote the opinion of the British Medical Journal on this claim. The Journal stated:
"It must be granted there is justice in the Permanent Central Opium Board claim of art a priori case for its total abolition."
that is, the total abolition of the use of heroin.
We are confronted with a complicated problem. We have had examples of it to-day. There is a conflict of opinion arid difficulty of administration. But the B.M.A., to which I belong, like, I suppose, almost all other doctors in the country, has changed its opinion on this matter a number of times. Since 1949 it has issued various communiqués to the
58
Press. I am not going to read them all, and I am not going even to read the last one; I will merely point out that they have all had their different opinions at different times and that they by no means coincide. For many years heroin addiction, fed by a widespread international illicit traffic, has been a grave social problem in a number of countries, though not in this country, because of good administration. We are not concerned now only with good administration for ourselves. The human race does not stop at the cliffs of Dover. We are dealing with an effort made by the United Nations to ban heroin for the benefit of the world as a whole; and that, I think, is a very important matter. We must no: take the narrow view and talk about whether it will influence this or that part of the country. We are fortunate in our administration, and for heaven's sake let us be willing to join an organisation which will ensure that that kind of administration is spread more widely in the world than it is at the present time.
EARL HOWE: May I ask whether, if the noble Lord were dying of cancer, he would say the same thing?
LORD HADEN-GUEST: Yes, certainly. I have been on the field of battle and not been afraid there, and I shall not be afraid if I die of cancer on a bed. I should not complain and ask for heroin—very definitely not.
There has been too much sobbing about death by cancer—I speak at the moment as a doctor. Let me say that I have never used heroin in my life. I have not been careless with my patients. I have had a large practice, and I have relieved pain—because a doctor does not always need drugs to relieve pain. It is possible, by sensible advice and by management of the patient, with a little assistance from some harmless drug which will not cause addiction or any adverse effects, to get him into such a state of mind that the pain goes from him. I think there is too much "sob-stuff," if I may say so, about this business of the relief of pain in the last stages of cancer. I know from personal experience that many people do complain. The large mass of people do not need to complain because their ordinary doctor, the panel doctor, the man who comes when they send a message round, is able to relieve them in some

59
other way than by using heroin or some similarly powerful drug. There are many other kinds of drug which relieve pain, but it is not always necessary to use them; you can sometimes do that better by other means.
I speak like this with some heat and vehemence—I am quite aware of that—because I feel that we have got into an artificial atmosphere about this heroin business, as though heroin were the only thing which could ease pain. It is perfectly ridiculous. Do you suppose we had heroin in the First World War when we were fighting in France? Do you suppose we had it in the Second World War? We might have had it then, but I never used it and never had it, although I was there as a doctor. Do you think the ordinary soldier requires these things? He does not: and he does not expect them. A member of your Lordships' House—he is not here now—and I met for the first time on a famous battlefield in Flanders in the First World War. He and I often exchange reminiscences of the things that went on there, the times we had and the tasks men were called upon to carry out. Some people always seem to be trying to find something which they can get by hypodermic syringe or by some bottle of medicine—something to relieve pain—when what they really want is what one might call a change of heart, to look at life more sensibly and to look at life without fearing and without cowardice. I think that would be a great thing. In fact, in my experience, that is the way in which most people do look at life.
I hope we are not going to be led away by any cries asking that we should upset the Government's arrangements for the banning of heroin on a world scale—we are not thinking of ourselves; we are thinking of the world as a whole—because some people regard it as absolutely necessary that a few people should have relief from pain. I honestly believe that in 99 per cent. of cases that relief can be obtained without the use of heroin. Heroin is a good thing for some people, but it is a very bad thing for others. In fact, by a fortnight's use of heroin a man can become an addict and go down to an abyss of degeneration, moral and physical. That is merely a medical fact; it will be found in the medical textbooks.
LORD TEVIOT: But not here.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: Perhaps you will not find it here, but I am not talking about that: I am talking about the effect of this drug on people. I do not suppose anybody here is a heroin addict. If there is such a person I wish he would let me know about it. I should be very interested to meet him, because I have never yet met one.
I did not want to be led into that diversion. I wanted to say that I believe that for many years heroin addiction, fed by widespread international illicit traffic, has been a grave social problem in a number of countries, including the United States and Canada. It is the United States which is particularly asking us at the present time to join her in making this a universal ban in the world as a whole through the United Nations Organisation. There is a great deal of addiction in the U.S.A. and Canada. It is recognised by competent authorities (by this Conference for the Limitation of the Manufacture of Narcotic Drugs) that the proportion of heroin addiction in many parts of the world is appalling. I underlined that in my brief, because that is the way it is written in the document from which I took it. After the last world war, it was recognised that heroin addiction and illicit traffic in heroin were still a serious and world-wide problem, and the international bodies chiefly concerned—namely, the Permanent Central Opium Board, the Drug Supervisory Board and the World Health Organisation—were once again compelled to give special attention to it.
In 1950, the World Health Organisation, in common with the Permanent Central Opium Board and the Drug Supervisory Board, circularised its members asking Governments for their views and those of the medical profession. In this country the Minister of Health consulted the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, and one result of this consultation was that the British Pharmacopœia Commission agreed to delete the monograph on heroin from the British Pharmacopœia, so that it is no longer an official drug in the sense of its being included in the British Pharmacopœia. This was done in 1953. The results of the replies to the World Health Organisation circular from sixty-three of eighty-two countries to which it was sent—that is to say, the letter asking them to join in a world organisation in

61
which heroin should be banned—showed that fifty-four countries expressed the view that heroin could be given up. Nine countries expressed the opposite view. Of nineteen others who did not reply, it appeared that eleven (including the U.S.S.R., Poland and Bulgaria) had either prohibited heroin or ceased to use it in practice. From information reaching the Permanent Central Opium Board and the United Nations it appeared that illicit traffic in heroin was continuing on an appalling scale. In 1953, the World Health Organisation Assembly considered that heroin was not irreplaceable and recommended member States to abolish the production and importation of the drug—with which view, incidentally, an article in the British Medical Journal of July 25, 1953, agreed. It was admitted that an organisation for the retention of the heroin was not necessary.
In 1954, the Special Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the United States agreed by a large majority to submit a resolution to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations urging Governments to prohibit the production and import of the drug. It is now recognised by practically all Governments in the world that the struggle against narcotic drugs is essentially an international problem—I recommend that to the notice of some noble Lords opposite—and cannot be solved at the purely national level. Unfortunately, the illicit traffic in heroin is particularly lucrative. An ounce of the pure drug, costing very little in the lawful trade, may bring in anything from 8,000 to 10,000 dollars in North. America—that is, Canada and the United States. When broken down into capsules and diluted or adulterated, which is the usual way in which it is sold, the drug can be sold at a still greater profit. The illicit traffic in the world seems to be continuing, and will continue. The United States want a world-wide banning of heroin, and Canada has recently agreed to this.
The heroin manufactured here is made under strict supervision to see that it is not directed into illicit channels, and is exported only under stringent safeguards. It is not enough, I feel, merely to impose a ban of that kind. Owing to the fact that this country manufactures over 70 per cent. of the total of heroin, it is an obvious target. Thefts of heroin occur,
62
and last year in this country there was a serious theft. The only solution is a world ban on heroin. I trust that this House will agree to take steps to ban it and that the matter will be dealt with as an urgent matter and not as one which can be put off.
I regret that I have spoken more vehemently than I intended, but from long and practical experience as a doctor I feel bitterly on this matter. I believe that the majority of doctors do not use heroin. I myself have never used it. I have rarely used morphia. Whenever I have, I have always been careful about the care of the patients afterwards to see that they did not become addicts. Most doctors behave in that kind of way. They are men who make reasonable incomes now in present circumstances, but they are not, as a rule, men who become very wealthy. They live in the middle group between those who are poor and those who are wealthy. They are ordinary workers trying to do a good job in the world. One of the things they are trying to do is to protect their patients against the debaucheries of heroin and the frightful indignities that can become the lot of anyone who gives way to drugs, in the taking of which heroin is perhaps the worst.
5.38 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord who has just sat down shocked me greatly, as I think he did some other noble Lords, when he referred to the First World War and the fact that we had not heroin then. All I can say is that he should have seen some of the things that I saw in the dressing stations and the forward hospitals in the First World War. I wish to Heaven that we had had heroin to help us then
LORD HADEN-GUEST: May I say that I was in charge of not only a dressing-station but also a whole series of hospitals in France in the First World War.
LORD TEVIOT: At any rate, the noble Lord cannot possibly have seen what I saw. Perhaps I was nearer the front line than lie was and therefore saw things that he did not see until after the patient had gone. Like many others of your lordships, I have been connected with hospitals and with the health of people for many years, and still am. I find that noble Lords, with one exception, who is

