Lords Sitting of 7 July 1964

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter

TELEVISION BROADCASTS OF BOXING
2.36 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first 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 recent deaths and the grave risk of injury, they will give a direction to the B.B.C. and I.T.A. forbidding the showing on television of programmes which are calculated to glamourise boxing in the eyes of impressionable youths.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it has been the policy of successive Governments to allow the broadcasting organisations independence in the day-to-day administration of their affairs, including the content of programmes. In these circumstances it would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to issue directions for the purpose which the noble Lady has in mind.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that Answer, may I remind him that we are concerned with the increasing rate of delinquency and hooliganism in this country? Does he think that it is in the interests of the less intelligent youth to have these fights brought right into the living-room of their homes where they are thereby taught that fighting with fists is praiseworthy?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I appreciate the concern of the noble Baroness, but of course she must realise, as I am sure she does, that this is a sport which a number of people take great enjoyment in watching, even if she does not, and as long as boxing remains a sport it is
922
up to the independent television companies, and indeed the B.B.C., to decide whether or not to show it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that boxing tournaments are conducted under rules, and if by looking at boxing tournaments the youth of this country, or some of them, can be persuaded that there are certain rules to be observed in the conduct of fighting, and that some of the practices which some young people are alleged to do, such as kicking people when they are down and kicking them in the face, are not allowed, the televising of boxing tournaments may perhaps do some good?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl in regard to his last point—he will recall that he said a lot of people like watching boxing—whether he is aware that two weeks ago a boxing committee, set up by the business itself, announced that very few people were going to what they called their promotions and, indeed, that the boxing business was dying? How does the noble Earl reconcile that announcement with the statement he has just made, that people like it?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness has answered her own question. She just said that the committee said that the boxing industry was dying. Thus, if it is dying, it will not be televised.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the noble Earl will recall that he said people liked it and that is why it should be televised. But the people who are having to watch it are a captive audience; it is being imposed on them. How can they express whether or not they like it?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there is, of course, a far simpler remedy; that is, the use of the switch. Nobody is forced to watch a programme when it is televised. In answer to the right reverend Prelate, I would say that I entirely agree with him that if people learn the rules of boxing, of which there are many, there might be a great deal to be said for televising it even more.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, has the right reverend Prelate watched any all-in wrestling on television?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I cannot possibly answer the noble Lord.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: I thought we were talking about watching boxing, not all-in wrestling.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to boxing as a sport. I agree with him entirely, so far as amateur boxing is concerned, but would he not agree that professional boxing is now so commercialised that it is no longer a sport and that it endangers the fighters?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that is really outside the terms of the Question, but I would just remind the noble Lord of this, because I think we must get certain facts straight. While one appreciates the views which the noble Baroness and others hold, in fact this is a sport, and so long as it remains a legal and justified sport it is entirely up to the television companies to decide whether or not to televise it.

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF BOXERS
2.41 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will see that the Minister for Sport uses his influence with the British Boxing Board of Control so that rules are made providing for all boxers to be examined, at least a month before a fight by their own or an independent medical practitioner.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, I am informed that the British Boxing Board of Control require that a boxer should be examined before a fight and this is done on the day on which the fight is to be held by a doctor from a panel appointed by the Board of Control who must be a medical practitioner independent of either the boxer or his promoter. Boxers also have to undergo
924
a medical examination when they apply for a licence to become professional boxers, and also produce a medical report from their own doctor annually when they apply for renewal of their registration. In these circumstances my right honourable friend who is responsible for the co-ordination of Government action in regard to sport, but is not Minister for Sport, considers that it would not be right to intervene with the Board for whose activities he is not responsible.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that recently when a poor boy was killed in the ring, or died immediately afterwards, it was disclosed that one month before the fight he had been to see his own doctor in Wales, who gave him a medical examination and after examining him said that he was not fit to fight? The boy took no notice of this. He was certainly examined before the fight, but one could hardly say that the doctors who examine these boys before the fights are independent, in view of the fact that they are employed by the boxing business.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, the facts are that Lyn James was examined six days before this fatal contest, in fact on June 10, and he was found to be perfectly fit. He was also examined again on the day of the contest. In regard to the noble Lady's implications concerning (shall I say?) the reputation of doctors, I think I should say that they are professional men who would not lightly neglect their proper functions. In the second place the Board of Control have no interest but to ensure the maintenance of the highest standards, both medically and otherwise, in the boxing profession.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, is it not possible to arrange that the medical histories of boxers are before the doctors before they allow them to go into the ring?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I will certainly refer this matter to my right honourable friend. It may be that this is in fact the case. Certainly they are examined at least once a year by their own doctors and on these other occasions by the B.B.B.C. doctors.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a long time ago duelling became illegal in our country? I agree with my noble friend Lady Summerskill in principle on this second Question. Are the Government not contemplating the possibility that in view of some of the rather brutal elements of this sport it may be desirable and necessary for Parliament to prohibit boxing altogether? It seems to me it would be the best solution.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I really think that question is much wider than the original Question on the Order Paper, and, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who is a great expert on Parliamentary procedure, I think he knows it is.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, I think his intervention is entirely premature and is becoming a little dangerous. I beg him not to go over the limits of what are the functions of the Leader of the House. I submit to the Minister concerned that this is relevant to the original Question and it is a matter the Government ought to take into account, and I should like his answer.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course I should not dream of going beyond the duties of the Leader of the House. I think it is up to me, as Leader of the House, to suggest to your Lordships that on occasion we do go rather outside the scope of the Question asked, and really the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, is not asking anything which arises out of this Question. This Question is whether or not boxers should be examined a month before the fight by their own or independent medical practitioners, and the question he asked is would the Government ban boxing.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I still say the Leader of the House is intervening too soon, and if he continues to do this he will get across the general feeling of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I have been in this House very much longer than he has and it is an
926
established tradition here, where we have no Speaker, that when members have to be reminded that they are going beyond the subject under discussion it can be done only by the Leader of the House. It is his duty to do it and he always has done it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I know that. I am perfectly familiar, even in my short stay here, with what the duties of the Leader are, and I agree that in the absence of a presiding officer that is suitable; but, after all, the Leader of the House can look after himself without an ex-Leader coming to the rescue.

UNIVERSITIES' EXPANSION AND GRANTS
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total of capital and recurrent grants to university institutions in 1959 and in the present year; and what increase in the number of university institutions and of students and staff has taken place in the same period.]
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, in 1959 capital and recurrent Exchequer grants to the universities totalled £58 million; for the current year they are estimated at £133 million. In 1959 there were 24 university institutions; there are now 33. Over the same period the number of full-time students has risen from 104,000 to 125,000; and the number of full-time teachers has increased from 12,000 to 15,000. All these figures are exclusive of the colleges of advanced technology and certain Scottish central institutions which are in the process of achieving university status.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his Answer and for the figures, which will be studied with great interest? May I ask him whether he can say what is the proportion of women among the students?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, in 1959–60 about 24 per cent.

927
of students in universities were women. In this year the figure is about 27 per cent.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does that mean that even to-day women are being turned away because there are not sufficient places?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not think that is the case.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would the noble Earl look into that and let us know whether they are being turned away?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Certainly.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Earl reconsider the reply that it was not the case that women are being turned away?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, this is a question beyond the scope of the one on the Order Paper, and of course there is not any particular reason why I should answer it. I do not think women are being turned away more frequently than men. It is all a question of their qualifications. If they achieve the right qualifications they will get to the university.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I thought the Minister would be better informed; because we have had other reports from time to time—there was one about Scotland quite recently in the debate in another place—that women are being turned away because of lack of places. I do not expect him to know everything about his Department, but I thought he might keep his promise to my noble friend Lady Summerskill and let us know the facts.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is it not possible that there is a good deal of confusion about what is meant by "turned away"?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Not provided with places at the time of application.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, is it not a fact that in the University of Oxford there are a number of places for women, particularly in the natural sciences, which the university colleges at Oxford have been unable to fill? I say this only because my own daughter, who is not, I should have thought, all that bright, has got in.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate, who is entirely correct in his statement, but the question from the other side of the House in fact referred to women in general. There is no doubt whatever that there are places going in chemistry departments in the universities of Newcastle and Leeds and many others, but unfortunately there have not been sufficient applications from women having sufficient qualifications.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, does the Minister concur with the right reverend Prelate in his reference to Oxford or in his reference to his daughter?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in referring to his daughter the right reverend Prelate broke all the known rules?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, on this most important matter may I ask the noble Earl this?—because he has made inquiries on the important question of the education of women. If he inquires further he will find that in many schools they find it difficult to get science teachers at all, and this is the inevitable repercussion. This was told me by the President of the Headmistresses' Association. I think that if this position were remedied he would not find a lack of applicants for places in universities.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope soon to have a meeting with the noble Baroness and to discuss this matter with her.

CARE OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
2.51 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave 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 they have considered the Report to the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust on Handicapped Children and Their Families, and what action they will take on its recommendations, particularly (in relation to children with mental handicap) for: the follow-up of cases of abnormal pregnancy, to assist early discovery of defect; the provision of a comprehensive counselling service for parents; special local authority clinics to co-ordinate specialist and domiciliary services; and properly equipped occupation centres suited to the handicapped child's requirements and not to his limitations.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the evidence for the three studies on which the Report was based was collected and assessed before the end of 1958. Services for handicapped children have developed considerably since then. Nevertheless, this is a useful document which hope will be studied by all concerned with services for handicapped children. Many of the recommendations are in line with advice which the Health and Education Departments have given to local authorities and with the best current practice. I understand that, with the help of the Carnegie Trust, two pioneer projects are to be undertaken, on lines recommended in the Report, in buildings due to be completed this year by Shropshire County Council and Glasgow Corporation. At Shrewsbury there will be a training and education group for physically and mentally handicapped children from the age of two, an information centre and meeting ground for parents and a centre for continued assessment. The Glasgow scheme will comprise a day nursery for mentally handicapped children under five, a maternity and child welfare clinic and an assessment unit, with which the School Health Service staff will be associated
930
for both mentally and physically handicapped children under five. The Departments concerned will watch the progress of these projects with great interest.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for that reply, I would ask him whether he will tell the House to what extent the Government are responsible for the projects listed in his Answer? Further, is he aware that to-day—not in 1958—the counselling service for parents is negligible, and that the amount of co-ordination between the central and local authority hospital and educational service for the mentally handicapped is derisory?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, to take first the second point, with regard to the counselling service, we are not certain yet how useful this is going to be. But the project at Shrewsbury, which is a pilot project, contains a plan for a counselling service, and we are waiting to see how that works out. They have not yet got far with it. I am afraid that I cannot quite remember what was the noble Lord's first point.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I asked the noble Marquess whether he could tell us to what extent the Government are responsible for initiating these projects.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the two projects which I mentioned are primarily initiated by the Carnegie Trust, in that they are providing most of the capital needed. That having been done, the projects are entirely the responsibility of the local authorities and, as such, they have the full support of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while further expressing my thanks to the noble Marquess, may I ask him specially to study this matter further; because, although we have had compulsory education for normal children for 94 years, so far as the mentally handicapped, the severely subnormal children are concerned, only one in twenty can get the proper specialised teaching needed if they are not to lead an entirely useless life.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern about this matter, and I shall certainly take note of what he has said.

THE SOUTH ARABIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne will be making a Statement on the South Arabian Constitutional Conference at a suitable moment after 3.30.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

POLICE PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) REGULATIONS, 1964
2.56 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, I beg to move that the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1964, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on June 18, be approved. The regulations contain amendments to the Police Pensions Regulations, 1962. They apply those regulations to inspectors of constabulary (including assistant inspectors) appointed on or after August 1, 1964, and to policemen engaged on central service —that is, temporary service of the Crown on police duty such as research into matters affecting the efficiency of the police, in the training centres and other common police services. These amendments follow upon the provisions of the Police Act, 1964, relating to inspectors of constabulary and central service officers which will come into operation on August 1. The regulations also contain amendments to improve the present arrangements for commuting and allocating pensions, and to provide lump sum payments to the widow or dependants of a policeman who dies as a result of a murderous attack. These latter amendments arise from discussion in the Police Council for Great Britain to which I shall refer in a moment.
932
The House may find it convenient if I group together the draft regulations which relate to the particular subjects. Regulations 1 and 13 to 16 relate to the pension arrangements for inspectors of constabulary and central service officers. In particular, Regulation 15 provides that these officers shall be treated for pension purposes as members of a police force, and the effect of Regulation 16 is that the regulations shall apply to them as if the Secretary of State were their police authority. Regulation 4 provides revised arrangements for commuting part of a pension for a lump sum; and Regulations 2, 3 and 6 contain amendments consequential on Regulation 4. The principal changes from the current provisions are that a policeman will no longer be required to satisfy the police authority of his good health if he wishes to commute part of his pension, and the part of his pension which he may commute is increased from a sixth to a quarter.
Regulation 5 sets out the current provisions, incorporating the amendments, as to the allocation of part of a pension. The amendments enable a serving policeman who has already allocated a portion of his pension in favour of a dependant to increase this allocation and, if that dependant dies, to allocate a portion in favour of some other dependant. Regulations 8 and 10, which insert new regulations into the 1962 Regulations, provide for the payment of a lump sum to the widow or dependants of a policeman who dies after August 1, 1964, from an injury received from an attack which is likely to cause death. Regulations 7, 9, 11 and 12 contain consequential amendments.
Before I explain these last provisions in more detail, it may be helpful if I refer briefly to their history and to some of the considerations which have led to their being brought before the House in their present form. The Police Pensions Regulations have for many years provided a special rate of pension for two classes of widow. In cases where the husband dies as a result of an injury received, without his own default, in the execution of his duty, his widow receives a basic pension and National Insurance benefits and, if these together are less than one-third of her husband's average pensionable pay, the difference is made up. In cases where the husband, when I acting in the execution of his duty, is