63
a little bit of a "wobbler," agree with the Motion that was so ably moved by the noble and learned Earl. I shall be brief because there are many others who wish to speak, but, before I begin to say what I wish to, I must congratulate the noble Lord behind me on his able and well constructed speech. Although he did not say so, I believe it was a maiden speech; it was on the List as such and I took it that it was. I hope we shall often hear him again.
I want to ask one or two pertinent questions that have not been touched upon to-day. I put this to the noble Lords who are in the medical profession. As a layman, I can conceive a patient to be inoperable. What I mean is that he cannot be operated on, and yet, with treatment and with a certain amount of heroin, life may be made bearable. I understand that that is so, and that, as at present known, no other drug will do that except heroin. The noble Lord opposite was talking about "sob stuff" about heroin and cancer. My view is, that there has been a great deal too much talk about addiction and not nearly enough about how we can help those who are suffering from cancer and other painful diseases by the careful use of heroin. This raises the most interesting question. We are told on the best authority, that together with other drugs, morphine can be used with the same effect as heroin. Does it not immediately occur to a logical mind that if I am an addict to heroin, and I hear that heroin is going to be unprocurable and that there is some other drug that does the same thing, I shall do everything I can to find out that combination of morphine and other drugs and try it?
LORD HADEN-GUEST: Very likely, I should think.
LORD TEVIOT: That is a question which must be seriously looked into. We all know what prohibition means; we have seen evidence of it with regard to alcohol in the United States—it produced there more drunkenness than ever before. It appears that in the twenty years since this ban was placed on heroin in the United States, there has been an enormous increase in addiction. My Lords, these are facts; we cannot get away from them. They were explained most carefully by the noble and learned Earl in his able speech
64
on the Resolution. I do not know whether other noble Lords have heard this, but I am told that the United States are seriously considering withdrawing the ban, for the reason that it has not had the effect that was hoped. One of the drugs that I am told is going to be used —I cannot say whether it will be with morphine or without it—is a drug called codeine. I have had that drug. Never again will I have it! It is a most ghastly thing, and I warn your Lordships that if anyone comes along and wants to give you codeine, for goodness sake say "No, thank you; I will take anything but that." It had the most horrible effect upon me.
I hate making a speech in which I am going to repeat what other people have said, and I am nearly at the end of what I have to say. Judging from the experiences we have all had, the undoubted effect of the ban will be that a black market will immediately start. Just think of the shocking effect that that will have on the morale of the country generally. It means that we shall be encouraging people to break the law. These are matters which I should like the Minister to study. I cannot see how anybody who has ever sat at the bedside of one who is suffering appalling agony can take the responsibility of not using anything to alleviate that pain. I think the Minister has a terrific responsibility in this matter. So far as I am concerned, I am going to see to it that my physician gets some heroin to keep for me and my family in case of need in the future, because I do not want to find myself in the course of a year or so in such a parlous state as has been described by noble Lords to-day and not be able to get hold of the one thing that will help me in my distress.
The trouble is there has been a frightful abuse of heroin and everything connected with it by other nations of the world. If we do what is now suggested and come to definite arrangements with these other nations, are we quite sure that they will carry out those arrangements as we have in the past, with the excellent results that we have achieved? These are questions which require far more investigation than has, I think, been given up to date. I have already apologised to my noble friend who is to reply for the fact that I shall have to leave—if I do not go soon, I shall never get home tonight—but I hope that the few remarks

65
that I have made will be given further consideration, and that the House will accept the Resolution moved so ably by the noble and learned Earl.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): The noble Lord will not mind my replying to him in his absence?
LORD TEVIOT: No, not at all. I hope the noble Viscount will reply and say any hard things he likes about anything I have said.
5.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am sure that those of us who are against this ban will be grateful to the noble Lord who has just sat clown for his practical speech, although we must deplore the fact that he is leaving the House and may not be with us should this Resolution be carried to the Division Lobby. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has reminded your Lordships, I launched the campaign against this ban in the month of April, and I am most grateful to the noble aid learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, for having advanced my campaign to the stage of putting clown this Resolution and moving it to-day, as we must all agree, in the most admirable, eloquent and concise terms.
Most of the speeches that have bean made for the ban have been answered in advance by the noble and learned Earl who moved this Resolution, so I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time this evening. But, in the first place, before I pass to the main points, I should say something with regard to the remarks that have fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest. The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, asked a supplementary question following upon my first Question in this House on April 27. He said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 192, col. 596):
"May I ask whether it is not a fact that the whole medical profession, so far as it is possible to ascertain, is behind this Order?"
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, jumped in and said:
"The information available to me is the same as that available to the noble Lord—namely, that the vast weight of the evidence is in favour of this; move."
I notice that, as time marched on, the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, became somewhat tempered. When again, on December 1, I put a
66
Question in relation to this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, once more rose in his place and asked whether it was not the case that the bulk of the best medical opinion in this country was in favour of a ban on heroin at the present time. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft having, if I may say so, with great respect, learned a little caution in the intervening months, answered that question by saying that although the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, commanded a certain respect, his view was controverted by others.
LORD MANCROFT: Will the noble Lord forgive me if I interrupt? It was not caution that I had learned in the intervening months, but merely that I had had the advantage of seeing evidence which had not been seen by myself or anybody else when I made my original statement.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords. what evidence had the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, when he made his original statement that the information available to him was the same as that available to the noble Lord: namely, that the vast weight of evidence was in favour of the ban?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, we had then had nothing like the volume of opposition to the ban that we have now had and of which we have learned in the intervening period. I am not going to make my speech again, but we were entitled to think that we were correct in what we then said.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, on what evidence? I do not want to raise any point on this matter, but the noble Lord has put it to me that I was not correct in my statement. The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, asked if it was a fact that the whole medical profession, so far as it was possible to ascertain the facts, was behind the ban. I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, why, instead of saying that he was not aware of the facts or was not able to say whether the whole of the profession was or was not in favour of or behind the ban, he said that the information available to him was the same as that available; to the noble Lord and that the vast weight of evidence was in favour of the move. We will leave it at that. I am