933
attacked in a manner intrinsically likely to kill and dies as a result of the attack, the widow's pension is made up to a half of her husband's average pensionable salary. Your Lordships' House has always felt—and is aware that the public feel—deep and sincere sympathy with the widow and the dependants of a policeman who has succumbed to a murderous attack while carrying out his duty. It was for this reason that in 1953 a special rate of pension was provided for the widow.
Some three years ago a proposal was put before the Police Council for Great Britain that the regulations should provide for the payment in certain circumstances of a lump sum to widows of policemen who are killed on duty or who, while on duty, receive injuries from which they subsequently die. The discussions have continued over the three years in an endeavour to reach agreement as to the precise circumstances in which the payment should be made—that is, whether the payment should be made to widows of policemen other than those who are murdered—and what the amount of it should be. It is only because it has become apparent, after exhaustive discussion, that there is no prospect of agreement in the Police Council that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has decided to take action himself.
My right honourable friend readily understand the view that has been expressed that other police widows should be provided with a lump sum in addition to a special pension, but he also knows that these difficulties are also faced not only by police widows but by other widows—the widows of other men in various public services who face danger and death in carrying out their duties. Except in the case where a policeman is murdered—and, as I have indicated, the policeman is the one who is expected to confront a dangerous criminal—it is not easy to distinguish the claims of a policeman's widow or dependants from those of other public servants who risk mortal injury through fire, assault, explosion and other hazards which they may meet in pursuing their calling.
It is therefore right to lay before your Lordships' House the present provisions to ensure that the widow or dependants of a policeman killed in these special circumstances should have
934
the benefit of a special award. This is not to say that other widows should be forgotten. Far from it. It has been proposed—and I hope that agreement to the proposal will be reached in the Police Council—that the provisions of the police pensions arrangements should be reviewed in comparison with the pensions arrangements of other services which do provide lump sum payments in addition to a pension to see how far police pensions can be assimilated with them.
The actual provisions themselves are not complex. Regulation 7 preserves the entitlement to a special pension of a widow whose husband dies as the result of an injury on duty. Regulation 8 inserts a new Regulation 12A into the 1962 Regulations entitling a widow of a policeman who dies as the result of being attacked to a special rate pension as at present, and to a gratuity of the amount of twice the maximum annual rate of pay of a male constable. This on present rates would amount to just over £2,000.
Regulation 10 inserts a new Regulation 22A providing for the payment of a gratuity, of the same amount as would have been payable to a widow, to a child of a policeman or policewoman who dies as the result of an attack in the case where a policeman leaves no widow or a policewoman was the child's only surviving parent. To be eligible for a gratuity a child must, at the date of the death of the parent, be under 16 years of age or, if the child is in full-time education, under 19 years of age. These are the same age limits as apply to the payment of a child's allowance. If there is more than one child in the family entitled to a gratuity, the gratuity is to be shared equally between the children. The consequential amendments in Regulations 9, 11 and 12 provide that a gratuity shall not be payable where at present a special pension or child's allowance is not payable, and that the gratuity where payable shall be paid in addition to a special pension or allowance. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1964. laid before the House on the 18th of June, be approved.—(Lord Derwent.)
3.6 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends and myself

935
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for his careful exposition of this valuable Order, and welcome yet another much-needed improvement in police pensions. This is the fourth or fifth Order relating to police pensions that we have had in this Parliament alone. All of them have resulted in improvements which have been long awaited; all of them have removed anomalies. Therefore, they are extremely welcome, and particularly this Order, with its change which will improve the lot of quite a number of police widows.
In dealing with these regulations, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that they were not complex. I cannot imagine any noble Lord, having listened to Lord Derwent's quite clear exposition, possibly agreeing with that statement. They are necessarily complex, and one wonders how it is possible, even with the help of the Police Federation, for a widow to understand just what her rights are or to make sure that she gets them. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord to say, first of all, the extent to which these new provisions will be retrospective: and, secondly, the extent to which they will seal off some of the older anomalies.
Furthermore, will he tell the House what steps are to be taken to explain these new regulations so that they can be clear to all potential recipients? The decision of the Home Secretary in this difficult matter is welcome; because somebody had to decide and it was right that the Home Secretary should not defer the matter any longer. But the decision means that yet other anomalies have, of necessity, been created. One would hope that we should accept and implement the principle that where a policeman is incapacitated while doing his duty, or where a policeman dies, whether he is murdered or dies as a result of injury or accident in the course of his duty, his widow and dependants should equally be cared for. It is not generally accepted, as the noble Lord put forward, that policemen should not be properly dealt with because if they are fairly dealt with it will create anomalies in relation to other public servants, such as firemen and other people who risk their lives in the course of their duty who also are not properly dealt with. The basis on which we
936
should consider this matter is that all these public servants and their dependants should be cared for equally on an adequate basis, and that in all cases the regulations should be perfectly clear and not require a great deal of explanation. These regulations, as I have said, bring about welcome and considerable improvements, but I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give some reply to the points I have made, and also some indication as to whether his right honourable friend is considering what is so badly needed in this matter—that is, a further consolidation of all these changes, so that the matter can become much clearer to everyone than it is at present.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his opening remarks about these regulations. The first point he raised was whether they were retrospective. The answer is, No. If a policeman is murdered (which is the kind of case we are talking about) on or after August 1, 1964, his widow will come under these regulations; but should such an event occur before then she will not, because the regulations will be brought into force only on that date.
As regards the various matters which the noble Lord raised about other widows, we are trying to get the pension rights of widows in the various services in line. I entirely agree that there are anomalies at present, but discussions are going on. But this particular regulation to which we are referring, Regulation 8, is brought in because there is no likelihood at present of agreement, and in this particular case police officers are in a different position from any other public servant. It is for that reason that this special lump sum payment is brought in for that particular class of widow. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that there are anomalies, and I think that in all pension matters anomalies are likely to remain. We are trying very hard to get police pensions into line with those of other services, but that means a good deal of further discussion.
3.11 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is possible to make these regulations effective as from the date of passing them? That is, after all, the normal course. Sometimes in

937
legislation we postpone the date of operation, but normally legislation comes into effect on the date when it receives the Royal Assent. Here we are approving these regulations. Why can we not say that as from to-day, as from the date when they receive approval in another place, these regulations will come into operation? There will then be no anomaly between a policeman who is murdered to-morrow and one who is murdered after August 1. Surely that could be done. I do not know whether the regulation itself provides for its becoming effective on August 1, but I certainly feel that some steps should be taken to make it effective as from the date, when we pass it.
LORD REA: My Lords, in relation to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, it seems rather absurd that a policeman must not get himself killed before August 1, if his widow is to have any benefit therefrom. There is one question which I should like to put—and it is not put in any criticism, but is a genuine question. I gather that if a policeman is killed by a criminal while the policeman is acting in the course of his duty the widow gets a gratuity as well as a, pension; but the pension, I gather, is an increased pension because he was killed in those circumstances. It seems to me, with respect, that a policeman, whether killed by a murderer or in the ordinary life of a policeman, leaves a widow who is just as much a widow as anybody else. So any recognition of a widow whose husband has been killed by force should be by way of gratuity, rather than by putting her into a separate class in the pension scheme.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I repeat that this regulation deals with this one particular class of widow, and it leaves the most extraordinary anomalies. It is concerned with the widow of a policeman who is killed, or dies as a result of an attack. This particular regulation does not cover the policeman who dies on duty. A policeman might, for instance, have a heart attack while arresting a pickpocket; or he might, without intending to arrest the driver, without taking any account of what the driver was doing, be knocked down by a car. In neither case would his widow receive the gratuity.
938
We are, of course, dealing here with a date a few weeks hence. Some date must apply and the regulations state August 1. I am speaking without advice here, but I rather think a change would entail withdrawing the regulations and redrafting them. I shall look into the point, but some date has to be fixed, and as August 1 is only a few weeks away, I would think it is as good a date as any other.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question before he sits down? He used a curious phrase which I understood to mean that, in the case of a policeman who was killed as the result of an assault which was intrinsically likely to kill, his widow was dealt with differently from the widow of a policeman who died in other circumstances. Does that mean, for instance, that if a policeman, who is hit on the jaw in an affray, falls and breaks his skull and dies, his widow will be dealt with differently from the widow of somebody who is stabbed in an affray, the result of which would almost certainly be his death?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think my noble friend is more or less right. It is very difficult to generalise without having a particular case, but there are two parallel examples. If a policeman was directing traffic and was knocked down owing to the carelessness of a driver, of course he would not be considered to be murdered. If, on the other hand, a car was driven directly at him with the intention of knocking him down, that would be a form of attack which would be likely to cause his death, and if he died as the result his widow would benefit from the regulation.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue the point, but does my noble friend think that in administering this regulation it is possible to deal equitably with the two categories of cases that are likely to come before the Minister for decision?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, there has been no difficulty up till now, and I do not see why there should be any difficulty in future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ROADS (CLASSES OF TRAFFIC) (SCOTLAND) ORDER 1964
3.16 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. According to the usual practice, special roads are limited to carrying Class I and Class II vehicles only. This Order varies for Scotland the classes of traffic specified in Schedule II of the Special Roads Act, 1949. The Order brings the Scottish definitions broadly into line with England and Wales. The Order is now required as the first section of special roads in Scotland—a short length of the North approach to the Forth Bridge—will be open by the end of the year, and possibly by then a section of motorway, the Harthill by-pass. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (Scotland) Order 1964, be approved.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FISHERY LIMITS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order), on report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

BRITISH NATIONALITY (No. 2) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

EMERGENCY LAWS (RE-ENACTMENTS AND REPEALS) BILL
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, in 1959 there was passed the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act which did not merely repeal emergency laws but preserved the few remaining Defence Regulations that we thought it a good thing to keep on in peace time. The Act was for a period of only five years, and it expires in December of this year. It is therefore necessary, if we still want to preserve those remaining Defence Regulations, to have fresh legislation; and that is contained in this Bill.
In some cases, such as the Treasury control over hire-purchase and foreign exchange (dealt with in Clauses 1 and 2), the controls are now made permanent; similarly with the Ministry of Health control over the welfare food service. This is because we think that these controls, although they started off in the form of Defence Regulations, are now a necessary part of our modern economy. Other powers, such as the Minister of Agriculture's power to fix the maximum price of milk, are continued for five years, until 1969, but after that they can be further prolonged by an Order in Council, subject to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, so that fresh legislation need not necessarily be brought in.
There is only one Defence Regulation of any wide importance that is being allowed to lapse under this Bill, and that is the Regulation under Defence Regulation 55B, which enabled the Government to control the price and supply of materials and food if the need arose owing to an emergency overseas. It is discontinued because, under a recent Act which Parliament passed amending the Emergency Laws Act, 1920, the Government are now enabled to control the distribution and supply of the necessities of life in an emergency, whether it arises overseas or at home. Since the purpose of this former legislation is now covered by this other legislation, there is now no longer any

941
need to continue it. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation of this Bill—it was brief but adequate—and I should like to congratulate the Government on having come so far in the direction of Labour Party policy. I hope I am in order—I think I am, but, in the absence of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, perhaps I can get through,anyway—in saying that some of us may remember how, at the General Election of 1945, Mr. Churchill (as he then was) advocated with great vigour the scrapping of controls, regulations and so on. That, of course, was exactly what the predominantly Conservative Government did after the First World War, when the cry was, "Business as usual!" Everything went, and chaos resulted—particularly, in the absence of economic controls, mass unemployment, depression and so on. Owing to the good sense of the country in electing a Labour Government in 1945, that did not take place after the Second World War, when we did a first-class job in keeping the country going.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, rightly pointed out that one of the Regulations, Defence Regulation 55B—in fact, Regulation 55 as a whole—was a very important Regulation; and a very valuable one, too. Not only has that Regulation been repealed but it has now been converted into permanent legislation; and the same thing has happened in a number of other cases. So that, far from all the Defence Regulations having been destroyed, some of them have been not only preserved as emergency laws but converted into permanent legislation—additional proof against the Conservative Party's policy at the General Election of 1945. Now I am not denouncing the Conservative Party for seeing the light—in fact, I am delighted whenever they do see the light, and I only wish I had more opportunities for being delighted—but this is a confession that, in principle, the Labour Party has been right and the Conservative Party has been wrong.
After all, this is a considerable list—not exhaustive, by any means, but some of them have been converted into per-
942
manent legislation—of emergency powers which the Government are taking by this Bill. There is hire-purchase control; there is the important power of the Treasury to prohibit action on certain orders as to gold, et cetera, which is a very considerable power as to precious metals and, presumably, indirectly, as to currency. There are temporary powers for the purposes of defence; welfare foods; medical supplies; and temporary control by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State of the maximum prices of milk. Then there are supplemental provisions as to orders and directions; notices, authorisations and the proof of documents; and as to the territorial extent of Part I. This is a fairly considerable list. Further, in Part II of the Bill there is provision for the continuance of other emergency laws and supplemental provisions, including the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1939; the power of the Board of Trade to trace in jute products (which sounds a promising section of this Bill); the exercise of powers of the Board of Trade; expenses; and Northern Ireland, which are probably drafting provisions.
This Bill represents a limited measure of progress on the part of the Conservative Government in the direction of recognising that it is not possible easily to run a modern, complex society without these powers and that the Government cannot easily refrain from having certain emergency powers whereby abuses or disturbances to the economic order or otherwise might occur. I therefore congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I wish he had brought a note of apology into his speech, or, at any rate, of confession that they had seen the light that the Labour Party has been using so vigorously and so beneficially, and from which they have had an advantage for so many years. We welcome the Bill, and we shall not give any trouble about it. Whether it is adequate as regards these emergency powers, I am not sure, but time will show. At any rate, so far as it goes, we welcome it and we congratulate the noble Earl on being the spokesman on behalf of the Government when partially reversing the ignorant Conservative policy of 1945, and on the fact that they are beginning to see wisdom, which we go on preaching to them because we love our country even more than we love our Party. If

943
we can convert the Government to doing sensible things, we do not grumble, we rejoice. On this occasion we engage in limited rejoicing, which is all that the Government deserve—but they do deserve that.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. There are only two things he has omitted to do. One is to claim credit for the Labour Government for repealing about 90 per cent. of the controls which were under discussion in 1945, and the other is to tell us what new controls his Party would now impose if they were returned to office—something that we should all very much like to know. Our answer to that question, my Lords, is a short one, and is contained in this Bill—and I am glad that the noble Lord goes that distance with us.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DRUGS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) BILL
3.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, a few weeks ago your Lordships passed the Dangerous Drugs Bill (now the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1964) which was introduced into your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. That Bill dealt, among other things, with offences concerning the misuse of the drug cannabis, which is better known to some of us as Indian hemp. To-day I am asking your Lordships to give your approval to a Bill which deals with the misuse of drugs of another kind.
The misuse of drugs is not a modern phenomenon. Opium and hashish have for centuries been misused for non-medical purposes. Such drugs are often used either as a means of escape from reality, or to give "Dutch courage" for some perilous undertaking. It is said that the Assassins of the Lebanon got their name from their custom of taking hashish to embolden themselves before setting out on their murderous raids. While drugs may still be taken to some
944
extent in order to escape from the pressures of this world, or to gain courage to commit crime, the modern trend seems to be to take them for "kicks". But whatever the motive may be for taking drugs for non-therapeutic purposes, the effects can only be harmful to the individual. Moreover, if this kind of improper use of drugs is not curbed it leads to serious social damage.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been much concerned about the increasing abuse of one particular kind of drug—namely, the amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs, which are more popularly known as "pep pills". There has been increasing evidence of the misuse of these drugs, first in London, then in other large cities, and spreading throughout the country. To feed the demand for these drugs there has grown up an illicit traffic in them which is derived from various sources from which the drugs are obtained by theft, fraud, or through loopholes in the present legislation. The police have become much concerned by the development of this traffic, and my right honourable friend is determined to give them the powers they need to deal with it. This is the object of the Bill. The problem which faces us in dealing with these drugs is, as in the case of the control of dangerous drugs, to ensure that these substances, which have legitimate and beneficial use in medicine, shall be available for that purpose, but that their misuse shall be prevented.
The drugs in question are at present subject to the poisons legislation, and by virtue of this they can be sold retail only by an authorised seller of poisons on premises registered under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, and against a prescription given by a duly qualified medical practitioner, a registered dentist, registered veterinary surgeon, or a registered veterinary practitioner. Under the poisons legislation, however, the only offence is that of a sale which does not comply with these requirements, and there is no restriction at all on importation. If, therefore, a person is found to be in possession of a quantity of these drugs, no matter how large, there is no offence with which he can be charged, unless the drugs can be shown to have been stolen. One obvious

945
method of applying the necessary control would be to bring the amphetamine-type drugs within the scope of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951. But this would be going too far, since we are concerned here with drugs which do not have the addiction-producing characteristics of the true narcotics and which are not subject to control under international Conventions, as are narcotic drugs. The object has therefore been to formulate a suitable type of control which is stricter than that provided for under the poisons law, but not so severe as the control over dangerous drugs.
The two main provisions of this Bill make unauthorised possession of amphetamine-type drugs an offence, and prohibit importation of them without a licence. The offence of unauthorised possession has a parallel in the dangerous drugs legislation, and my right honourable friend has been informed by the police that if they had power to deal with persons found in unauthorised possession of amphetamine-type drugs, their task in dealing with the traffic in these drugs would be greatly simplified. It is always difficult to obtain information about the sources of drugs which are being traded in illicitly, for the obvious reason that neither the buyer nor the seller is usually prepared to disclose information which may affect his ability to obtain supplies in the future. For this reason it is difficult to prove unlawful sale or to trace the source of drugs.
The only offence which it would often be possible to prove is that of unauthorised possession. In making unauthorised possession of these amphetamine-type drugs an offence, as the Bill for the first time does, obviously it is essential to identify those categories of people who may legitimately be in possession of the drugs. Provision is made in the Bill for various categories to be safeguarded. First, there are those who are getting the drugs for medical purposes, either for their own use or for the use of some other person, or perhaps an animal in their care. Secondly, there are the manufacturers and wholesalers and importers of the drugs, who deal in them by way of trade. These latter classes are not clearly and indubitably identifiable, so the Bill requires manu-
946
facturers and wholesalers to register with the Home Office, and requires importers to obtain a licence. This will enable lists to be kept of manufacturers, and wholesalers and importers, and will enable Customs officers to identify consignments of the drugs which are imported legitimately.
The third group of people are those who need to be in possession of drugs in the course of their profession, business or employment. This includes doctors, dentists, veterinarians, and chemists. Exemption is also given to police and Customs officers, who may need to take possession of drugs in the course of their duties.
There is also power in the Bill for the Secretary of State, by Regulations which could be prayed against, to make further provision for exempting any other persons or class of persons who may hereafter be shown to need to be in possession of the drugs for legitimate purposes.
Noble Lords will note that the penalty for the offence of unlawful possession, which is prescribed in Clause 1 (1), is of the hybrid type, with different penalties for summary conviction and for conviction on indictment. This provision represents a compromise which was arrived at during the consideration of the Bill in another place. The persons who may be prosecuted for the offence of unauthorised possession may cover a fairly wide spectrum. On the one hand, there may be the misguided teenager in possession of a few "purple hearts" for his own use. At the other extreme there may be the "pusher" or pedlar who is making large profits by selling considerable quantities of these drugs illicitly. There is difficulty in providing a penalty which is suitable for dealing with a person of the latter type, without at the same time being open to the objection that it is an unduly heavy penalty with which to threaten a person of the former type. While the provision now embodied in the Bill is not ideal for dealing with this dichotomy of interests, it is, I believe, a reasonable compromise which will prove satisfactory in practice having regard to the discretion which we can expect to be exercised both by the police and by the courts.
Clause 2 of the Bill gives a constable the power to arrest without a warrant

947
a person who is found committing, or is reasonably suspected by the constable of having committed, an offence, if he has reasonable ground for believing that the person will abscond unless arrested, or if he does not have the person's name and address. The police have told my right honourable friend that the kind of person who is questioned in connection with suspected offences involving the misuse of drugs often, not unnaturally, gives the police a false name and address. If this happens, then when the police decide to take further proceedings they find that they cannot trace the offender and there is a great waste of their time. It is therefore reasonable that the police should have a power to arrest, which will enable them to ensure that a person has given a correct name and address before he is released. It is my right honourable friend's intention that, when this Bill becomes law, a circular shall be sent to the police, drawing their attention to the desirability of a suspected offender not being detained for longer than necessary, and of his being released, in normal circumstances, as soon as his name and address have been verified.
The police, if they are to check the misuse of these drugs, must be able to search clubs and cafés, where they are known to be obtainable, or places where traffickers in them are suspected of keeping their supplies. So the Bill gives power for a justice of the peace to issue a search warrant to enable the police to search any premises on which it is suspected that an offence of unauthorised possession is being committed.
One source of supply of these drugs is by importing them from overseas. At present, there is nothing to prevent anyone from bringing these drugs into this country or having them sent in, perhaps through the post. It is known that this is done. The Bill prohibits importation, except under a licence granted by the Secretary of State. The intention is to grant bona fide importers open licences for the import of the drugs in question. So there will be no interference with legitimate trade. But any drugs not brought in under a licence will be liable to be seized.
There is power in Clause 6 of the Bill for the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Poisons Board, to add a
948
substance to, or remove a substance from, the Schedule to the Bill. As I have mentioned, the drugs at present included in the Schedule are all of the amphetamine type. It may be that in the future more drugs of this type will be put on the market, will be subject to misuse, and will need to be brought under control. It is also possible that at some future date drugs of other types may be found to be abused, so that it will be desirable to bring them also within the scope of the Bill.
In other countries, it has been found that drugs of the barbiturate type have been subject to the same kind of abuse as amphetamines. My right honourable friend is informed by the police that, at the present time, there is not sufficient evidence of the misuse of barbiturates, or of any other kind of drug to warrant including them in the Schedule. We cannot, however, be certain that this state of affairs will continue indefinitely, and it is necessary to have such powers as are provided in Clause 6 to deal with any such problem should it arise.
It may also occasionally be desirable to remove a drug from the Schedule. Your Lordships will have noticed that at the end of paragraph 3 of the Schedule a number of substances are excepted from control. These are substances which, though of the amphetamine type, do not at present appear to be subject to misuse. It may be that at some future time further drugs of this kind will be marketed and ought to be exempted from control. I have already mentioned that regulations made by the Secretary of State under the powers conferred on him by Clause 1(1) of the Bill will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. The same procedure will apply to Orders made under Clause 6 removing substances from the Schedule. In the case of an Order adding a substance to the Schedule, however, Clause 7(3) provides that the Order shall be laid before Parliament in draft and approved by Resolution of each House. This is a provision, which was inserted in the Bill when it was considered in another place, in order to meet the criticism that, because of the very wide terms in which Clause 6 is drafted, Parliament should have a more positive control over future proposals for adding new substances to the Schedule.

949
The Bill will apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland, since it is necessary to impose the control throughout the United Kingdom. The provisions of the Bill have the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Northern Ireland Government. The power to register manufacturers and wholesalers in Northern Ireland and to licence imports into Northern Ireland is given to the Minister for Home Affairs for Northern Ireland. The power to register manufacturers and wholesalers and to licence importers will come into effect immediately the Bill becomes law. The other provisions of the Bill will come into effect after three months, which is the minimum period which is considered to be necessary for initial registration and licensing.
As regards the Schedule, which lists the substances to be controlled under this Bill, some may share my own difficulty in interpreting its technical language, but I am assured that all the substances referred to are of the amphetamine type, which are liable to have a stimulating effect. Noble Lords may be somewhat reassured to know that we have in preparation a list of the proprietary names of all the drugs on the market which will come within the scope of the Bill. Copies of this list will be made available to the police, the Customs and all others who will be concerned with the enforcement of the Bill's provisions.
Finally, I would say to your Lordships that I sympathise, though I do not agree, with those who feel that evils such as the misuse of drugs ought not to be dealt with by legislative action, which necessarily limits to some extent the freedom of all of us. Any measure which places restrictions on the liberty of the individual is to be regretted, but there comes a point at which it is no longer possible to allow the unscrupulous few to exploit the weaknesses of others, and when the general good is best served by some new control. I am confident that there will be general agreement among your Lordships that this point has been reached, so far as the misuse of pep pills is concerned, and that immediate action to curb this misuse is necessary. I ask your Lordships to give your approval to this measure, which gives the powers needed
950
to deal with this question. I beg to move the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drewent.)

SOUTH ARABIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
3.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I think that it might be for your Lordships' convenience if I repeated a Statement being made by my right honourable friend in another place on Aden. I will make the statement in his own words:
"At the Conference which ended on July 4, the representatives of the Federation of South Arabia decided radically to reshape the Constitution on democratic lines. A White Paper, setting out the conclusions reached, is being printed and will, I hope, be available to-morrow.
"The new Constitution will provide for a Legislature, consisting of a Council of States, composed of one representative from each State, and a National Assembly, whose members will be chosen, wherever possible, by direct popular elections. In those parts where tribal conditions make this impracticable, there will, at first, be indirect elections through electoral colleges. An independent commission will advise where and when the system of direct elections can be introduced.
"There will be a constitutional President, elected by the Legislature; and the present rotating chairman will be replaced by a Prime Minister, who will be dependent upon the support of a Parliamentary majority.
"Certain other changes were also agreed, the effect of which will be to give the States a greater say in matters relating to internal security and in the control of the Security Forces.
"The delegates unanimously requested that the Federation should have independence not later than 1968 and that Britain should continue thereafter to retain her military base in Aden for the defence of the Federation and the fulfilment of her

951
world-wide responsibilities. On behalf of the British Government, I agreed to this request and I undertook that we would, at the appropriate time, convene a conference to fix a date for independence and to conclude the necessary defence agreement.
"The British Government agreed that the constitutional status of Aden, which is at present a Crown Colony, should be raised to that of the other members of the Federation, which are Protected States. Sovereignty in respect of Aden will be transferred in part to the Federation and in part to Aden, in accordance with the distribution of functions between the Federal and State authorities. As soon as practicable after the Aden elections this autumn, a meeting will be convened to agree upon the arrangements for the transfer and upon any further constitutional changes which may be necessary.
"What was in any case bound to be a difficult negotiation was made more difficult by the activities of one of the delegates, the Sultan of Fadhli, who, by the offer of bribes, tried to induce other delegates to break up the Conference. When he saw that his efforts were unsuccessful, he flew to Cairo, where he made a number of completely false statements to which I feel obliged to refer.
"He said that at the Conference he had demanded that the United Nations Resolutions on Aden should be implemented. He never said a word about this. He said that he had called for the removal of the British base in Aden. On the contrary, he presented a paper to the Conference proposing the retention of the British base after Independence. He said he had asked for the grant of immediate Independence. In fact, he proposed that there should be Independence not later than 1969, though he subsequently accepted the earlier date of 1968. He accused my right honourable friend the Prime Minister of having deceived Parliament about the supply of arms and money to the Royalists. That is, of course, totally untrue.
"I hope the House will forgive me for having dealt in such detail with
952
these allegations. But, in view of the world-wide publicity which they have received, I thought it necessary to refute them unequivocally.
"During the course of the Conference three more States in South Arabia applied to join the Federation and were admitted to membership.
"As I have already explained to the House, we recognise the importance of economic as well as political advance. Therefore, at the end of the Conference I invited the Federal Minister of Finance, and one or two other members of the Federal Government, to remain on in London to discuss with us proposals for increased aid.
"The constitutional changes which were agreed at this Conference represent a decisive step in the political evolution of the Federation and will undoubtedly make a significant contribution to the unity and progress of the inhabitants of South Arabia."
3.53 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Marquess for giving us this important Statement with regard to the Conference concerning the South Arabian Federation. It is good to learn that there was such a measure of agreement in the proceedings so far as they have been carried on up to the present. There appears to be hope for the future in this matter, and we hope that the subsequent negotiations will be successful. There still remains the question of clearing up what will be the actual position of the Aden territory within the Federation at Independence, but, from the Statement, it seems to be all right. I must say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we welcome the apparent willingness of the South Arabian Federation to see the retention by the British of the base at Aden, which we regard as most important.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for repeating the statement made in another place. May I ask him, now that this decision has been arrived at, whether the British Government will do everything in their power to bring the level of economic and constitutional advance in the South Arabian States up to that of Aden's? As he knows, at the moment there is a considerable lack of balance

953
between the two, and this is worrying the people of Aden. Secondly, may I ask him whether the States of the East Aden Protectorate are also coming into the Federation. There is an indication in the Statement that three other States have joined. Are these in fact the States of the East Aden Protectorate; and, if so, are they now all in, or will they all be in? Thirdly, may I ask him something about that colourful character the Sultan of Fadhli? What is the present constitutional position of the Sultan? I understand he is now at the court of Nasser. Is he going to remain there; or what will his position be if he tries to resume his post as Sultan of Fadhli?
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question, following the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, with regard to the defection of the Sultan of Fadhli? Is it not the case that the State of Fadhli pretty well straddles all the communications from the base of Aden outwards to the Federation? Is that not of immense strategic importance? Is it also true that members of the Sultan's Legislative Council, and or tribal leaders, are about to join him in Cairo? If he should succeed in turning them to his ideas, might not the situation assume disquieting proportions? And what action are Her Majesty's Government taking to deal with the situation?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I supplement the questions that have just been asked by the two noble Lords by asking the noble Marquess whether, in view of the fact that the Sultan has said he wants to take his State out of the Federation, he has the power to do so; whether, in the present Constitution of the Federation, there is any power for any State to secede? I should like to ask one further question. Have the Federal Ministers expressed a view as to whether the Federation will stay in the Commonwealth after it becomes independent, or is that a matter that will be decided at a later stage?
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, could the noble Marquess tell us—
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, perhaps I might answer the questions that have so far been put to me.
LORD FARINGDON: My point is on Lord Ogmore's question.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl who leads the Opposition for his remarks about the agreement so far reached. As regards the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on raising the level of the economic position of the other States outside Aden, I hope that in the statement of my right honourable friend it was made clear that this was a matter which would be given early and earnest attention by the Government.
As to the second question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the other States the position is that at the moment there are altogether fourteen States in the Federation. Three more have asked to come in, to which I have referred, and one more has been invited to come in. That brings it up to the total number of eighteen States which are in the West Aden Protectorate. So far as the East Aden Protectorate is concerned, it comprises three States—Qu'iti, Kathiri and Mahra—and they have now all been invited to join. So it is our hope that all the States will before long be members of this Federation.
The noble Lords, Lord Ogmore, Lord Sandwich and Lord Listowel, all put questions to me about the position of the Sultan of Fadhli. I want to be absolutely precise about this matter. The Sultan of Fadhli is a constitutional Ruler. He is elected by his people in a traditional manner—that is to say, through the tribal leaders—and he can also be deposed by them; and their representatives are no doubt at present considering the situation. The Sultan has said that he intends to withdraw his State from the Federation. But there is, in fact, no provision (and I imagine that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was thinking of this) in the Federal Constitution for the secession of any State. This applies to Fadhli, as well.
As for what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said about the position of the State of Fadhli, it is true that Fadhli is in a very important position, and one cannot deny the facts of geography. As to whether the Sultan of Fadhli is being joined by others in Cairo, I personally