67
not going to give away my point, and apparently the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, is not prepared to give away his.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, that in this matter Her Majesty's Government are very largely dependent on public opinion, and quite rightly so. All Governments are swayed by public opinion; it is the essence of our Parliamentary system that public opinion should govern the decisions, motives and actions of Parliament. It is all the more important, therefore, that public opinion should be well and wisely guided and should never receive, especially from your Lordships' House, any information that might help to blur the picture of the pros and cons of any controversy that might arise in Parliament. Since I have engaged in this controversy I have had numerous Press cuttings, as no doubt have other noble Lords, giving reports by many of the newspapers of this country of the proceedings in your Lordships' House. In those reports particular prominence has been given to the questions and answers given in this House and to other matters relating to this controversy. In every one of these reports that I have seen the question was put in a form suggesting that it was the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, that the bulk of the best medical opinion in this country is in favour of a ban on heroin at the present time.
That statement was made on December 1, as a supplementary question, following an Answer to a Question which I had put. By that time it was quite clear, and this debate to-day has demonstrated more clearly, that there was, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, admitted to me on that day, a distinct cleavage of medical opinion on this subject. I suggest that it did not lie in the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, on December 1, to say that the bulk of the best medical opinion in this country is in favour of a ban on heroin at the present time; nor has he said today from that Bench that the majority of medical practitioners in this country are in favour of this ban. It is very regrettable that the noble Lord in his remarks on December 1 let a statement go out from your Lordships' House to a public which was necessarily ignorant on the pros and cons of this matter, that
68
the bulk of the best medical opinion in this country is in favour of the ban; that is, unless he was prepared to prove it.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, may I say that that is still my opinion.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: That does not lessen the fact that I consider it was most regrettable that he should have made that statement.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said on April 27. I launched this campaign and have had a pretty good run, as I think the noble Lord will now admit. I do not propose to-night to say more than a few words to bring out some of the more substantial points made by various noble Lords who are opposed to this ban. The ground was so adequately covered by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that there remains little more to be said, but a remark by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, deserves emphasis. He put it in the form of a question to Her Majesty's Government, but I propose to put that question again in the hope that Her Majesty's Government may be able to answer it. The noble Viscount asked: what possible good is the banning of the manufacture of heroin to any other country? That point has not been answered. It was not answered by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, yet it emphasises and irons out the whole case against Her Majesty's Government in relation to this ban.
A number of questions were put to the Home Secretary in another place, and in answering those questions he said that, whatever decision was taken, he was bound to say he could never see any unanimity on it. The Government had to impose the ban in order to help the international situation. The Home Secretary said he was simple enough to believe that if many countries thought that a ban on heroin was a good thing to help to abolish the scourge, a contribution by Britain would help in some way towards it. On the export figures given by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, tonight, I suggest that such exports can do nothing to help the United States or the other countries named in any problems of addiction or other difficulties which they have in relation to this subject. Will the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton,

69
who is to answer for Her Majesty's Government give a specific answer to the question put to him by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley? I ask again, what possible use is the banning of the manufacture of heroin in this country to any other country? I was very much interested to hear the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, say that, if and when this ban is put into operation, supplies will not cease at once. I wonder what he had in mind in saying that. Is that a sop to those who oppose the ban. Is it not really an admission that the ban ought not to be put on?
LORD MANCROFT: No.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Lord, or the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, who I understand is going to reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, say what was meant by that? I think it is a direct admission that in putting on this ban they are imposing it for some reason far from those which affect the patient and the doctor in this country, and which has no relation at all to the sufferings which many patients have been undergoing. I am not going to enter again, as I did the other day, into the relative merits of the substitutes which the noble Lord cited in answer to a question. Nor am I going to ask him who advised him when those substitutes were named. All I know is that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, has said—he has said that he has never used heroin and that a large number of other doctors have not used heroin, which may possibly be true—it is common knowledge that there is a large number of doctors who use heroin to-day. It was used on me over fifty times in a few weeks. According to Lord Haden-Guest, I ought to be a drug addict. He said so.
I have a quotation here from the Evening Dispatch, Edinburgh, dated December 3, containing something which I think must have come from a similar source. The writer says:
"One doctor who backs the Government's ban explained to me"—
this means that the explanation was given to the correspondent of the Evening Dispatch—
"what he considers is the real menace of heroin. If a patient were treated with it even for as short a time as a fortnight, he said,"—
70
your Lordships will note, a fortnight. That was what the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, said, so I presume that this explanation comes from the same source—
"then the patient would almost certainly become a life-long heroin addict. Because of this he has never used heroin."
For some four or five weeks I had some fifty injections of heroin. I do not feel an addict.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: Congratulations!
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: There may be noble Lords, for all I know, who may have had heroin and upon whom it reacted adversely. But that is not an answer. Nor, indeed, am I putting up my case as an argument one way or another against the introduction of this ban. My case is that, as the Government have admitted, there is a distinct cleavage of medical opinion on this subject, and that in imposing this ban they are, as I said in a supplementary question on December 1, ordering doctors to use drugs which, in their opinion, constitute no satisfactory substitute for heroin.
Yesterday, in another place, the Minister of Health—upon whom, of course, rests the principal responsibility in this matter in the advice he has given to the Government—in a written reply to the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 547, No 73, col. 126]:
"If any particular drug is not available it must obviously be for each patient's doctor to decide what alternative method of treatment is best suited to any individual."
What does that mean? Surely it means this: that, by order of the Government, when and if this ban comes into operation, those physicians who are satisfied with heroin as a means of relieving the terrible agony of their patients—sometimes in cases of lingering cancer, if that is a correct term—are to experiment on their patients. That must be so. They are satisfied now with the use of heroin, and they are told that it would obviously be for those doctors to decide what alternative method of treatment is best suited to any individual. That is what these physicians, when heroin eventually ceases to be available, will have to do, although Lord Mancroft has said that the supply will go on. When heroin ceases to be a drug which these physicians can obtain