955
have no knowledge of this, and I am unable to reply to that question. I think those are all the points so far raised.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: There was the question of the Federation and the Commonwealth.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg the noble Earl's pardon; I omitted that. This is a matter which will still have to be discussed.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Marquess has said that the Constitution of the Federation contains no provision entitling any State to secede. Then what is the position of a State which says it is going to secede? If none of the other parties to the Federation who are already in it, and those who wish to join, desire to keep that State in, is there then no step which can be taken to make sure that this unconstitutional act by the Ruler of Fadhli does not disrupt the Constitution?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, of course the State of Fadhli has not asked to secede. This was simply a statement made by the Sultan of Fadhli, declaring that he proposed to take the State out of the Federation. The State of Fadhli has done no such thing.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not the fact that the reason why the Sultan of Fadhli took this extraordinary action was the decision to have a Prime Minister elected by the Legislature, and not a rotating chairman, so that in future it was highly unlikely that the Sultan of Fadhli would be in the important position he has been in? Is that not in fact the very personal and, I would say, improper reason for the Sultan's action?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should not like to guess at the reason for any of the statements or actions of the Sultan of Fadhli, but I dare say the guess of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is as good as anybody's.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be best on the whole not to go into too much detail in this matter at the moment? I welcome very much the care with which the Secretary of State has exposed the duplicity of this particular Sultan, and I was rather relying upon the words the
956
noble Marquess used just now, that no doubt other people in the State of Fadhli will be considering the position.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Marquess could tell us about what proportion of the population will choose its representatives by a system of electoral colleges, and what proportion by direct election.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am not in a position to give a reply to that question. I think it is possible that in some of the States both systems may have to apply. In the urban areas it will be possible to have direct selections, whereas in the rather sparsely populated, wild, mountainous areas, it may be necessary to have these electoral colleges. But I am afraid I am not in a position to give the noble Lord a breakdown of how this would work out.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I refer to something said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about future development in the States? I think this is immensely important. The noble Marquess said that this was going to have the attention of Her Majesty's Government. I should like to put it to the noble Marquess that it needs more than attention: it needs urgent action and a great deal of money, not only for communications, but for education and everything else. I hope it will not get what is known as "attention". I hope something will be done quickly.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have certainly taken the point of my noble friend, and I will see that my right honourable friend has full knowledge of what has been said.

DRUGS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) BILL
4.4 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his lucid exposition of this short but important Bill. I regard it as of great importance, because it is designed

957
to stop the traffic in drugs which is increasing in volume. As he quite rightly said, the Government have not been armed with the necessary powers, and if this Bill does not give them massive weapons, at least it is a very important beginning. I think it has special significance, because it is an attempt to stop the consumption of drugs which hitherto have been prescribed freely for therapeutic reasons, but which do not come within the category of narcotics. Perhaps—who knows?—this may be the beginning of a series of similar Bills, because we are moving into an era where not only the Western countries of the world but all countries are being embraced by the octopus growth of the drug industry which, in alliance with the advertising world, persuades old and young to consume its products, irrespective of their value.
In the course of the passage of this Bill through another place we were told of young people who had pills in their pockets and their purses. Why should we lift our eyebrows at these revelations? There is hardly a home in the country where there is not a box or a bottle half full of tablets, either in a cupboard or on a shelf or, in a one-room home, on the mantlepiece, and children are accustomed to-day to seeing the adults of the family take pills for trivial ailments. They take pills to get fat, pills to get slim, pills to curb the emotions and pills to excite the emotions. Who are we, then, to criticise these teenagers because they quite publicly in their playgrounds, I am told, exchange pills? This is what mother and father do, and we are always taught—are we not?—to set an example to our children. The consumption of pills to-day is a national habit, and I am told that in the United States of America it is worse even than in this country.
Again, the newspapers tell these children about pills with fascinating properties, and taking a pill has become a lark. I suppose "lark" is an old-fashioned word, and they say a "giggle" in the modern idiom of these young people. The immediate result of taking amphetamine is not serious, but it induces a condition of euphoria—life seems wonderful. It does not matter what your parents have said; it does not matter if you fail in your examinations; it does not matter if
958
your girl friend or boy friend has let you down. Amphetamine gives you this feeling of happiness and of wonder.
Unfortunately, when the teenager does this, his judgment is impaired. This stuff depresses his appetite and enables him to dispense with sleep. Therefore, surely, it cannot be argued that this condition produced in a young person who may find himself dependent upon these drugs is not harmful. And yet when this Bill went through another place there were newspaper articles, and honourable Members in another place, saying, "Really, this pill is harmless". I say that the compulsive taking of whatever form of pill or drug in due course demoralises the victim. They are completely dependent on something, whether it is alcohol or a pill. Gradually the moral stamina is sapped, and the boy or girl degenerates. Yet there were people who opposed this Bill on the grounds that it was premature. Also, in another place, it was opposed by people who were actuated by a desire, so they alleged, to defend the freedom of the individual to possess drugs; that this was an encroachment on the freedom of the boy or girl. They professed to protect them against the encroachment of an all-powerful State. This argument is as old as the first regulation on public health. There are some noble Lords who cannot recall it, but others will remember that compulsory vaccination aroused some people to a frenzy of indignation. It was said that the registration of doctors, nurses and midwives was a denial of freedom.
LORD LATHAM: Imposed Chadwick.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Certainly. All that Chadwick asked for was a higher form of cleanliness, but collecting the dust and dirt and so on, because in those days it cost money, was a denial of freedom to the individual. To-day this is history repeating itself, as I read the debate in another place. As I say, it was said that registering doctors and nurses was a denial of freedom because it did not permit the amateurs to try their hand in the cure and treatment of disease. I have observed, my Lords, that in politics the cause of freedom can always be evoked by those lost for a rational argument. I believe that it was evoked in the debate yesterday.

959
The academic argument that amphetamine has not the properties of a narcotic drug like morphia or opium and therefore should not be controlled is, in my opinion, a piece of wishful thinking by those, I suspect, with an interest in the pharmaceutical industry. I see the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, at the back, and he will again say that this is my ritual dance. Somebody has to do this ritual dance if we go on like this with, day after day, more new drugs put into the shops, and day after day the representatives of the pharmaceutical industry coming along and forcing doctors—yes, forcing the doctors, who sometimes agree in order to get them out of the consulting rooms—to take some of these drugs. So, if we are truly to resist this frightful encroachment we must raise our voices every time, and this is such an opportunity.
The only offence created by the Bill, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, is unauthorised possession. There were various suggestions in another place that the penalties were inadequate. I disagree: I think the penalties are quite adequate, for these reasons. First of all, these boys and girls, we are hoping, will be frightened that their mothers and fathers will pay the penalty if they are found possessing those drugs; and it would be wrong I think to penalise parents because, for the first time, their son or daughter has been found with a drug in their possession. It has been said that the ugly individual in the club—I use the word "ugly" because I believe the Home Secretary described him in such a way—the nasty little man who sits in the club distributing the pills to the boys and girls—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: He was called "sleazy".
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I think the club was called "sleazy". "Ugly" rather sums him up; ugly in appearance and ugly in mind. There were people who said that this man or woman should be subject to a heavier fine. Of course, these men are only the agents of the suppliers, the faceless men who are even more corrupt. In my opinion the only way to stop the traffic is to find these men who hide behind a facade of respectability, who enjoy the profits and
960
leave the work of distribution to somebody they consider socially inferior.
In view of the fact that there are very large numbers of these tablets—the noble Lord said that considerable quantities are being distributed—surely it is surprising that the police are never informed that there has been a major theft from the manufacturers, wholesalers or importers. The noble Lord will correct, me, but although there are these huge quantities of drugs on the market, and there is only one general source of supply, manufacturers, wholesalers and importers, and we are seeking to find how these pills get on to the market, why is it that there is never a case reported of a large-scale theft? It seems to me very curious. The noble Lord nods his head; I can only say that we open our newspapers constantly and find every kind of theft reported, but I cannot remember reading of a large-scale theft or repeated thefts from these suppliers.
It is now proposed in this Bill, and in my opinion this is the teeth of the Bill, to register manufacturers and wholesalers, and this will at last enable the Government to exercise more control. I think this is absolutely right and the only thing to do at this stage. Of course, it will have surprised many people who have listened to the noble Lord to learn that importers of these drugs did not need a licence. It has been an amazing thing that they have been able to bring, presumably, an unlimited quantity into this country, and only now are we going to license the importers of these drugs. This is to be rectified also in this Bill. Those are the only comments I wish to make. We wish this little Bill well and hope that its provisions will provide some protection, a beginning at least, for our young people.
4.15 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I rise to say just one or two words in support of this Bill which the noble Lord has just introduced. These particular drugs are not quite the same as the normal drugs which tend to form addiction. I should like to make a point at the start which is not strictly apropos this Bill: that I have been puzzled by the figures given by the Home Office for the total number of drug addicts in the country. This has always seemed to me to be surprisingly small; and that view has been

961
confirmed to me by several people who have made a habit of studying these figures and treating such addicts. They are sure there are more drug addicts in the country than the Home Office figures suggest.
One of the reasons why the drugs referred to in the Bill are not quite the same as those which cause normal drug addiction is that the usual drugs to which people tend to become addicted are taken, in the first place, because they have been supplied under a proper medical prescription. The people have then become addicted to them and have gone on having to take them. Unfortunately, we find that a number of doctors and some nurses become drug addicts because of their familiarity with these drugs. But these drugs called "purple hearts" are quite a different thing. As the noble Lord said, they are taken by people to obtain a "kick" and one of the difficulties about them is that it is very easy, once you have begun to take them, to step up the dose to a very big one, even though you may start with only one or two pills when the occasion arises.
One of the points we have to think about is what exactly are the risks involved in taking these drugs. There appear to me to be two permanent risks. The first is that one can get an acute state of mania which is very difficult to distinguish from a real attack of mania, and it can lead to considerable brain disease which may in time either become incurable or take a long time to cure. The second thing is that it is very simple to move from taking these drugs to taking drugs which become real drugs of addiction, and people thus get involved in the chain of drugs addiction. The kind of case of which I am thinking is one which I came across the other day. A girl, the daughter of a prostitute herself, at the age of sixteen was flung out on to the streets and took up her mother's profession. To keep herself awake she took these "purple hearts" or some other kind of amphetamine pills. From these she moved on in a short time to another drug; and now, at the age of nineteen, she is a heroin addict, whom it is going to be very difficult indeed to cure. That kind of case does occur from time to time with these people, and it is one of the real dangers.
962
Conversely to that, one has to wonder what is the therapeutic value of these drugs. I suggest that their therapeutic value is extremely small. They can be used to control people's appetite, which I suppose is a good thing in some circumstance, but I do not know if that is a very valid justification for the drug. It is said that they are a good treatment for depressive states. There are a great many drugs which have been invented and come on to the market since then which are far better than these amphetamine drugs, and I do not think that is a very valid argument for them. One case in which they are specific is in the treatment of one extremely rare disease, narcolepsy (of which I will not inflict a description on your Lordships), which is so rare that cases of it are almost impossible to find. But that seems to be the sole real justification of these amphetamine drugs. Surely, supposing it became necessary to use the drugs, it would be possible to mix them with some kind of emetic, so that up to a point they were all right; but if a man took too many he would make himself violently sick. I believe that that is done in some treatments, and works very well.
There are two points we have to think about from the point of view of control. One has been referred to by the previous speakers; the difficulty of knowing the source of supply. It is very easy indeed to get these drugs. One has come across patients who have been discharged from the mental wards of hospitals, and who, within half an hour of their discharge, have supplies of these drugs in their pockets. Quite naturally they will not say where they came from; but it is very easy to get them, if one knows the right place to go. The second point, which is also very important, is that it is simple for those who wish to obtain these drugs to get on the list of more than one doctor, even a large number of doctors. I was told about one person who got on the list of ten doctors between the months of October and March, and got his drugs on the prescription form, EC.10. That, I think, is a difficulty in control. It should be looked at very closely. One possibility is that doctors' prescriptions should have some identification mark on them so that one man can get prescriptions only from the same doctor. With those general remarks I should like to support this Bill.
4.22 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I am a director of a pharmaceutical manufacturer but not one that makes these drugs or distributes them; therefore, I have no interest in the drugs. But I have an interest in the reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, and I must say that I deplore the opportunity which the noble Baroness takes, in giving her very proper support to this Bill, to make insinuations and unfounded suggestions as if the whole industry were to blame for something or other which she does not define. I hardly think that is worthy of her station and status as a Member of this House or as a member of such an honourable profession.
I want to make only one or two statements, not authoritatively or officially on behalf of the trade, but as I believe the trade would wish. The pharmaceutical trade support this Bill. Any implication or suggestion, if the noble Baroness had this in mind, that the trade, or the people speaking for the trade in another place, or elsewhere, are opposed to the Bill because it will damage their profits is unworthy and quite erroneous. The trade and the trade society support this measure. No reputable manufacturer, such as my firm, or others who are members of the Association to which we belong, is responsible for conniving at the theft of these pills, which is another of the noble Baroness's suggestions or implications—she did not quite say that, but she implied it. None of us does that.
None of us advertises these pills. They are prescription drugs. They are useful drugs which doctors recommend and which have their place in the therapy. But they are not advertised and sold, and their manufacture and the trade in them are not open to the widespread assault which the noble Baroness made upon, it seemed to me, the whole pharmaceutical trade. How these pills are sold to teenagers I just do not know, but it is obvious that there is a loophole in their importation of them and that we are now going to stop it. Can we not welcome this Bill without making it an opportunity for false and erroneous and, I think, extremely unfair attacks?
4.25 p.m.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, and in any criticism
964
I make I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, that in my animadversions I shall not be making any false or erroneous attacks. I have only one main criticism and that is on the question of penalties. I think the Bill is quite right in dividing the two offences: that of the person who is consuming the goods—possibly a teenager who has been tempted—and that of the second person, the pedlar. I believe that these people are the worst form of rat that is crawling the country to-day, and I think they ought to be dealt with very severely indeed.
While I admit that a penalty of two years' imprisonment, which is included in Clause 1(1), is pretty severe, I think that there is another penalty that could be imposed—and I am open to criticism here—because the Commonwealth Immigrants Act may deal with it. But I am thinking of the question of deportation. I believe that any alien caught peddling drugs should, on conviction, immediately be deported. I hope that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act covers this point. I rather regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, is not here at the moment because I think she was guilty of a flight of hyperbole, to put it mildly. I do not believe that every household in this country is inundated with drugs—far from it! In most of them all you will find is a bottle of aspirins. This practice of taking these amphetamine drugs, and indeed pheno-barbitone also, is largely confined to what the Home Secretary referred to as certain "sleazy joints" in certain large cities.
I am glad to see that the Bill contains power of entry. That is very important, because there is not the slightest shadow of doubt in the mind of anybody who has gone through Soho, or any of the surrounding purlieus, that there are some pretty illegal transactions taking place. I think that "C" Division of the Metropolitan Police need to tighten up patrols in the area, particularly in regard to other offences and not only drug peddling. While I am on this point, one other interesting fact occurs to me. I am informed by a person who did many years' service in the Metropolitan Police, and in the "Vice Squad", that a lot of exchange of drugs takes place in the concourse of certain Underground stations. I am

965
told that Piccadilly, Leicester Square and Tottenham Court Road are quite well known for the exchange of these drugs. I presume that the Metropolitan Police have certain authority there; if not, I certainly presume that the message which is to be sent from the Secretary of State to the police forces will include the London Transport Police. That seems to me to be very important.
I welcome the Bill. It is a great tragedy that we have to consider a measure of this sort, but there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that the effect of these drugs on youth is completely demoralising. In my view, there is ample evidence from the police, and, indeed, from the confessions of youths who have been arrested in disturbances at the South Coast resorts that many of these troubles have been induced by consumption of these drugs. I hope that the Bill will have a very smooth passage. As I have said, it is a measure that I welcome. I feel very strongly—and that is why I have said these few words—that, after murder, rape, and possibly manslaughter, this peddling of drugs is the most hideous offence in the country.
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, I rise to welcome this Bill, as have other speakers. I have no interest to declare in the strict Parliamentary sense, but have two reasons why I venture some observations on this subject. First, I was for several years a director of a company operating in the ethical pharmaceutical field and, secondly, I have myself for some time been taking amphetamine preparations under doctor's orders. Like my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, I am concerned with the reputation of the industry.
It is, I think, important to know the properties of the drug which your Lordships are seeking to restrict in this way, and here I call in aid a text book on pharmacology left over from my pharmaceutical days. It says:
"'Doping', by a single dose of 10 mg. of amphetamine sulfate for a 'spurt' of temporary stimulation, may be justified to meet emergencies, in severe and extreme fatigue. It may be repeated in six to eight hours, but not more than three doses should be taken. It should not be used if the emergency continues more than twenty-four hours."
966
Further, reference has been made, particularly in the Press, and not by your Lordships who are better informed on this subject, to addiction in reference to amphetamine. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the Seventh Report of the Expert Committee on Addiction of the World Health Organisation, which states that there are clear distinctions—and here I follow the noble Lord, Lord Amulree—between addictive drugs, which require strict international control, and habit-forming drugs for which such control is not necessary, but which require warnings regarding use and national control in the form of availability on prescription only.
Drug addiction is broadly defined as a state of periodic or chronic intoxication produced by repeated consumption of a drug—an overpowering need to continue to take it, a psychological and physical dependence on the effects of the drug, and the need to take progressively increasing doses because of the development of tolerance. The World Health Organisation Interdepartmental Committee, in its Report published in 1961, modified this definition of addiction to include specific reference to
"the appearance of a characteristic abstinence syndrome in a subject from whom the drug is withdrawn".
I do not think that this is the case with the amphetamine drug. I think the word to use is "habituation" and not "addiction". This is not to say that there have not been, are not, or never will be in the future persons who can become habituated to amphetamine and will indulge in abuse.
If I may quote from Martindale's Extra Pharmacopœia, which appeared as recently as 1958, it says:
"An amphetamine habit may develop but it is not a true addiction. There is no risk of cumulative ill-effects even after prolonged administration of therapeutic doses."
It does, of course, say therapeutic, and not excessive, doses. I personally have no intention of defending those who have in the past committed what will be offences under this Bill, whether by altering or forging prescriptions, stealing drugs, or National Health Service prescription forms to obtain this drug, on which they have become psychologically dependent, but would merely try to establish in your Lordships' minds that there

967
is a real therapeutic value in amphetamine products. The attention of the public, and indeed of Parliament, has been drawn to a particular combination of dexamphetamine and amylobarbitone known by the trade name of Drinamyl, and manufactured by the long-established firm of Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd. of Welwyn Garden City. This is the British subsidiary of a famous American ethical pharmaceutical firm, and surely, as I hope all your Lordships will agree, is above reproach in this matter. Regarding the particular substance Drinamyl, it is perhaps worth pointing out to your Lordships that the tablets are neither purple in colour nor heartshaped. They are in fact blue and approximately triangular in shape. I have one in my possession in case any of your Lordships would like to examine one. I am delighted to say that I did not get it other than by arrangement with my own doctor.
At the request of the Pharmaceutical Society, significant changes will be made in the physical characteristics of these tablets. The ones that are coming off the machines now are in the new shape. The manufacturers have satisfied the Metropolitan Police and, I believe, the Home Office that their security precautions are more than adequate. I have had the opportunity to inspect many facets of the process of manufacture and dispatch of these amphetamine products from the factory and I am, if I may say so, much impressed. Since these drugs have been made, I am assured that no thefts have occurred from the premises or from the company's vans delivering to wholesalers; so any thefts that do occur are, I believe, happening lower down the distribution chain.
I should now like to turn to what your Lordships may regard as a Committee point, but one which I consider to be of importance. Amphetamine products may, according to Clause 1(1)(a) be held by an individual if they are
"in his possession by virtue of the issue of a prescription by a duly qualified practitioner…".
That is quite clear. Clause 5(1) also provides that the importation of amphetamine without a licence from the Home Secretary is prohibited. That, too, is clear. May I ask the Minister of State what is the position about visitors from
968
abroad who may wish to bring in a supply of amphetamine for their own use? It may have been supplied on prescription in the country from which a visitor comes, but he is unlikely to have with him documentary evidence that it has been prescribed. I wonder whether such a prescription would satisfy the provisions of Clause 1(1). Then, I wonder what happens in this case. Have the officers of Customs and Excise—presumably the Water guard—any discretion to allow small quantities for visitors' own use, under some other legislation or directive from the Home Office?
More generally, I think this is a valuable Bill because it will give the necessary powers to the police to stop this illicit traffic that is going on in amphetamine products. The interesting thing is that there seems to be much more interest in amphetamine products by themselves than in Drinamyl which has, after all, a built-in "brake" in the barbiturate content. I am sure that it would not be in the public interest to restrict the right of any medical practitioner to prescribe for his patient any drug which he thinks desirable. But, subject to that, I consider that control of drugs is a good idea. I do not, however, see why amphetamine products should he singled out especially for these restrictions which it is proposed should be imposed. I would have thought that this Bill might well be a precursor of wider-drawn legislation affecting many of the drugs now coming into the "prescription only" schedule of the Poisons Rules. Those members of the community who use these drugs legitimately on doctor's orders have nothing to fear, and everything to gain, from the stricter control of the illegal and improper uses of these drugs. I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
4.38 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in rising to support the Bill, I declare an interest. As most of your Lordships are aware, I am chairman of a pharmaceutical company though, like the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, I am not concerned with the manufacture of any of these drugs. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill; I wholeheartedly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, said, in feeling quite strongly about the need for this measure, and I express the hope that we

969
lose no time in getting it on to the Statute Book. I feel that it would be proper to support what the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said about the implications in the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. I am sorry she is not in the House to take part in this measure of the ritual dance to which we are getting used. I say that because this is the third occasion on which I have spoken in her absence, when she has handed o It an attack such as she has done to-day. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and I feel that we should boldly say that implications such as have been made are quite out of order in a place like this.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene for one moment, may I say that I am holding a watching brief for my noble friend and will report all that he says to her, and I will do my best to reply for her.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I am glad of that, and I appreciate that this also is a step in the ritual dance. Sometimes the noble Lady does for the noble Lord what he will do for the noble Lady to-day. But this is a most serious matter, and I shall speak for longer than I had intended because of some of the things that have been said and some that have not been said. We have heard, as the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, have said, that these drugs are of therapeutic value, and, as the Minister said, they are legitimate and beneficial medicaments—I think those were his words.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, could I interrupt for one moment? I in fact said that I thought they were of very limited therapeutic value. I was not saying they were of great therapeutic value. I think they are of very limited therapeutic value indeed.
LORD FERRIER: I know that that is the noble Lord's view, and I think it is the view of most doctors. Nevertheless, the fact is that these drugs are prescribed by doctors.
This brings me to a point on which I was going to comment later in my speech. We hear little about the doctor's part in this matter and a great deal about the manufacturer's part, but we
970
must bear in mind that these drugs are produced in these quantities because doctors prescribe them in these quantities. This should be borne in mind. I may have misheard the noble Lord at the Dispatch Box, but he did not say, I think, that the industry was fully consulted in the preparation of this Bill. This was said by his colleague in the other place, and drew the attention of the other place to the fact that the Bill was drawn up in full consultation with the industry.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I must remind my noble friend that I still have to answer the debate.
LORD FERRIER: Then I have taken the words out of the noble Lord's mouth. There is, of course, no evidence that doctors or pharmacists or manufacturers have treated their responsibilities in respect of these drugs lightly. Indeed, specific warnings have been issued and circulated by all the associations concerned with the medical profession and with the pharmaceutical industry and profession on this subject—if indeed that was necessary, for the Press have not failed to publicise any little incident they can over this. Indeed, in my view, they have overstepped the bounds of wisdom in their pursuit of sensationalism in this matter. It is fashionable to carry out, in full cry, a "witch hunt" after the pharmaceutical industry.
The noble Lady asked, "Where are the Press notices? Why are they not reported?" The implication of what she said was noticed by other speakers than myself, especially by my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. But has it occurred to the noble Lady, and to others who think on these things, that perhaps it is not wise for these matters to appear in the Press? I will undertake now to let the noble Lady or the noble Lord have cuttings about the theft of massive quantities of these drugs which appeared in the Press. In fact the drugs were recovered by the police, but it is possible their task was made the more difficult by the fact that it was so publicised. I think this point is worth mentioning. There have also been in the Press attempts, such as the noble Lady has made to-day, to imply that the industry has resisted this Bill. Of course, the reverse is the case. They have welcomed it, and they do welcome it.

971
Another point to which attention was drawn by my noble friend Lord Furness was that the manufacturers have agreed in regard to "purple hearts" no longer to manufacture either in the colour or in the shape. On the matter of shape, I would take issue with Lord Furness, for I am pretty sure that I have seen a heart-shaped pill of this nature.
LORD TAYLOR: So have I.
LORD FERRIER: In some cases there is a serration down the middle. The original object was to enable a pill to be readily broken so that half a dose could be taken. As I have said, the manufacturers have agreed to discontinue the manufacture of this pill, either in colour or in shape. I think I am right in saying, and I am not a pharmacist, that the use of coloured pills is discouraged in this country in general, not only by the pharmacist but by the doctor. The noble Lady said that we live on pills, but let us bear two factors in mind. One is that the day of what in Scotland we call "Going to the doctor for a bottle" is over. The liquid draught, the medicament in liquid form, has been replaced by the tablet, and probably wisely so, for the tablet is a more easily handled and secured medicament. That is one point. Secondly, I am reminded of an occasion when I heard an eminent physician describe a visit he had had from a lady patient from America, who had in her bag three different kinds of pills which she took at different times of the day. They were of different colours, and had on them her initials. This is an illustration of the level to which in the United States people have gone in consuming drugs in the form of pills. I quote that example only to show how reasonably sensible we in this country are on this matter.
In saying this, I do not in any way detract from the wisdom of the action the Government have taken in introducing this Bill with the objects they have in mind. It is proper that the regulations should be tightened up. Two or three years ago these drugs and drugs of this nature were scheduled under the Poisons Act and became saleable only on prescription. Now we have this Bill, and there have been suggestions as to how these drugs reach the public. It is quite well known that there are patients
972
who manage to get their names on to the lists of a number of doctors and in that way are able to get excessive quantities, either for their own consumption or for sale at a profit.
I mention this because they do this on EC.10 forms. I think I am right in saying that doctors are tightening up the whole matter of these EC.10s; it is proposed in future that the doctor's name should be printed on them, rather like the cheque form in modern banking practice. Nevertheless, a friend of mine told me the other day that he was in a doctor's waiting room and there, on a table, was a pad of EC.10 forms which somebody could have taken and, with a forged signature, obtained drugs of this sort. In talking of doctors' waiting rooms I cannot resist referring back to what the noble Lady said in her picture of drug salesmen forcing trembling doctors to order their drugs. The doctors of my acquaintance are not the sort of people who are going to be forced—I think was her word—to order drugs which they do not feel inclined to order.
There are, of course, temptations—not only to doctors, although that is a remote possibility—for the illicit disposal of these drugs. There are temptations to pharmacists and to pharmacists' employees, employees who may not be professional people; and those temptations are powerful. They will be inhibited by the provisions of this Bill, and, more than that, especially by the penalties the B.M.A. and the Pharmaceutical Society have in their power to inflict on members of their professions who disregard regulations.
I take the view that this Bill is a wise and a proper step towards controlling the situation. I have only one comment to make on the draft. On page 4, Clause 3 (1), line 10, the words appear:
"…may grant a search warrant authorising any constable named in the warrant".
This may be a usual way of wording a clause of this nature, but I should prefer to see the words "police officer or police officers". From my personal knowledge of these things, when there is a question of a search to be carried out one may be up against pretty powerful brains operating from premises from which there are more than one exit. I would therefore ask the noble Lord the Minister to give that matter some consideration.