71
they will then have to conduct experiments on their suffering patients in order to find out what particular one of these substitutes suits their patients best.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry, but I really must interrupt the noble Viscount here. I have not taken any part in this debate hitherto, but I must say that I think it is a monstrous suggestion—the suggesion which the noble Viscount has made that doctors should be asked to experiment on their patients. If the noble Viscount listened to the speech of Lord Moran, who read from an important article in the Lancet, he would know that these new conjunctions of drugs have been known and experimented with already and approved of by the great body of medical opinion. I am not saying that they are better than heroin—I am not entering into that. But that it should go out from this House that the Government were asking doctors to experiment on their patients with hitherto unknown drugs is to my mind a monstrous suggestion.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: With great respect to the noble Marquess, I said that that was going to be the effect of the Government's action in putting on this ban. If I said anything to suggest that the Government were going to experiment, I withdraw that at once.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must get this right. Suppose a doctor had never used aspirin before and he was suddenly given no alternative to using aspirin. Would it then be said that he was asked to experiment on his patients? He would not be doing so.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If the supply of aspirin suddenly dried up and a doctor was unable to obtain any, he would have to experiment with other substances in order to discover which was the best substitute. If anything I have said suggests that the Government is ordering doctors to experiment, I certainly withdraw it. I think it is a perfectly fair thing to say, though, that if a doctor, say, for example, my doctor in Edinburgh who treated me, is deprived of heroin (with which, as I know, to this day he is treating his patients. and he is hot against this ban), he must experiment on his patients to find out which of these alleged substitutes is effective. He says only that they are
72
"alleged" substitutes—that is the cleavance of opinion on this matter. There is a distinct cleavage of opinion about whether the substitutes are adequate and effective. The only thing that Doctor A. B. Flett can do is to experiment on the patient to see which of these alleged substitutes react in a favourable manner. That is what it amounts to and nothing more.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not want to misrepresent the noble Viscount, but actually the impression of his words on the public mind would be that it is a pure experiment not tried before. It is not true to say that it is a treatment never tried before. One only has to read the Lancet to find out what is the position. It is not an experiment, in the sense in which the public will understand that word.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If the noble Marquess will forgive me, as between a doctor and his patient, it is an experiment. A doctor does not prescribe a particular drug in a particular case, just as one might give someone a bottle of port at dinner to-night. He knows his own patient and he must discover what is best to prescribe. It is a matter of experiment, and I am not withdrawing that statement. There is a difference of opinion on this matter. Sonic noble Lords have got up here to-night and said one thing, and others have said another. There are a great many practitioners who say that heroin is what they use in order to relieve suffering. It may be that in some cases they use other things, but if they are deprived of heroin there is only one thing they can do, and that is to experiment. If the noble Marquess does not like the use of the word, I will accept any other that is suitable; but that is what they do.
That is all I want to say, except that I am going to join with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in asking the Government to delay this ban; in other words, I am going to ask them to change their minds. That would not be a very wonderful thing for them to do. Governments have changed their minds before. Once before the war I made my own Government change their minds overnight by reducing to 20 the normal Liberal majority of about 100; that was when my friend Mr. Charles Lyell was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Mr. Asquith and I was Parliamentary Private

73
Secretary to Sir Edward Grey. Parliamentary Private Secretaries were not mere "hangers-on" in those days. The present Government have recently changed their minds over the V.1,000 and over the brooms, brushes and mops excluded from purchase tax. In view of the great conflict of opinion on this matter among medical men, I am going to ask the Government, in all seriousness, whether they will change their minds and delay the operation of this ban.
6.15 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the one point which I think will be universally admitted in this debate is the great importance of the subject we are discussing. There is no doubt at all in the mind of anyone who has heard the debate of the strength and sincerity of feeling on both sides. For my own part I can be shorter than I should otherwise have been on account of the admirable speech by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, with which he opened this debate. I think we had consulted independently some of the same documents, and he took, much more effectively than I could, many of the same points. I would say at the outset, as he said, that no-one who has studied this subject doubts for a moment the complete bona fides of all the Ministers who have concerned themselves with this matter. It seems to me that the questions we have to consider fall into two classes, questions of fact and questions of principle. On both there are acute differences of opinion and on the second the lay man is hound no less than the medical expert to reach his own conclusion. I admit that I am a complete layman, but what the doctors have said arid written I have studied with the greater sympathy, because for four of my years in the House of Commons I had the honour of representing more doctors than any other Member, with one exception.
The questions of fact on which there is a difference are the value of heroin as a drug and the utility of the proposed ban. On the value of heroin, there is, as is obvious, the most acute difference of opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, has expressed his low opinion of the drug. As against that, we have the emphatic opinion of the late Lord Horder, which was quoted by the noble and learned Earl, a quotation that I need not repeat. Nor shall I cite the various letters which the noble and learned Earl
74
pleaded in aid. I would say that, of all the long correspondence in The Times, the letter which most completely expressed what I should wish to express was that from Sir Francis Walshe, which was also mentioned by the noble and learned Earl. I will not repeat any of the arguments put forward in this correspondence by those who are opposed to the ban. I must confess that my own objection to the ban was immensely strengthened by those who wrote to support it. Those who wrote to support the ban seemed to me to produce even more convincing arguments against it than the others.
I have here the letter, which has already been mentioned in this debate, by Dr. Walker, of Cambridge. The noble and learned Earl gave a quotation, including the final words, "whether we pursue our proud and selfish way alone." The noble and learned Earl said that it was a curious use of the word "selfish," but I say that it is also a remarkable admission, because it is only selfish if what we are trying to retain is a drug of great value. The word becomes quite meaningless if the drug is as bad as the writer urges through most of his letter. May I quote another passage from his letter, a passage in which he criticises the special correspondent of The Times newspaper? Dr. Walker says that he detected in his articles some traces of "emotional overlay." Then these are his words, which I ask your Lordships to observe:
"He"—
that is, The Times correspondent—
"seems to imply that those hospitals who have laid in a supply of heroin have somehow thwarted the Government, whereas I have no doubt the Government will be very pleased with their foresight, provided that they keep their supplies under lock and key."
Why on earth should the Government rejoice in the foresight of the hospitals in laying in a stock of a drug which is thought so undesirable that its manufacture ought to be stopped? With permission, I leave Dr. Walker.
Let me come to the other most remarkable letter from a distinguished surgeon which appeared in The Times. The letter I refer to is that from Sir Stanford Cade, which contains this phrase:
"… patients influenced by the euphoric effects of the drug, and hence their dislike of substitutes."
In other words, it makes them happy, and the others do not, and therefore it ought to be denied to the dying. I confess that