973
I repeat, again, that I welcome the Bill, as does the industry in which I play some small part, though I have no authority to speak for it; I speak here as a Member of your Lordships' Chamber. There is a leak, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said, and here is a way of stopping it. I have only one other thing to say. Let us hope that there is no delay in getting this measure on to the Statute Book, so that the situation which exists to-day may be speedily brought to an end.
4.50 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, in moving this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that it was modern, something new, for people to be taking drugs for "kicks". As a matter of fact, it is not. When Sir Humphry Davy discovered nitrous oxide gas it was widely used at fairs, and you could go into a booth at a fair and inhale nitrous oxide gas for a small sum. It was "laughing gas", and you got a great "kick" out of doing this. Then, when ether was discovered, exactly the same thing happened. Young medical students, in particular, used to have parties when they would sit round and inhale the ether. They were known as "ether jags"; and even to-day some people still inhale ether. Every now and then an anæthetist has to give up his profession because he has become addicted to the inhalation of ether. So this question of taking drugs for "kicks" is not quite so new as one might think.
But the story of these particular drugs is a very remarkable one. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Amulree said about the amphetamine drugs. They are not very valuable therapeutically, and if they were all to disappear from the world nobody would be very much the worse. They are of value, as my noble friend said, in narcolepsy. They help a little if one cannot control one's gluttony, and if a man is depressed they sometimes un-depress him. Also, if anyone wants to stay awake for an examination they sometimes help to keep him going, as a number of medical students have found out. They are quite useful, I imagine, if one has to stay awake in a space capsule for a certain amount of time when one would normally be going to sleep. That is about the lot. That really covers the story of them.
974
But then somebody thought up the extraordinary idea of combining them with their antidote, as it were. An overdose of these drugs can prove extremely dangerous. One becomes over-excited, over-excitable and, finally, goes into mania. So somebody thought, "Why not put with them their antidote?" and they put with them a barbiturate, which is a sedative, and a combination of a stimulant and a sedative, in nicely balanced proportions, is given. The noble Viscount, Lord Furness, spoke of this as a "built-in brake", but I do not know. It is a built-in oddity to give stimulant and sedative together. But the result is that people, instead of taking two or three of these tablets, can shovel in handfuls. One can, in fact, take 20, 30, 40 or 50 of these tablets. Either of these drugs, taken alone, would be fatal in these quantities; but put together they make a harmless, or apparently harmless, compound. That is what these young people have been doing, and this is what is so extraordinary. But nobody knows what effect, long-term, this habit is going to have on them, or may have had already.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, as a matter of interest, what effect they have immediately, if any? Can the two drugs cancel out each other?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, their real effect is simply to keep the young person awake. They can stay awake all through the night and can go on playing their tunes, or whatever it is they play, for 48, 72, or even more hours, without, apparently, any very disastrous effect. This is all it does to them in the way of a "kick". It is not a sort of conventional "kick", so far as I can see.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me if I interrupt him? Before he leaves that point, could he say why, then, the medical profession prescribes these medicaments at all for ordinary patients?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I think that in ordinary therapeutic doses they are quite good for depression. That is to say, if one is suffering from an ordinary psychiatric depression of a mild kind, it is quite often relieved by taking two or three of these tablets in the morning and at midday. But with amphetamine one is always advised not to take it in the

975
evening because it keeps one awake. That is what happens with a combination of the two drugs. I am not running down Drinamyl, and I am not running down the pharmaceutical industry. I am merely stating that they have made this combination, and these "kids" have discovered that this combination of two things, which in large doses would be dangerous, becomes undangerous. That is what has led to this strange social position of these young people taking these enormous quantities of these drugs.
Some of your Lordships may have seen the excellent I.T.V. film in the programme "This Week", in which about 20 of these teenagers were inteviewed. They described the way they took these drugs in the sort of doses I have been describing—30, 40 or more at a time. Then there was an interview with the fellows who peddle the drugs—and may I say that I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Hobson that it is a despicable occupation. It is difficult to talk about sentences, but I certainly do not think that the sentence of two years proposed in this Bill is too great.
I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, when he says that these are really drugs of habituation rather than addiction. He spoke, I suppose, as an amphetamine habitué himself. We may all have taken amphetamine on occasions. We used to take it as an inhalant, but it did not work very well. It did harm rather than good, because although it cleared the air passages for a while, it usually spread the infection even further and deeper, so it has been practically given up for that particular use. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, was a bit "tough" on my noble friend Lady Summerskill, but he felt that she had been "tough" on him. As a matter of fact, many of the things she said she was saying about the pedlars of these drugs. They were the people who were receiving the bulk of her anger, and I think we shall all agree about this.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord only said it because I was out of the Chamber.
LORD FERRIER: I think it would be fair, my Lords, if I had your permission to join again in the dance. I am very sorry it happens that the noble Lady always leaves when I am going to speak.
976
On the occasion of her maiden speech that was the case, and it was so again the other day. I assure the noble Lady that I really pulled my punches—I am sorry; I should not have said that; I mean that I said less than I would have done had the noble Lady been present.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I must say that I agree with my noble friend Lady Summerskill, particularly on the subject of the number of drugs which are knocking about in the home. I am not blaming the noble Lords opposite for this, and on this issue I am disagreeing a little with my noble friend Lord Hobson, because one of the reasons why so many medicine chests in so many bathrooms contain unused drugs is that we doctors prescribe rather too many of them.
What happens is that, filled with kind thoughts for our patients, and bearing in mind that they must pay a shilling on each prescription form, we say, when they come to us, "Oh, well; let us give him a decent load to keep him going, and he will not come back so soon, perhaps. Also, he will need to spend only a shilling". So we write down "60" when perhaps the person can get by with 20 or 30, and the other 30 or 40 remain in the cupboard, doubtless to the legitimate profit of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, and the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. We do not blame them for this; but that is what is happening, and that is why there are a great many drugs knocking about in medicine cupboards, often with the labels falling off, and a very unsatisfactory state it is. I have one friend, a general practitioner, who makes it a rule never to prescribe, save on very rare occasions, more than three days' supply. This is a most excellent rule, and your Lordships would be surprised at how many people are cured in three days if the drug is going to work. One would commend that as a rule, though this doctor does have rather big surgeries because a number of people have to come back for more. But, still, he would rather do that, and know the amount he is prescribing, than risk having over-prescription and oversupplies knocking around.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, mentioned the E.C.10 form on which the doctor prescribes. A doctor is already

977
bound by law to stamp his name on the back of each form, as well as to sign it on the front; but, of course, people could steal these forms perfectly easily. People are in and out of doctors' surgeries all the time, and I have no doubt there have been some cases of drugs getting into circulation in that way. But I must say that I think theft has been the main way. I think large quantities of these drugs have been obtained by theft from manufacturers, from wholesalers or distributors or from retailers; and probably not much from doctors' surgeries because they do not carry large stocks. I am not blaming any of those three or four groups of people for this particular thing, but am just saying that this is what I think happens.
When the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, comes to reply I hope he will tell us one particular point about the process of manufacture and distribution, and about the licensing of the manufacturers and distributors of these things. In the case of real drugs of addiction, the regulations are very strict, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, knows—very strict indeed—as to the control of the quantity taken. The quantity at each process is so controlled that I imagine thieving is practically impossible. But marginal drugs—drugs which are dangerous but are not drugs of addiction—are churned out in enormous numbers in modern pharmaceutical factories. The pill-making machines turn out these drugs in their hundreds of thousands or millions, and one wonders how strict is the accounting for the quantities of material put into the machines and the number of drugs coming out at the other end. I have never seen a counting device fixed to a pill-making machine. I may be wrong; I see the noble Viscount, Lord Furness—
VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, at Smith, Kline and French Laboratories, who make the drinamyl product and, indeed, many of the amphetamine drugs. and whose premises I had the pleasure of visiting last week, there is, in fact, an electronic counter on all amphetamine-product machines.
LORD TAYLOR: I am delighted to hear it. That should greatly help the Home Office in drawing up regulations—
978
because, if it can be done there, it can presumably be done everywhere—about the control of the flow of these drugs through the factory. Because it is rather a temptation to the operatives, who are dealing with millions of these things flowing past them all day on the production line, just to sneak a few into their pocket—and there is a ready market at a "bob" a time, or whatever it is, for them. They are not peddling in opium: they are doing something milder, although it is something utterly undesirable. But it is a temptation, and if there could be stricter control inside the factories I am sure we should all welcome it.
My Lords, I think this is a perfectly sensible Bill to deal with a small but rather unpleasant problem which has come upon us. It has come upon us, not because we have misused science but because some young people have found a way of tricking science, as it were. I am sorry we should have to take this action, but I am sure this is a reasonable way in which to do it. The noble Viscount, Lord Furness, suggested that it might be desirable to recognise prescriptions from other countries as entitling persons to have these drugs. I think it is perfectly all right to give Customs officers reasonable discretion, as indeed they already have, but I do not think we want to weaken the Bill in any way. I think that, on balance, the decisions come to in another place in this particular respect were right. I see no great need to alter this Bill at all, and I join my noble friend Lady Summerskill in giving it a warm welcome.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I think it would be proper for me to advert to his mention of pilferage rather than theft. The noble Lord referred to pilferage, in fact. I think I am right in saying that most pharmaceutical undertakings maintain a power of search which they impose rather strictly on their employees.
LORD TAYLOR: But there is a difference between retaining a power of search and exercising a power of search, inevitably and rightly.
5.6 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for the welcome they have

979
given to this Bill—a welcome which seems general, I am glad to say. There are one or two general points that I ought to answer. Might I perform the rather extraordinary feat, perhaps, of trying to break up the ritual dance by pouring oil on troubled waters? As this is probably the last speech on this Bill in the two Houses, may I make the position as clear as I can about the pharmaceutical industry and about the medical profession; and may I say that both of them have been very helpful?
It was suggested in another place that before introducing this legislation steps should have been taken to get doctors, pharmacists and others who have legitimate use of these drugs to do all they can to prevent diversion of supplies into the wrong hands. My Lords, these steps have already been taken. Last August the Home Office wrote to the Pharmaceutical Society and to the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry asking for their assistance in ensuring that amphetamines and similar drugs should not be misused. The Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry brought the Home Office letter to the notice of all their members concerned with the manufacture or wholesale of these drugs. The Pharmaceutical Society had already issued warnings to its members about the serious consequences of selling these drugs without prescriptions, and about the need to keep a sharp watch for forged prescriptions. The Society has continued to impress the importance of these matters on its members.
Steps were also taken, in consultation with the Ministry of Health, to bring to the notice of doctors the need for care in issuing prescriptions to persons not known to them, persons known to be addicts or persons known to have forged prescriptions. The need for care in these matters was brought to the attention of doctors through the National Health Service Executive Committee, and through the British Medical Association.
My Lords, as I said at the beginning, the associations and societies dealing with both doctors and chemists have all behaved extraordinarily well, and have been very helpful.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to ask one question? Can the Exclusive Brethren contract out?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think they would have to contract in; but I should require notice of that question.
May I now briefly answer one or two other points, because I think my "oil on troubled waters" remarks have already answered a good many. The noble Baroness said that she was surprised that she did not see in the newspapers stories of thefts and robberies of these pills. I can assure her that there have been some, and that some people have been caught. But I would remind noble Lords that it is possible to steal (and I am not now talking about pilfering) quite a lot of moneys-worth of these pills and contain them in quite a small space. They are quite small, and a man does not need an enormous lorry to make quite a lot of money. There have been some quite big thefts.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, does not agree with the Home Office figures about addiction. I shall argue that matter with him at some later date. I think I have answered my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale by breaking up the "ritual dance". He is not in his place, but I hope that he will read what I have said. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, mentioned aliens
and Commonwealth immigrants. I have a detestation of drug pedlars of any kind and I would place this offence higher on my list; but I think that there is no difference between Commonwealth citizens, aliens and any other criminals who commit this offence. The Metropolitan Police, who have, of course, been consulted, think that the Bill will give them adequate powers to do the job.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, will it cover railway stations?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think the Bill will cover everything, but I have made a note of that point. There will certainly be a message from the Home Office about it. I cannot go further, because I had no notice of that question, and I do not know exactly what has been done about it.

981
My noble friend Lord Furness raised the question of importation of these drugs by visitors to this country for their personal use. We have looked into this matter, and discussed it at great length, and we believe that there is no solution to this problem except to say that people may not have these drugs on them without authorisation. Customs officers have pretty good latitude in what they are allowed to do; and if a traveller brings in enough for, say, a week for himself, no Customs officer is going to take them away from him. If he wants more he will have to get a doctor's prescription. I think this is the only way, and a sensible way, of dealing with the matter. My noble friend Lord Ferrier, apart from the "ritual dance", raised the question of the word "constable". "Constable" is the correct term for a police officer. A police officer holds his authority because of the fact that he is a constable. Police of all ranks are constables.
A NOBLE LORD: Does that apply to the plural?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I know we call a police officer of the lowest rank a constable, bat the position is that a policeman of any rank is a constable.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I think, asked the only other question that I have not yet answered. He asked about registration and licensing. Let me explain this point. It is the manufacturer who must be registered. We are of opinion that there may be one or two manufacturers who are not reliable. If we find that confirmed (I am not talking about my noble friend's interests; but there may be one or two, or they may arise), they will not be permitted to register. It will be exactly the same with importers. Unless we know all about an importer, and that he is reputable, he will not get a licence to import. As regards the rest of the trade, and doctors, chemists, and so on, we think that in this particular case it is important not to try to complicate their lives by requiring them to keep special records. Doctors or chemists at the moment are covered. Chemists have to have prescriptions. We did not want any more detailed keeping of records by either of them than exists at the present time. I hope that answers the question.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, it does not quite answer the question. What
982
I was worried about was the manufacture and the flow-through of these drugs. I wondered whether it could be made a condition of the licence that a tally, as it were, of the amount of drugs in various processes of manufacture should regularly be kept and that this should be a condition of the grant of the licence.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I cannot say that it would be a condition. We have not yet quite reached that stage. But I will say that it is possible to refuse registration. My right honourable friend can do that. May I thank noble Lords again for the reception that they have given this Bill?
On Question, Bill read 2a committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NEW TOWNS (No. 2) BILL
5.16 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a simple Bill, and I hope it will commend itself to your Lordships as it commended itself to both Parties in another place. The New Towns Act, 1946, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and which he administered so successfully during his period of office, was at the time supported by me; indeed, a short time ago he very kindly directed attention in your Lordships' House to the fact that I was apparently the only speaker in another place from either Party who gave his New Towns Bill a cordial and unqualified welcome. It has undoubtedly been an extremely beneficial measure, and we are all glad to know that a new crop of New Towns is now being set up under that Act.
It is the Minister of Housing and Local Government who takes the initiative in this matter. He sets up the Development Corporation; he chooses its members after consultation with the local authorities and other people affected; he chooses the site of the New Town and designates the land. It follows, therefore, that his is both the initiative in the matter and the final judgment. I suggest, therefore, that his action should be under

983
Parliamentary control. In the Town Development Act, 1952, where the Minister proposes an extension of an existing town not only is his action under Parliamentary control but he has to pass an Affirmative Order through both Houses. The purpose of this Bill is only to establish that in the case of action under the New Towns Act, 1946, there shall be a Negative Resolution procedure, so that in certain circumstances any noble Lord in this House or any honourable Member in another place may move a Prayer that the Order be annulled.
Because of this lack of Parliamentary control at the present time, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in another place said, in column 10 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Standing Committee "D" on June 10:
"The Government concede that there is a case for requiring that an Order designating a New Town should be subject to the Negative Parliamentary procedure…"
After an interruption and another sentence, he went on:
"My right honourable friend and the Government agree that this should apply only where there is a clash between Government policy as represented by the Minister and the policy and views of the local planning authority."
This Bill applies both to the original designation of land for a New Town and to major extensions. It was, in fact, proposed major extensions that actually caused the Bill to be introduced. My honourable friend the Member for Hitchin was prominent in opposing extensions that the Minister was proposing to Stevenage New Town. He obtained widespread support locally, in this House and in another place. There were two debates, one here and one in another place, but they arose only by the fortunate coincidence that at the time the Government were attempting to pass legislation through Parliament—what will be called the New Towns (No. 1) Bill of the present year. If it had not been for that chance, that legislation was required and was coming before both Houses, no one would have had any opportunity to speak against the proposals of the Minister which had incurred such strong opposition.
It is the view of many people, including a prominent Member of the Opposition in another place, that the
984
case for Parliamentary control over extensions is even stronger than the case for control over the designation of land for New Towns. Mr. Skeffington said, in the same Committee at column 24:
"If it is proposed to alter—some may think, very seriously to alter—the whole conception of a New Town by an extension, as is happening in Stevenage, it is absurd that the Member of Parliament for the area and others who may be interested should be denied the right to put their views about it in Parliament."
After another paragraph, he goes on:
"In the proposed New Town extension, which we all know about at present, many of us feel an extension of the magnitude proposed would completely ruin the original design and concept of Stevenage."
Therefore, the proposals of this Bill are that if the local planning authority oppose what the Minister is proposing to do, and if the extension is substantial—that is, more than 10 per cent. of the existing area of the New Town and more than 500 acres—and if the Order is made after December 31 of this year (because nobody wishes to interfere with the Order designating the area of land for the new town of Washington, which is agreed upon and likely to go through during the next six months), if these three conditions are satisfied, then it will be open to any noble Lord or honourable Member of another place to pray against the Order.
I may be asked: Is it likely that a Minister would make an Order that was objectionable? In the first place, there is the controversial case of Stevenage. I think the explanation of that is a very simple one and not at all discreditable to the Minister. We all know the tremendous pressure for housing at the present time, and it is by the extension of existing and well organised New Towns that the most rapid provision of additional houses can be got. But those of us who are concerned about town and country planning are not anxious that things should be done in the speediest way possible if what is done is not wise and is not going to result in the preservation of amenities for future generations.
Again, the Minister is always liable to be subjected to great pressure from the Treasury to increase the area of New Towns. This has already happened in most of the New Towns, especially in the case of Stevenage. Manifestly, there is a strong financial argument in favour