75
the argument and its force escape me. I understand that "euphoria" is an abnormal or exaggerated sense of wellbeing; pain ceases to matter, because the patient becomes indifferent to it. I should have thought that that was extremely desirable to somebody dying of an agonising disease. Many noble Lords have mentioned, and quite rightly, the case of cancer, but I would say, in passing, that the appalling pain that can be caused by gangrene also merits mention in this connection. I suggest to noble Lords that this drug may be desirable not only to alleviate the appalling sufferings of the dying, but sometimes, through euphoria, to maintain the morale of the living during a painful disease long enough for the medical adviser to give treatment as a result of which the patient may survive.
I have spoken, as I thought it my duty to do, to a distinguished doctor in preparation for this debate. He says that he knows in his own experience of several cases where the survival of the patient has been due to drug-induced euphoria. Of course, in such cases the greatest care must be taken by the doctor not to cause addiction; but there is no evidence that the legitimate use of heroin for patients in extreme pain leads to addiction. Many of us have had experience of this among some of our closest relations and friends. The case I know best is that of a patient who, after an operation, had pain entirely relieved by this drug, who completely recovered and who has never wanted or suggested another dose.
Drug addicts are almost invariably recruited from persons of nervous instability. I suggest to the House that we should be more accurate in speaking of "persons of addiction" rather than of "drugs of addiction." What evidence is there that the prohibition of manufacture here will do the slightest good elsewhere? Here I had a series of questions that I had intended to put to Her Majesty's Government, and I refrain from doing so for one reason only: that the case on this point was put so devastatingly, and out of his experience, by my noble friend Lord Waverley. Have the Government any evidence at all that the legal manufacture here has been getting into the illicit trade? If so, will they produce that evidence? For the reasons I have given, on the two questions of fact, I cannot disregard the evidence, first, that, in the
76
opinion of many well qualified to judge, heroin is a valuable drug with legitimate uses; and, secondly, that no satisfactory evidence has yet been published to show that the proposed ban on manufacture here will diminish addiction anywhere.
I turn from the two disputed questions of fact to the question of principle: should the State prohibit the manufacture, and therefore eventually the use, of a drug which many highly qualified people think of the highest value? I agree with my noble friend Lord Waverley in thinking that the answer to that is "No"; but I am quite certain that it is "No" until at least the considered opinion of the profession on the medical aspect has been obtained. I cannot believe that it has been obtained by consulting the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, though I agree that that is a most distinguished body. We know from the published letters of the supporters of the ban that its members have been asked to speak and act as individuals, and do not even disclose (I think) to outside bodies the proceedings of the Committee; and also it appears that they did not conceive that they were being asked to pronounce on the medical question of the value of the drug, but on a choice of social values.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I am sorry, but I must interrupt. I am sure the noble Lord would not like to mislead the House. That is not a fact.
LORD CONESFORD: I am glad to be corrected, because I do want to get this matter right. The opinion of the learned Presidents of the Colleges that appeared in The Times did at any rate sum up what they regarded as their first question in these words:
"Is heroin indispensable?"
With all respect, I agree with the noble and learned Earl. Lord Jowitt, and my noble friend Lord Waverley, that that is not really the right question. The question is not: "is heroin indispensable?" but "Is heroin a drug of great value; and, if so, is the prohibition of its manufacture indispensable in order to secure some other great good?" On that mainly medical question I do not think the best medical advice has yet been obtained. On this matter I adopt as part of my argument, if I may, both the written and the spoken words of the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, in The Times and in this

77
House this afternoon. As Sir Francis Walshe has asked, why has the Royal College of Physicians sitting in its quarterly comitia never been invited to place its considered view at its President's disposal? Would not the President of the Royal College of Physicians like to know the considered view of that important body? I beg the Government to reconsider their decision, even at the eleventh hour, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, has pleaded, to consult at least the Royal Colleges and the British Medical Association before taking this unprecedented step.
6.29 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not ask for your Lordships' indulgence for more than a few moments, but I feel impelled to support the Motion of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, as I think the action of the Government in banning the manufacture of heroin raises two important questions of principle. The first is that of freedom. This is the first time in our history, I believe, that a Government have stopped a doctor from using an established drug. It seems to me that a dangerous precedent is being created here if the State is to he allowed to interfere in this way in the relationship between a doctor and his patient. Where will it end? One of our leading chest specialists said to me yesterday that, if this principle of interference is allowed, it may not be long before some future Government will be dictating to the doctors exactly what medicines they are, or are not, to use.
I have discussed this ban with several members of the medical profession. There is a definite cleavage of opinion, as has been evident from the speeches in this debate. But all the doctors with whom I discussed this matter were unanimous about one point; and that is that the decision to use a particular drug should be left to the discretion of the doctor. That was felt very strongly by one of our leading chest surgeons with whom I discussed this point yesterday, although he told me that he himself never used heroin. But he felt very strongly as a matter of principle on this question of interference.
The second principle is an ethical one. It seems to me that our modern State, with its high ideals and deep humanity,
78
sometimes allows its attempt at criminal reform to take place at the expense of the innocent. We appear at times to be more concerned with the one bad apple in the pile than with all the good ones. In this case, it seems that far more concern is being shown for the small number of potential drug addicts than for the, many honest, decent, innocent people struck down by fate, suffering intolerably from some incurable disease, who will now be deprived of this drug for which, in the opinion of many doctors, there is, no adequate substitute. Whether this is, right or wrong must he left to a higher Judge.
6.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House long at this hour, but I want to rise in support of my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt. I claim no pretence to any special knowledge of either drugs or medicine, but I think anyone who has been in contact with the suffering of the dying will be very reluctant to agree to the withholding of any relief to people who are so suffering. Certain points have emerged from this debate. There seems to be no doubt that heroin is a powerful and great reliever of pain. What is in doubt is whether there is any fitting substitute for it. That is really the point at issue, and I was surprised that there should be this big cleavage of medical opinion. I went to see some surgeons and practitioners who are actually operating on cancer cases and who come up against this problem very decidedly. I thought that was the best way of deciding the issue in my own mind. Practically unanimously they were of the opinion that there was no adequate substitute yet discovered which would fill the function which heroin can perform.
I think this is a fair solution of this problem of difference of opinion. They said to me "After all, medicine is a very wide subject." We all know to our cost the different illnesses to which the human body is prone. You may be a very eminent doctor; you may have a very wide practice and deal with all sides of medicine and yet never come up against particular cases which can be dealt with only by heroin. Hence, if you are of that type, you may well believe that heroin is unnecessary. But if you come up against the intractable cases, then the opinion

79
naturally is to demand and insist upon this drug.
There are two points we ought to remember. One is that although relief in extreme cases of the dying is one of the most important uses of this drug, there are many operations where it is essential, such as in chest operations if a cough or hemorrhage has to be stopped, and in certain abdominal operations, where heroin is the only drug so far known that will do. The great point against morphine, which is the second most used drug of that kind, is that a certain small percentage of cases—a percentage almost impossible to determine, but which has been estimated, I understand, at between 10 and 15 per cent. —cannot take morphia. It produces unpleasant symptoms, including violent vomiting, and the symptoms are worse than the actual pain which it sets out to alleviate. So it is possible for a doctor to treat many cases satisfactorily with morphia, never having come up against that minority, and yet it is that minority which I think we must consider in this very important question. I put to my doctors the alternatives suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—methadine, levorphan, pethadine, and so forth. Their opinion was that they were nothing like as effective in those cases. Although it is true to say that many, if I may use the word, "experiments" have been made in combining drugs, such as using morphine with dromomine and some of the anti-seasick drugs, nothing has been discovered which is as efficient. I must say that this view is supported by apparently strong feeling in the British Medical Association.
The second point which surprised me was why the British Medical Association were not consulted. Sometime ago I had some connection with agriculture, and whenever we had some new development or we had to ban some fertiliser from abroad, the first thing we would do would be to go to the National Farmers' Union, who were the people who understood the land and who knew the effects the farmer would suffer if we did what we proposed. Surely, in this case the obvious thing was for the Government to consult the Royal College of Surgeons and the British Medical Association. I still do not understand why that was not done, unless—and I hesitate to suggest this—the
80
Government were really aware of the view of the British Medical Association and thought it would be more convenient not to consult them.
LORD MANCROFT: That is quite contrary to the facts. I thought I made it clear that the Science Committee of the British Medical Association was in favour.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The Science Committee may have been, but not the General Committee, the Council. I have a document which I dare say many noble Lords have, issued by the British Medical Association, in which it asserts—I presume this is true—that the British Medical Council passed a resolution in reply to an inquiry from the World Medical Association. This is the resolution which was passed:
"That the World Medical Organisation be informed that it is the duty of the Government to legislate against the misuse of heroin but the medical profession should not in any way be deprived of the use of this or any other drug which may assist in the treatment of patients."
I imagine that the Government must have known of that resolution. It is surprising that the Minister of Health—
LORD MANCROFT: I explained this at great length to the noble Earl, and if he will do me the courtesy of reading my explanation again to-morrow, he will sec that all the questions he is asking were answered by me then.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If I have misunderstood the noble Lord, I apologise. I will certainly read his speech to-morrow, but it still does not affect the main question I was asking: why the B.M.A. were not consulted. However, this issue ought not to be in any way influenced by the question of whether or not the B.M.A. were consulted. The question at issue, is: is it, or is it not a good thing to continue this ban? That is the point with which we are all concerned, and on which I should like to make one or two comments. The first is this. Of course the only reason for imposing the ban is the danger of addiction, which is abroad and not in this country. The figure of fifty-four addicts of heroin here has been quoted, but no one has mentioned the fact that these addicts are not necessarily what are popularly known as "drug fiends." Many of them are people who need the heroin

81
and take it under medical supervision, and who carry on with their work while they are taking it. As has been admitted by the Government, the question of addiction is not of importance in this country. Here, generally speaking, drug addiction does not exist. The only point is that in other countries the addiction is great. Are we, then, to go out and help other countries to try to cure their addiction? That really is the issue.
It would be worth while noting the fact, which has been brought forward already, that in the United States, which I gather is really the influence behind all this, there are 50,000 or 60,000 addicts. They are obviously the nation most influenced by what we do here. But not only did addiction grow there when this ban was imposed: we have always noted that the United States, with great respect to it, is a nation which goes to extremes and on which a ban acts as a sort of spur. I was in the United States just before Prohibition and during Prohibition, and the increase of drunkenness immediately Prohibition came was appalling. The same applies to this ban. The increase in the number of addicts results from the ban. Nothing that has been said or done here will affect them in any way. No suggestion has been made, I understand, that any heroin is illegally going direct from this country to the United States. If I am wrong, I shall be delighted to be corrected.
EARL JOWITT: That is right.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I gather that what has been suggested, though not from responsible quarters, is that we export a small amount of heroin to the Colonies and that some of that heroin possibly leaks through to the black market and might get to other nations, including the United States. I do not know whether or not that is true, but in any case it is a minute proportion. If it is true, the solution surely is to tighten up control here or, if necessary, ban its export. That is the answer, because the amount of heroin going from this country otherwise is practically nil.
In other words, what it comes to is that we are making a gesture of good will, saying: "You cannot cope with your addiction. We wish you could. We will try to make some sort of gesture to show that we are on your side." It is nice to make a gesture like that, but not at
82
the expense of our invalids and sufferers and when it means depriving medicine and doctors of one of the most powerful drugs in their armoury. That gesture is ill-timed. As long as poppies are grown in the Lebanon and the various countries throughout the world where it is warm enough, so long will there be a black market in morphia, opium and heroin; and nothing we can do here will affect that situation one way or the other. I therefore join the noble and learned proposer of this Motion in begging the Government to reconsider what I think is an ill-advised step. Before they bring in this ban they should review the whole situation again and consider the great deal of suffering that they must cause if they go forward w hit their policy.
6.45 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, at this late stage in the debate I want to take up only a few moments of your Lordships' time. I rise to support the noble and learned Earl who has put down this Motion to-clay. No-one, I am sure, will disagree with the statement that heroin is a dangerous drug which should be controlled. That is what I should prefer to see, rather than a ban on it, because, so far as I can make out, there is no suggestion at all that the ban which we may put on the manufacture of heroin will in any way assist those countries where the addiction is large. Nor, I think I am right in saying, is there any evidence that the heroin which is made under control by ourselves is passing to the black market in other ways. One country where the drug has been banned since 1924 is the United States of America. The ban has not been very successful there because the figures are going up rapidly now compared with what they were before the war. That does not seem to me to say much for imposing a ban. I agree that we could assist by banning the export of the drug, although the amount involved is not very large, because it may get into trouble on its way round the world, even though there are careful rules made for its disposal.
There are two other important points that I should like to mention. The first is that the Minister, maybe properly or maybe not quite properly, obtained views from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee when contemplating this ban. But did he go back to that Committee after he had received the deputation from

83
the British Medical Association on July 11 of this year so that the Committee could consider the objections raised by the B.M.A.? I should be grateful if we could have a reply on that point. As noble Lords have said, it is the first time that a Government have ever stepped in between a doctor and his patient over the treatment he should give his patient. That is a principle on which we have to stand rather firmly. Heroin is a drug that I practically never use in my hospital work. I use it a lot on myself, when I get one of these nasty coughs that are uncontrollable. I have tried substitutes, but not many. I like my little drop of heroin: it works very well for me. I have not yet become an addict. I have been taking it for twenty-five to thirty years on rare occasions when I have needed to.
On the general aspect of patients suffering from pain, I may say that a great deal of pain can he coped with by substitutes and other drugs. Fortunately, however, human beings are not all the same: what is good for one is not good for another. At the present time there remain a certain number whose pain can he controlled satisfactorily only by the careful administration of a certain amount of heroin. It is for that reason alone that I join the noble and learned Earl in asking Her Majesty's Government whether they cannot possibly postpone the imposition of this ban until further inquiries have been made. I admit, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out, that it is difficult to make these inquiries, but nothing is insuperable. If further investigation into the pain-killers could be made, it would be of great advantage.
6.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, we have had, at any rate, one of the most interesting debates that I remember in this House, and I am sure that I am echoing the opinion of noble Lords on all sides of the House when I say to the noble and learned Earl opposite that we are indebted to him for having raised the issue, even though we may not be agreeing with him. At any rate, it was obviously an issue that it was proper for this House to discuss. Of course, he had a great advantage over us, because he spoke with all the eloquence of the great advocate that he is, and he had a case to argue. I am sure he will not mind my
84
saying that he was perhaps just a little selective in the evidence that he brought forward. I thought he spoke with great effect about the evidence that he got from France. France is one of the four countries that does not want to join in this world organisation against heroin. They are, as yet, outside it. He quoted as an authority Sir Cecil Wakeley, who is a friend of many of us in this House; but there were other authorities he could have quoted on the other side, or that I could quote if I were to occupy your Lordships' time (it would be for a great length of time) because surely the debate tonight has shown more than anything else how clearly opinion is divided on this subject —and not only medical opinion. I am sure your Lordships are grateful to the people who have professional capacity to speak on this subject and who have helped us in the course of the debate. But opinion is obviously divided also among the lay Members.
I will not disguise from your Lordships the fact that when we were discussing the Business of the week, those of us on this side of the House who have responsibility in the matter decided that we should not send out a Whip, because we wanted to get the free opinion of the House in order that the Government might be guided. I think your Lordships will agree that my noble friend, Lord Mancroft, gave a pretty fair and certainly a full and accurate statement of the facts that had been before the Ministers who were responsible. Before I forget it, and if the noble Lord, Lord Denham, is here, I am sure your Lordships will agree with me in congratulating him on the maiden speech that he made on this difficult subject. He showed considerable courage in making a maiden speech on such a subject, and the House looks forward to his help on many occasions in the future.
My Lords, let us be clear about one thing. This question did not arise because some "bright boy" in the Government suddenly said, "Let us have a go at heroin." It arose because the Government of the day were faced with the question, put to them by fifty-four nations, as to what we were going to do about the drug. The present Government were not concerned in this—I make no Party point of it—but Mr. Bevan was the Minister at the time. He was faced, as we are faced, with this position. We in this country are the largest manufacturers of