985
of using the same headquarters staff—shall I say?—in the New Town corporation for organising the building of a larger town. The natural consequence of that, in my opinion, will be that we have a town centre designed for a certain population, let us say, 60,000, and if, by subsequent extensions, the size of the New Town is increased from 60,000 to 80,000 and then to 120,000, we shall have a town which is seriously out of balance.
It is an anomalous fact that at the present time if the Minister desires to extend an existing town under the Town Development Act of 1952 he has to pass an Order through both Houses, whereas, if he wishes to make an entirely New Town or an extension to a New Town he is able to do so without any Parliamentary control at all. Therefore, I hope that this Bill will prove to be not of a controversial nature. The meaning of it is this, if I may repeat it in a few words. If the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in the face of continuing opposition from the local planning authority affected—that is, a local county council—wishes to designate land for a New Town or, alternatively, seeks to make a major extension of an existing New Town, and if the Order is made after December 31, 1964, either House may pray against the Order, and if the Prayer is carried, the Order is annulled.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a (Lord Molson.)
5.29 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has introduced this Bill. As we should expect, he has introduced it fairly and clearly. I find it very difficult to make up my mind on the merits of the Bill. It was introduced in another place by an honourable Member who has shown great persistence in opposing the extension of Stevenage, which is part of his constituency, and great reluctance to having Stevenage extended substantially. In that reluctance, I think he has a goad case. I supported him when the New Towns (No. 1) Bill came before this House. But I think it is a questionable principle to introduce legislation dealing with one particular hard case. Having regard to the terms of this Bill, I doubt whether it would apply to any other extension. There
986
are two qualifications in the Bill. The extension has to be more than 500 acres and not less than one-tenth of the total area. So it cannot apply to many cases, and in practice I doubt whether we shall have more than the case of Stevenage to deal with. I think, therefore, that a Bill which purports to be general, but is designed with one particular problem in view, is one that we ought to examine carefully.
I am not even sure that it will be effective from the point of view of the introducer of the Bill. I think it ought to be remembered that before an area is actually designated as a New Town there are long discussions with all the local authorities concerned. For every one of the fourteen New Towns which were designated during my term of office as Minister we had long and protracted negotiations, with the single exception, I may say, of Stevenage, which I regretted afterwards. As regards all the others, there were, as I say, long and protracted negotiations. As a matter of fact, in regard to Stevenage, there was no provision for an inquiry and it was left entirely to the Minister. But I think it would have been wiser in that case to have had these discussions. Ever since then there have been long discussions with the local authorities. All the objections which local authorities concerned in the area nave made have been carefully considered by the Minister, and it is only after these long inquiries and discussions that an area is designated. So the Minister is fully aware of any objections that might be raised.
The designation of an area is a very long, complicated and technical process. There are many factors to be taken into account. From a practical point of view, to give the local authorities the right to object, and to have it dealt with by Parliament in the form of a Negative Resolution, is not really a satisfactory way of ventilating the question. What actually happens, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is well aware, is that a Prayer is lodged in another place—and theoretically it can be done here—and it is discussed at some time approaching midnight, in a very thin House with maybe a dozen honourable Members in attendance or possibly not as many as that. The honourable Member who objects to the designation gives his

987
reasons, but the House, as a whole, is in no position to judge of this complicated matter. It really is a subject for full inquiry. At the end of the half-hour or three-quarters of an hour during which the discussion takes place, the Government are quite sure that they will get their majority if there is a Division on it, and the matter goes through. But what happens is that, assuming, as I think we must assume, that the opposition to the designation is defeated, it then goes to inquiry. I wonder to what extent the inquiry may be prejudiced by the fact that there has already been a decision of another place.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, there will have been discussions before, as the noble Lord has said, as provided for in the First Schedule to the New Towns Act, 1946.
LORD SILKIN: Yes. I have said that there will have been discussions. But what I am pointing out is that it is not a very effective procedure, in practice, to give the honourable Member in whose constituency the proposed New Town is to be built the right to make an objection, because he will probably be the only person who will object. I have explained the conditions under which this objection will be discussed. It will be impossible in the time normally available for this purpose to give to the House the full reasons for selecting a particular area for designation; and I wonder how effective it will be from the point of view of those who object to it.
I was going on further to say that their case might well be prejudiced by the fact that there has been a decision in another place or in this House in favour of a designation order, because in due course there will be a public inquiry. There are other objectors, apart from the local authority, who will have the right to object.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, if I may interrupt again—I do so with some hesitation, because the noble Lord is the author of this Act and knows it extremely well—the First Schedule, which lays down the whole procedure to be followed under Section 1, provides:
"If any objection is duly made to the proposed order and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall, before making the order, cause a public local inquiry to be held with respect thereto.
988
and shall consider the report of the person by whom the inquiry was held."
If he makes the order after holding the inquiry, it is then that the Prayer would be moved. There is no question of there being a further public inquiry after the Prayer has been heard against the Government.
LORD SILKIN: I had not appreciated that the inquiry will have taken place first.
LORD MOLSON: Yes.
LORD SILKIN: If that is so, it makes the case against this procedure even stronger, I should have thought, because you then have had a public inquiry, which is normally conducted by an independent inspector. You have had, possibly, a prolonged inquiry, with evidence given, and the Minister has then come to a decision on the basis of the evidence produced at the inquiry. If the Bill actually provides that after the Minister has come to a decision in that way it should be open to Parliament to reject it, it seems to me to be an extraordinary proposition.
However, having said that, I do not propose to oppose this Bill. I have given reasons why I think it is not going to be very effective. It can have the advantage, perhaps, of the honourable Member in another place who does not like the designation being able to "let off steam"; but it can have little other effect. If one can imagine the Minister coming to another place and saying that he has held the public inquiry and previously discussed it with all relevant bodies; that he has had an independent inspector reporting on it, and has finally—as he possibly might—modified the scheme to try to meet some of the objections; and then he says that he has confirmed the order—if after all that the local authority still objects, and it has to be the subject of discussion in another place or in this House, I can only conceive that it would be a farcical discussion: it would become virtually a matter of confidence in the Minister, and I cannot conceive that it would have any result except to confirm the views of the Minister.
There may be some advantage in having this matter ventilated. But I wonder why it is confined to cases where there is a local authority objecting. As

989
the Bill is drawn (perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Molson, will correct me if I am wrong) it is not even the relevant local planning authority, but any local planning authority, that may object. It need not be the local planning authority for the area of the proposed New Town; it can be any other. It can be an adjacent one, or it can be one which thinks it might be affected, although in practice it can be shown that it will not be. I do not know whether it is intended to widen the scope of planning authorities who may object, but it would have made more sense if it related to the planning authority which controls the area concerned. But that is a Committee point, and when the Bill goes to Committee I may put down an Amendment to clarify the question.
I do not want to prolong this discussion. My own personal view is that it is not a very serious matter. We got along quite well without this procedure—leaving out Stevenage—with the thirteen New Towns that were designated, and there was no objection. In fact, during the whole term of their existence this Government have not thought it necessary to introduce legislation of this kind. It will hold up proceedings, and hold up the building of New Towns. I do not think it will do much harm, but I do not think it will do any good. Therefore, while I do not propose to oppose this Bill, I personally shall not be heartbroken if it makes no further progress.
5.42 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, my feelings about this Bill were very much like those of my noble friend Lord Silkin, until I heard something the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said in the course of his speech, to which I shall come in a moment. First, I think I should declare my interest. As your Lordships know, I am a member of the Harlow New Town Development Corporation. I suppose that one day an extension order might be made by a Minister in which I might conceivably have an interest—not a financial interest, but a desire to see such an extension occur. Your Lordships must bear that in mind, though I can assure you it has no relevance at all to this particular discussion, and certainly do not intend it to have any relevance.
990
I think the whole House knows of the sincere concern for town and country planning which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has, and we would at once believe that in introducing this Bill he was quite sure that it was going to further the best interests of town and country planning. As soon as I realised what the Bill was about, I took a contrary view. Although I do not think it a very important matter, nevertheless I think it is something which is worth looking at very carefully, and I hope that your Lordships may feel that, on balance, this is not a Bill which should go further.
My noble friend Lord Silkin explained how it arose out of a particular case. If a case is an example of a general weakness, then it is a good thing to introduce legislation to deal with it. But this was not an example of a general weakness. It was an example of a place where people felt very strongly indeed, particularly a Member of another place, who, accordingly introduced this Bill. In fact the New Towns Act has worked remarkably well; whereas, if I may say so, the Town Development Act, 1952, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, referred, and which he would wish to make the New Towns Act more like, has worked nothing like so well in terms of achievement. I do not belittle the Town Development Act, but merely say that this happens to be not nearly such a good machine for doing a very difficult job.
Building a New Town is one of the hardest jobs there is, and the hardest part of all is in making the decision where to build it. This is the process the Minister has to go through, and he has to take the decision on his shoulders, invariably in the face of opposition. Wherever a New Town is put, there will be people who oppose it, whether for no reason or, as they feel, for good reason. They will be landowners; people who live in a small town and who do not want it to enlarge; people who fear that the character of their district may change; and they will be people who have genuine doubts and fears. Invariably, or almost invariably, when an area is suggested for a New Town, the quality of the agricultural land seems to rise rapidly. We are faced now with a population explosion which we were debating

991
only a few days ago in your Lordships' House, and we were told by the Government, quite rightly, that a number of New Towns would have to be established under the New Towns Act, in the South of England. This will be a very difficult job, whatever Government have to do it; and, whoever they are, they will have my sympathy. I am sure it will be done as well as it possibly can be done.
I believe that the machinery established under the New Towns Act is well designed for its purpose. My noble friend Lord Silkin has briefly described it. The Minister prepares his draft order, with his draft map of the designated area, having had many informal discussions and taken soundings with the local authorities and everybody else. Then he has to put his draft order on view for everybody concerned to look at; and after that the objections come in. If there are objections, then the Minister has to order a local inquiry. These local inquiries are very thorough indeed, very properly held and well held, and it is far better to do a job by a local inquiry than by a debate in Parliament. This is no reflection on Parliament's capacity to debate, but this kind of subject turns on an immense amount of detailed consideration: details of water supply, of sewage disposal, of transport, of land quality, of existing population of the area, of availability and transport for industry, and a thousand other technical matters. A Parliamentary decision on such a matter is utterly and completely unsuitable, and I think it would be quite fantastic to attempt to decide these things by means of a debate of the kind which we know arises on Prayers.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it has been said that this Prayer will come after the public inquiry? Is there anything in the Bill which determines when the Prayer can be made? Can it not be made at any time?
LORD TAYLOR: I think I can answer my noble friend, and if I answer him wrongly perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Molson, will correct me. It turns on the First Schedule to the New Towns Act, 1946. The process there is that the Minister prepares a draft Order, and the objections and inquiry are on the draft Order,
992
and not on the final Order. It is after the draft Order has been made, and the inquiry held, that a final Order is made. It is this final Order which, under this Bill, would become a statutory instrument. It would be this which would be prayed against after the inquiry. Am I correct? The noble Lord, Lord Molson, indicates that I am, and I think this is right. In other words, this Prayer would be a sort of appeal against the decision of the Minister after he had held his statutory inquiry. I think that is a very bad principle indeed.
I know only too well that in another case the Home Office has a most invidious task to perform—that of selecting places for Her Majesty's prisons. Wherever the place you select for a prison there are objections; and, quite rightly, the Home Secretary has to hold a public inquiry. These public inquiries—I have attended them—are exactly the same type of inquiry as is held in the case of a New Town development corporation or an extension, if there is an objection; but nobody, so far as I know has ever suggested that there should then be a power to pray against the location of a prison. I think this is a most undesirable extension of Parliamentary control over something that is not suitable for Parliamentary control. By all means, let us have Parliamentary control over legislation, but this is a point of administration which ought to be dealt with administratively.
If a Member of another place or a Peer does object and we cannot find a way to ventilate the matter better than a Prayer, I would suggest either that we have a very poor case indeed or that we are very uningenious, because in my experience Prayers are a very poor way of ventilating Parliamentary grievances. I asked my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth how many times in the course of our 1945–ament Prayers were, in fact, successful. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, will probably remember, there was a great deal of praying going on. My right honourable enemy, Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter, was the principal prayer, and he went on praying night after night to keep my honourable friends up. Fair enough! He could talk on any Order he liked with great fluency. It never did any good, except that it certainly wore Ministers out and I suppose also worse Members out, which seemed to me a fatuous waste of time; but that

993
was the law and that was the way it had to be done. But as a way of ventilating grievances it was a failure.
My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth tells me that the only time he can remember a Prayer succeeding was in the case of a Cheese Order involving my noble friend Baroness Summerskill, when she said: "All cheese is the same". This was manifestly somewhat erroneous, and the Order was in fact defeated, and a revised Order admitting differences of cheeses was introduced a fortnight later. That was the only case we can find at short notice of the procedure of Prayer being efficacious. Unfortunately, none of our ecclesiastical advisers are present—but this is another kind of prayer.
Parliamentary praying, I would suggest, is a very poor method of administration and of ventilation. I should not feel that this was a deep matter of principle; I should feel that we were being rather stupid about it if we carried this. The only thing that really "turned me up "—perhaps not "turned me up" but made me feel that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was absolutely 100 per cent. wrong—was when he said that this proposal does not start to operate until December 31, 1964, because this will give a chance for the New Town of Washington, with which nobody disagrees, to get through without praying. If that is the way we are going to legislate, I say it is a disgrace; I think it is quite monstrous. I am very glad he let us realise that this is not to catch New Towns to which nobody may have an objection, but just to make sure that trouble may exist in the next Parliament. I am, therefore, quite sure that we should be wrong to pass this Bill.
I certainly find the idea that any local planning authority can object a bit silly. I know one that is going to object: the Cheshire County Council is going to object to any designated area in Cheshire. We know this before we start. They have objected time and again. I can say it, the Government cannot say it, but everybody knows that the Cheshire County Council have fought New Towns up hill and down dale, and trying to find a designated area around Merseyside for the people of Manchester and Liverpool has been a disastrous story. Now, at last, one has been found, though whether it is
994
a very salubrious neighbourhood I do not know. We know there are these chronic objectors among local authorities. That, again, seems to me a very poor reason for having a Prayer. If a Prayer is worth having, I should have thought it was because a Member of another place thought it was worth having, and not because a local authority objected. So, my Lords, for the reasons I have given and because I believe most passionately in New Towns and that this proposal will make it slightly more difficult to establish New Towns in the future, I hope your Lordships will reject this Bill.
5.58 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill and in so doing I have no actual interest to declare; but I lived near Stevenage for a number of years and have studied the background which has largely led to the introduction of this Bill. I would draw the attention of your Lordships to Section 4(1)(c) of the New Towns Act, 1946, which reads:
"any land, whether adjacent to that area or not, which they require for the provision of services for the purposes of the new town;"
can be acquired if necessary by compulsory purchase. This, as I understand it—and I am not a legal expert, by any means—gives very large powers to the Minister in these matters.
In these matters, particularly in the development of a New Town, which is a very different matter from the compulsory purchase of land by an ordinary local authority, it seems to me that in some cases a local inquiry is not enough. I am not suggesting for one moment that local inquiries are not entirely fair; I think they are. But, short of another method, I cannot see that the use of a Prayer in either House of Parliament can be disputed. There may well be other more effective methods, but I have yet to learn of them. Perhaps some noble Lord may come forward with some suggestion here. But I think that since there has been this dilemma over Stevenage, which has caused considerable discussion in both Houses of Parliament, this Bill is necessary on that basis alone. There may well be flaws in it, but I think that paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the New Towns (No. 2) Bill are quite

995
fair, and they will enable much more fairness to be used when designating land in future New Towns, quite apart from Stevenage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of this Bill, not so much on its contents, but rather in refutation of what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said about the capability of Parliament to discuss technical matters of this kind. It seems to me that there is very little difference in principle between technicalities of New Towns and the type of order under the Water Act, 1945, which often goes to public inquiry, is dealt with by independent inspector with a wealth of detailed evidence on extremely technical matters given, and is then, if confirmed by the Minister, subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure. I think there are provisions in the Water Resources Act of last year whereby similar things happen: where an inquiry is held, any order made is subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure, whereupon it can be debated in either House. It may go to a Committee upstairs, but it is possible that it goes on to the Floor of the House, and the order stands or falls according to the debate there.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I think that a Committee upstairs is a very good method indeed to deal with this. It is the Prayer I am objecting to as being the most fantastic way of trying to deal with a very complicated matter.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: An order like this does not always go upstairs; it depends on the sort of Petition put in against it. Some orders can be debated on the Floor of the House. I do not see why, if Parliament has arranged for that type of thing in these Acts to be dealt with in that way, it is not also possible to have as it were a court of appeal in the case of New Town designation or extension orders. I should prefer Special Parliamentary Procedure, instead of the power of Prayer against the order, as in this Bill, but I cannot see any objection in principle to the idea of Parliament's having the final say in a matter of ministerial responsibility. Therefore, I support the Bill.
6.3 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, I think your Lordships will expect me to say something about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this Bill, which has been presented to your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Molson with the facility and precision to which we have become accustomed. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has, of course, already described the procedure to which designation or extension of New Towns is already subject. We have heard about the full consultation with all local authorities and other statutory bodies before a draft order is made; about the objections, and, if they are maintained, about the necessity for a public inquiry to be held by a completely independent inspector. It is only after that, of course, that the Minister comes to a decision and makes an order. It is only then that there would be any possibility, under this new Bill, of a Prayer of annulment. There was discussion about that point and it is quite clear from Clause 1 that it is only after an order, which would be a statutory instrument, has been made that the matter can come to Parliament.
The present arrangements have now been in existence for eighteen years and have worked very well. It may be argued that to alter them now is unnecessary, but I think that after eighteen years we might concede that times have changed, that many things have changed, and that we need to have another look at this legislation to see whether it is capable of improvement. Possibly one of the main reasons for accepting this Bill is the different nature that New Towns are likely to take in the future. They have been very successful in the past, but I think we have to face up to the fact that, especially in the South-East, they are likely to be very much larger than they have been. It has even been suggested in the South-East Study that New Towns may go up to as great a population as 250,000 from the original planning stage; and, of course, towns of that size are bound to have a tremendous repercussion on a whole region. It seems reasonable, perhaps, that the Minister in charge of this very vital matter should be subject to some Parliamentary control, although

997
I admit that things have worked well in the past.
My right honourable friend admitted the strength of this argument in another place, and he believes that there is a good case for this change. I think that any Minister might be quite thankful to have the endorsement of Parliament for coming to a decision of such importance as this is likely to be in the future in respect of the designation of New Towns.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is it not the case that he has already made his decision? He has made it twice. He has designated; he has had the inquiry, and then he has confirmed. It is not a question of getting the support of Parliament.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I said confirmation. The Minister will have made his decision and confirmed the order; and if a local authority was still objecting, the order would be subject to Parliamentary discussion and debate. I think this is a point that needs to be made, and perhaps was overlooked in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I am not sure whether it is fully appreciated that not just any M.P. (which was the way the noble Lord put it) can pray against the order. He can do so only if a local planning authority maintains its objection arid does not withdraw it. Otherwise, the matter will not be subject to a Prayer. I think that is rather an important aspect of the Bill.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I did realise that the Bill is as the noble Lord says, and I was objecting to that as being illogical. I was saying that if a Member of another place were allowed to pray against such an order only if there was an objection from a local planning authority, and only in the event of continued objection from the local planning authority, that seemed to me illogical.
LORD HASTINGS: I was not quite sure if the noble Lord had appreciated that point: but it is really most relevant. I am not here, of course, to answer all the criticisms made by noble Lords opposite: that falls to my noble friend Lord Molson. I am merely trying to clarify one or two points and to put the Government's view on this matter. I do not think we would accept the analogy either with the Town Development Act, 1952, or water orders, because these are legislative matters
998
altering or interfering with local authority powers or the powers of statutory undertakers. In the designation of New Towns, local authorities, after their objections, if made, have been overcome, do not have anything to do with the building up of the New Towns. It is not quite a direct analogy. None the less, my right honourable friend accepts that there is a good case for making these designations of New Towns in the future subject to Prayer of annulment if local planning authorities still have outstanding objections.
When we come to the question of extension of New Towns, it is of course well known that my right honourable friend was not very keen to accept this in the first place. He thought that a distinction ought to be drawn between new designations and extension orders. His view was that extension orders would be more comparable with extensions of old-established towns which can be brought about in a variety of ways without reference to Parliament. On the other hand, it was impressed upon him that the size of the town, both absolutely and in relation to the existing New Town, would have great bearing on this matter, and he was persuaded in the other place that if some definition of size could be given he could reasonably accept this power of annulment and debate to apply to the extension of New Towns. It seems reasonable that this limit should be drawn at 500 acres or 10 per cent. Five hundred acres is just about 10 per cent. of the average existing New Town, and it seems reasonable to relate the limit to that level.
I do not think I need say any more, except that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept this Bill and, after most thorough discussion in another place, I think it is is my duty, and also my pleasure, to advise your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
6.12 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, in view of the fact that I gather that there is not going to be opposition to this Bill—
LORD TAYLOR: Oh, yes, there is!
LORD MOLSON: Well, in view of the fact that I gather that the Opposition are not going to divide the House against this Bill this evening—
LORD TAYLOR: Well, I do not know.
LORD MOLSON: I was going to say that I will limit my remarks to very few. But I would answer the three main points which have been made. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, objected to this Bill's coming into operation only at the end of this year. He thought there was something improper in an agreement having been made that it was not necessary or desirable that this Bill should apply in the case of the designation of the projected New Town of Washington. I can see nothing improper at all, when there is agreement upon the general principle of a Bill, to say that it would be convenient for that principle not to apply to negotiations which have reached a certain stage under a state of law when that Bill is not in operation. An agreement of that kind, come to between the Government, which, at that time was somewhat critical of this Bill, and my honourable friend, who was promoting it, seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable and proper way of transacting Parliamentary business.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, criticised at some length the Parliamentary procedure of the Prayer, and he recalled the long and wearying nights which many of us in this House recall, between 1945 and 1951, when the Prayer was used. It is not, I think, necessary for me, in the impartial detachment of this House, to say that I think that necessarily on all occasions the procedure was used with moderation. But it is an accepted form of procedure by which Parliament retains ultimate power over the Executive.
This is a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and I have discussed, and perhaps even disputed, in the past. I recall the broadmindedness with which he accepted in principle a Motion which I moved about Statutory Orders being submitted to a Committee. There is general agreement, I think, upon this general principle, that if legislation and administration is to be carried on efficiently and effectively a wide measure of discretion must be left to the Executive and to Ministers for filling in matters of detail. But it also follows that, if there is a matter of greater importance, it is reasonable and proper to provide in legislation that, in the last resort, the matter can be raised on the Floor of the House.
1000
I will not say that the Prayer is an ideal method, but it is certainly the general method adopted in legislation at the present time to enable Parliament to take a final decision upon a matter which appears to deserve a decision by Parliament. Of course it is subject to the way our Constitution works. If a Government have a majority they are able to use that majority in order to support a Minister who has made an Order and done so in a way he thinks to be right.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to 1945 to 1951; so did my noble friend Lord Taylor. I think he would probably agree with me when I say that the right of Parliamentary ventilation and the challenging of an Order is, by and large, in all cases right, although it is arguable in regard to particular cases, as my noble friend Lord Taylor has been arguing this afternoon. But if it is used by Members of Parliament in another place, night after night, for purposes of self-confessed obstruction, and indeed self-confessed efforts to wear Ministers out, to harry them and tire them, that is not a legitimate use of the right of Prayer. The Government of the day took steps to check that use, and I think the noble Lord would agree that any Government must do so for the protection not only of themselves but of the Members of another place.
LORD MOLSON: I do not dissent at all from what the noble Lord has said. I am most anxious that the majority should have their rights as well as the minority. It is only right that, when a minority has expressed its view, the majority should have the power of making its opinion effective.
However, far more serious than the general criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, were the extraordinary constitutional doctrines put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. When he comes to read Hansard tomorrow, I think he will find that he has been betrayed into the expression of opinions which I am sure he would not have expressed had he prepared his speech more carefully. I took down what he said. Roughly, he said that it would be remarkable if, after the Minister had considered the findings of an inspector and considered the matter,

1001
Parliament annulled the Order he had made. Really, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, cannot adopt that line. In the last resort, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth has said, it is right that Parliament should have the power and the right to reject an Order even though it has been made by a Minister. Of course, if the Government have a majority and if the colleagues of the Minister are in agreement with the decision that he has taken, it may well be that Parliament will uphold him. But to argue as the noble Lord did, that there was something improper in the fact that, after a Minister had given careful consideration to the matter and had come to certain conclusions, Parliament should come to a contrary conclusion and overrule him, completely undermines the whole principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord has rather misinterpreted, I am sure quite innocently, what I said. I did not say it was improper; I said that it was futile, a sheer waste of time. Because the noble Lord knows as well as I do that by the time this matter has been dealt with twice by the Minister, after a public inquiry, and having regard to the way in which the Prayer would be dealt with late at night, it is quite unthinkable that the Government would allow themselves to be defeated. So it is not a matter of high-sounding words about giving Parliament the right to reject. It will not reject, because there is a Government majority. I repeat that I did not say that there was anything improper about it.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am sorry if I put the wrong word into the noble Lord's mouth. I am perfectly willing to accept the word "futile", and upon the word "futile" I still base my opinion that it was a shocking constitutional doctrine that he put forward. I ask him to draw a distinction, as I have tried to do, between what in fact will happen when a Government have an effective majority and the principle that a matter of this kind should be submitted to Parliament and that there should be an opportunity for Parliament to annul an Order. In the last resort I would say that when there are Prayers, debates raised on a matter of importance of this kind, if the arguments advanced by those who pray are
1002
sound, even if a Prayer is defeated that night, the value of a debate in Parliament is such that it is a valuable safeguard for minority rights. That is all I have to say in reply to the speakers opposite, and I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have listened to a good deal of the debate, and I must say it is always difficult to come to decisions on what one should do with Private Members' Bills. There is a certain recognised practice, which is a part of Parliamentary procedure, for the Private Member to have a right to introduce Bills. But the more I listen to the detailed arguments on the two sides the more I feel that, with the sort of problems with which we are going to be faced in all parts of this country in relating population to housing arrangements, and the extent to which agricultural policy and the use of agricultural land must come into consideration, to allow important procedures of this kind to be established by Private Member's Bill, and not to be taken as part of the whole policy of the Government in facing the enormous problems of the future, is a great pity. It ought to be dealt with by the Government of the day in relation to their wide, nationally-based plan as to how to proceed on questions of population, the position of agriculture, the local industrial position and other important matters of this kind.
So that, while I should always hesitate to vote against a Private Member's Bill, I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Molson, to think that I am very much in favour of the Bill he has put before the House. There may be some good points in it; but it does not constitute a proper answer to me as to how to deal with the national problem which is building up every day into larger proportions. I do not know whether my colleagues would desire to vote against the Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill as such, but I feel that the promoters of this Bill must expect that in future discussions on it, if it is not opposed to-day, we shall be within our rights at later stages to take stronger action.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS ACT 1954 (AMENDMENT) BILL
6.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, after that powerful debate on the proprieties of Parliament, this very brief and non-controversial measure will come as a slight relief. It will certainly come as a brief interlude. This is a one clause Bill whose sole purpose is to resolve a single point of conflict between the enactments relating to the protection of birds. These are, in effect, the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, part of which applies to Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Protection of Birds Act, 1931, and the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, which also makes some reference to birds. I believe that there is a Committee in the Home Office whose sole task it is to see that the Northern Ireland legislation and our own legislation tie in together. They obviously do a good job, because it is rarely that one gets a conflict such as the one with which we are dealing with to-day.
In order to strengthen the Northern Ireland measure, Section 10 of the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, was added. It has had a very curious result. A warehouseman in Belfast recently sought from the Minister of Agriculture a licence to poison pigeons. He was refused one because there was no intention in the 1954 Act to give power to poison birds in Northern Ireland. But if he had been granted a licence he could have been "run in" under the equally
1004
valid Statute prohibiting the use of poison for such a purpose. This Bill is to straighten out that single point. Section 10 is not now made to apply in its entirety to Northern Ireland, but only in that part relating to the importation of birds and their eggs. It will then be for the Northern Ireland Parliament to decide for themselves what enactments they wish to make in regard to the use of poisons for birds.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Tweesamuir.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome this Bill and thank my noble friend for looking after it in this House. It removes any doubt which may still exist as to how far the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, in fact applies to Northern Ireland. The Government of Northern Ireland is also grateful for this clarification, and I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said and I am grateful to Members of the House for staying to listen to me on this matter. I trust your Lordships will give the measure a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.