85
this drug, about which some of your Lordships who have not had it have been so eloquent in its praise this afternoon. I have had it, and I am not nearly so sure of its benefits as are some of your Lordships: in fact, I asked my doctor not to give it me any more. Perhaps I did not like feeling so euphoric. But here was the position. We are the largest manufacturers in the world of this drug, and fifty-four nations were saying to us. "Here is a drug that is dangerous to society. We are asking you to give up the manufacture of it." That is not a subject that can lightly be thrown away. We have heard many arguments this afternoon from your Lordships about whether that course would in fact be effective—whether prohibition is the way to tackle the issue. There are powerful arguments in this matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who has apologised for his absence, not only spoke to us with the great authority that always surrounds his name on questions of administration, but propounded problems to us the answers to which were not at all clear to me—difficult problems for any Minister to have to face.
Obviously, we had to do something Let me say this in passing, because I am going to say things later on which some of my doctor friends will not like very much. What a tremendous debt we in this country owe to the medical profession for the fact that we do not have heroin addicts here! I am sure that is considerably due to the fact that they have used this powerful drug with so much care, skill and discretion. The first question that the Minister at the time had to face concerned the problem of the international demand. But he, and we, have had another problem to face—namely, what about our people at home? Inevitably, that is a question which must affect any Government most seriously. That is not really a problem for the layman. The question whether one drug is absolutely essential, or whether there should he a combination of drugs—I speak with profound hesitation in the presence of doctors—is largely a personal matter. Different people react differently to different drugs, and there really is not a simple answer to it.
What could the Minister do? He was bound to go to authority—to medical and scientific authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has pointed out, there
86
was a statutory body appointed to advise him, not only on this subject but on all the subjects which concern the National Health Service. This subject was the concern of the National Health Service: so he went to that body. I maintain that he was right in so doing. I understand that my noble friend, Lord Conesford, does not like the evidence when he gets it from that body, and says that it would have been better if the Minister had gone to somebody else. Many people have asked: why did the Minister not go here, or why did he not go there? It is easy after the event to ask such questions. But he went to a body of people of extraordinary diversity—the noble and learned Earl made that point to its disadvantage. Your Lordships will forgive me for saying that perhaps it was not quite fair, because he dealt with the side lines. He told us about them. But in that body there was this great central body of opinion of the Royal Colleges, of the General Medical Council, and of the British Medical Association—people who were practising medicine. The Minister went to them and received a very clear answer. A noble Lord asked me what was the question put to them. This is the note that I have:
"Mr. Bevan asked his Standing Medical Advisory Committee to advise him whether, if an international agreement prohibiting the use of heroin was proposed, there was sufficient medical reason why ale Government should not support this proposal."
I hope I am carrying the House with me in my next remark, because, whatever has been said this afternoon, I am sure none of your Lordships would wish to cast any reflections on the integrity, impartiality or competence of that very distinguished body of people, who are rendering great service to the State, free of charge—and so characteristically of the medical profession. Noble Lords may say, "We wish he had gone somewhere else," but that surely is a matter in which one man's opinion is just as good as another's. We recognise that this was a body of people of very considerable experience. Their advice was definite and decisive. They said that it would be justifiable to prohibit the use of heroin in Britain if international agreement should be reached on prohibition of the sale of the drug.
The noble and learned Earl said that Her Majesty's Government should have taken more account of the "G.Ps." Many

87
of your Lordships have said the same, and I gather that many have been impressed, as I was, by the circular that was sent round by the B.M.A. Let us be a little analytical of this question of general practitioners. Is the point a valid one? Is there really any considerable gulf between the general practitioner and the consultant? I speak of general practitioners with the greatest respect and gratitude, but they are not the only people who see patients in extremis and at the bedside. Consultants, too, are often in that position. Let us make this a personal question. What do we do when we are in trouble? Do we say: "Ah, well, the general practitioner will know what are the best drugs to give"? Do we rely upon him exclusively, or even principally? We do not. Indeed, what does the general practitioner do himself? Always he says. "I should like a second opinion, or even a third opinion." I have a most painful recollection of coming to semi-consciousness, finding five people round my bed and wondering exactly what was going to happen to me next when so many people had had to be brought in. It was the general practitioner who brought in the specialists. If the body that gave this advice consisted more of men of great eminence in the medical world than of general practitioners, I do not think it was much the worse for that, because those people of eminence, such as my noble friends, Lord Webb-Johnson and Lord Moran, have, in their time, been general practitioners.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: Yes, my Lords; but what we are asking for now is another opinion.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I could not be clearer on the fact that the noble Lord, having had one opinion, says he thinks we had better have another. It is not unusual in his profession. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, who must be getting a certain amount of satisfaction from the public service he has rendered by raising this Question in your Lordships' House, asked what are the possible alternatives. He said. "Tell us what they are; we want to know." Were your Lordships very much better after you had heard my noble friend the other day read out those very long words, on whose pronunciation we congratulated him? Those names did not mean a thing to me. I wonder whether they did to the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I asked the Question, not for my own benefit, but for the benefit of the medical profession. Those names meant nothing to me but were for the benefit of the profession, whose members had never heard what were the alleged substitutes for heroin.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I am sorry, but the noble Viscount must not ask me to accept that statement, because many members of the medical profession read the Lancet, and there were all those names, on page 1184 in the issue of December 3. There the whole matter was dealt with.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Not all members of the medical profession read the Lancet.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: Nor does the medical profession rely on Questions and Answers in this House to know what drugs are available to them. I do not think the noble Viscount made much of a point there.
I make my next submission particularly to those noble Lords who have peculiar competence to judge. Noble Lords have asked why we did not make more experiments of a clinical nature before taking the responsibility of saying that the public should not have this drug. They asked, "Why did you not test this out clinically? Would it not be a good thing if we now proceeded to do that"? I do not know whether I have sufficient authority to say that I very much doubt whether clinical experiments of that nature would be any use. It is very difficult to prove a negative. We should be trying to prove that we could do without heroin, and surely the real difficulty is that pain is not a measurable thing; it is subjective, and it is not an easy matter on which to get any measurable result of the effect, on the patient, of different drugs.
I want to give this point to the noble and learned Earl straight away, if he wants it: if your Lordships feel that it would be a good thing, then Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take early advice from the Medical Research Council as to whether it would be practicable and advantageous to arrange a special series of scientific trials in this field. But, my Lords, there surely is some clinical evidence on which you might well form some judgment. There are many doctors

89
in this country who do not use heroin—very many. I have not been able to go round asking for medical opinion, but I am sure that Sir Henry Cohen would not mind my saying what was his experience in the Liverpool Royal Infirmary, which I used to know when I lived there, and of which he is the Senior Medical Adviser. He told me that at that institution they had used heroin once in two years. They are not insensitive people there they are really deeply concerned about their patients. And there is a lot of such evidence, evidence of men like Sir Stanford Cade, whose opinions we all value very highly, who say that in fact they do not use heroin. I submit that, not as an alternative opinion, but merely to show that there is some clinical evidence to the effect that other combinations of drugs can be effective. I apologise for keeping your Lordships for so long, but I must deal with these issues which have been raised.
I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, had not gone home—I warned him before he went that I should have something to say to him. It is monstrous that the noble Lord should say that we have not given enough attention to this problem, that we have not studied it long enough. Gracious me! three Governments have been studying it since 1949. And why does the noble Lord assume that we come to conclusions and do not give them proper consideration when they are matters of such grave moment? And was he really wise in making that dangerous remark about seeing that his doctor laid in a stock of heroin in case anything happened to him? The very worst thing in the world would be for the people of this country to get it into their heads that this was a drug of which they had better have their private hoards in case anything happened to them. I wanted to say that.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Is it not a fact that hospitals in this country are laying in stores? I do not see anything improper in the noble Lord's saying that he is laying in a store of this drug if hospitals are announcing it.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: Of course the noble Lord has just as much right to his opinion as I have to mine. But I think there is a world of difference between private people doing this and hospitals doing it.
90
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, said he thought the medical profession (I hope I have his words correctly) had got a little restless under the National Health system. I think that is true. I think it is true that there has grown up in medicine during the last few years a body of people who, in the interests of their profession, have thought it necessary to seek to protect themselves against incursion by the State into their affairs. On whether they are right or not I do not think is for us to form any judgment. But if, for one reason or another (and this, I think, is a really important social and political point), the State, on the advice of the most expert body of opinion that it can command, decides that some drug constitutes a social danger, and, on the same expert advice, comes to the conclusion that there are effective alternative drugs, then I ask this question: "Have not the Government the right to say: 'This drug shall not be made in this country except for experimental purposes'?" Or, alternatively, are we to say that, in spite of the weight of medical opinion, the individual doctor must be allowed to follow his own conscience and his own knowledge in these matters, even though his knowledge may admittedly be inferior to that of the leaders of his profession?
It is no secret to most of your Lordships that I have never been very partial to State interference with the liberty of any person or profession, but when an individual finds himself opposed to the scientific thought of The leaders of his profession then I really cannot admit that, because he has taken such examinations as are necessary to qualify for the practice of medicine, he should be left as a law unto himself. I am surprised to find—as I admit I do find—that there are eminent people who have taken that view. I have great respect for their professional qualities, but I doubt whether they are wise in allowing their fear lest the State should interfere to lead them to such a conclusion.
EARL JOWITT: But would not that prevent almost every advance in medicine?
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I cannot say that it would. What were the premises I gave? The premises were that authoritative opinion had come to the conclusion that this was dangerous.
EARL JOWITT: But has it?
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: If that is the case—
EARL JOWITT: "If."
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I am not talking about heroin but about the general principle. I do not see that there is any reason for fearing that it will interfere with advance.
The point I am making is that prescription, obviously, is the duty of the doctor; but permission to trade in dangerous drugs is the duty of the Government. Those two factors have got to be balanced. I wanted to say that, on the general issues that had been before me until last night, and before I knew of the legal issue which the noble and learned Earl has raised to-day, I was going to suggest to your Lordships that perhaps you would be well advised to suspend judgment until you had read the Government's White Paper—which I am authorised to tell the House is in preparation and will be issued at the earliest possible moment. I am told that there is two years' supply of heroin in this country at the present rate of usage. I trust that these facts which have been brought before your Lordships by various speakers—I am afraid that there have been very few on the side for which I am acting as advocate—may help you to suspend judgment for a while.
However, the noble and learned Earl has raised a legal issue to-day, of which he has given notice and of which I heard only yesterday. It is a point of considerable complexity and of great importance, and he will not, I am sure, expect me to express a view on it now. I would not express a view on it now. Obviously there are divergent views on this subject, but I can say one or two things. First, the ban on heroin will not be imposed by this Government unless and until it is clearly established that such action can legally be taken. The time is short and the end of the year is very near, and in order to give ample time for full and careful consideration of this matter I announce to your Lordships that the Government will not impose the ban on December 31. Of course it will be for the Government to consider what the next step should be if the legal issue put forward by the noble and learned Earl proves to be well-founded. In these circumstances, I think that the
92
postponement for which the Resolution asks can be conceded, and I hope that the noble and learned Earl will not think it necessary to divide the House.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I clear up this point, because I am very anxious not to divide the House if I can avoid it? Does it mean that licences to manufacture heroin will be issued to the proper people for the year 1956 as before—of course, without prejudice?
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I do not think they are at issued at the beginning of the year.
EARL JOWITT: Yes, they are.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: Then the answer is in the affirmative. The point is that the ban will not be imposed.
EARL JOWITT: The Government have to take a positive step, not a negative one.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I certainly can give that assurance.
EARL JOWITT: Then licences will be granted as before for the next twelve months' period? Of course, we realise that the Government have the right to reintroduce the ban (I hope by Bill, if they should be so ill-advised as to want to reintroduce it) as they think proper, but so long as I have secured at any rate that licences will be issued for the next year, I shall be content, and will ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I have received information which I had not before which enables me to give a precise answer to the noble and learned Earl. The licences will be issued for a period of time.
EARL JOWITT: How long?
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: Until we have determined the legal issue which the noble and learned Earl has raised. I think that covers everything.
EARL JOWITT: That is not enough. You cannot issue a licence for an indeterminate time. You cannot issue a licence temporarily until you have determined some legal issue. That is an impossible situation. What I must have is a period of time. The licence is always issued of for one year, and I want to know whether the licences are to be issued for one year. If so, I will withdraw my Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the position would be that the point which the noble and learned Earl has raised is clearly one of great legal importance and must be cleared up. When it has been cleared up, of course, the Government must make a statement to Parliament. When it is made to Parliament, that statement can be debated and the matter will have to be considered further. But there will be no refusal of licences. The licences will be granted until such time as Parliament has had time to consider the matter further. I do not think the noble and learned Earl can ask more than that. We are postponing the ban partly in deference to his wishes and partly, to Amy mind quite properly, because a new point has been raised. The noble and learned Earl knows that we have not admitted, and do not admit, that the advice we have received was improper advice; and I certainly should not be prepared to concede that point. Indeed, to my mind, the most important part of the decision which the Government took is that it was taken on what they regarded as the highest medical advice. At the same time, as I say, no step can be taken until this point has been cleared and in my view no step should be taken until Parliament has been properly consulted.
EARL JOWITT: Let me put this to the noble Marquess. We have listened to a long and tiring debate and I think the House is ready and would like to express its opinion. If I am going to ask the House not to express an opinion, I must ask for something definite. If the noble Marquess is going to introduce this ban again—I am not going into the medical merits or de-merits of the han—I believe that it has to be clone by Bill, and I do not for one moment believe the Government can possibly get the Bill through to become effective until January 1, 1957.
94
I would say, therefore, what do you lose by giving licences for 1956? For aught I know, manufacturers may be quite unwilling to go on with the manufacture of heroin unless they have some security in time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think I can relieve be noble and learned Earl's mind on the question of time. When I spoke to your Lordships' House before, I was not in possession of all the facts about the position. I have had a message which enables me to say that the licences will be for a year.
EARL JOWITT: Very well. On the understanding—I repeat, on the plain understanding: let there be no misapprehension about that—that licences will be granted for next year, that is to say, for the year 1956, as they have been hitherto, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.