Lords Sitting of 30 June 1966

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester

LONDON UNIVERSITY COMPUTER
3.6 p.m.
LORD BYERS: 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, having regard to the recommendations of the Flowers Committee, nearly a year ago, for a further governmental contribution towards the cost of the Atlas Computer at London University for academic research, and the fact that the University has been trying to obtain a favourable decision on this matter for two and a half years, they will now give an assurance that funds will be provided for the use of the computer for research for the 75 per cent. of the time which is not used for commercial purposes.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, this has been considered as part of a general review of London's requirements for computer time in the light of the Flowers Report. Until the regional centre recommended by the Flowers Report comes into use, there will be some shortfall between stated needs of the colleges and schools of London University and the available capacity, including one quarter of the Atlas computer, which would justify an interim grant to enable the University to purchase further computer time. But I am sorry to say that, while in principle we and the University Grants Committee would wish to see additions to the computing power available to London University, it has not so far been possible to provide an additional grant for this purpose in the current year within available resources.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for answering this Question, may I ask him exactly what his Answer means? Does it mean that the University must now go round touting for commercial contracts in order to pay for the time on the computer which it could put to good use itself? If this is so, does that not give the lie to the claim by the Government to be interested in advanced technology?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord knew the history of this computer just as well as I do, and that he knows perfectly well that the original intention was that a large proportion of the time would be sold commercially. I share the noble Lord's anxieties, but the position is simply that, within the resources available, we cannot yet see what can be done this year. I should add that there are certain other proposals, including the early introduction of an IBM machine to University College, and it is hoped that this may ameliorate the situation.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord? If the Government are not prepared to take a grip on a relatively small problem like this, is it any wonder that there is frustration in these circles which want to use their computers for research? This is contributing to the brain-drain. Does the noble Lord remember that three or four months ago, in the debate on the Flowers Report, he said that clearly something must be done? That was in the last Parliament.
LORD SHACKLETON: I would only say to the noble Lord that we cannot do everything at once.
LORD BYERS: Can we do something?
LORD SHACKLETON: Consideration is being given to this, but there is only a limited amount of resources available. The Government have adopted the Flowers Report. There is a very imaginative and extensive development scheme for the introduction of computers into universities—including London—but we cannot do everything at once. I am very sorry.

ISLE OF MAN AND SEAMEN'S STRIKE
3.10 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: 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 are aware that Her Majesty's loyal subjects in the Isle of Man have been nearly ruined by the strike of the merchant seamen.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Isle of Man have kept in close touch about difficulties arising in the island out of the seamen's strike. Essential supplies and services have been maintained. Inevitably and regrettably, however, the strike has had a serious effect on the economy of the island, which depends to a large extent on the tourist industry.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I do not intend to worry him with further questions, because I shall be speaking on this subject in full later on.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Isle of Man is not the only island which has suffered severely because of the strike? The Isle of Mull has also suffered severely. I understand that already £300,000 has been lost to the Isle of Mull from the tourist trade. May I further ask that Her Majesty's Government bring this fact to the attention of the Highlands Development Board, and that in their future dealings with the Isle of Mull they will bear this in mind and will be very liberal?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am aware that losses of this kind have, unfortunately, been sustained in many of the outlying parts of the United Kingdom. But the Question which was addressed to me related to the Isle of Man, and that is the Question I have answered.

DESALINATION OF SEA WATER
3.12 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: 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 what progress is being made with research into methods of desalination of sea water; what is the annual cost of such research; and what plans exist to expand the present research programmes.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must apologise that the Answer to this Question is a little longer than I should have wished. The desalination research and development programme now being undertaken by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in conjunction with industry has been in operation for a little over twelve months. Progress in the three main areas of development is as follows. Multi-stage flash distillation: experimental facilities are in operation at Winfrith and Harwell and an additional sea-water test establishment at Troon will shortly be completed. All these facilities will be used in efforts to improve design and reduce capital costs. Reverse osmosis, recent work has opened up the possibility of producing an improved type of membrane which is to be tested. Engineering problems associated with the design and construction of plant units using this process will be studied. Electrodialysis: a new prototype testing unit is nearing completion.
The present programme is based on a planned expenditure of about £1·5 million over three years. Plans to expand this programme will depend upon the evaluation of the technical results arising from current work. It will be appreciated that, in the applied field in the Atomic Energy Authority, research and development and engineering design are very closely integrated, and thus major design studies have been carried out into desalination plants one order of magnitude greater than built hitherto and the possible combination of such units with nuclear power plant.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that interesting reply which I am sure must

777
have given great encouragement to many Members of your Lordships' House. I wonder whether by noble friend can tell me if, when considering the making of an order for the building of a new reservoir such as the one in High Teesdale recently, the Minister responsible takes into account this really most encouraging progress, and bears in mind the fact that we may be able to get desalination of water at a reasonably cheap price before the reservoir is ready, and therefore it might be prudent to wait a little longer until desalination is a practicable proposition.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think it would be unwise to fail to plan to meet needs which are apparent already. There are great hopes that the desalination programme will produce, especially in association with atomic energy plants, an additional source of water which will be at least as cheap, or even cheaper, taking into account all the equipment that is necessary for pipes and reservoirs, but in view of the pressing need for fresh water it is too early to cancel any existing plans. All these matters are being considered.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the desalination programme deals only with sea water or deals also with the purification of inland waters?
LORD SFIACKLETON: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is primarily referring to brackish water rather than water to which industrial chemicals may have been added which is another question altogether. This programme is mainly concerned with salt and brackish waters.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, has the noble Lord any information on desalination through solar evaporation, which I believe is being experimented on in Israel?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am afraid it does not offer very great prospects in this country.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, it is intended for our desert dependencies.

FEMALE JURORS IN DRUNKEN DRIVING CASES
3.16 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: 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 can state how widespread is the practice of challenging all the female members of juries impanelled to try indictments for driving motor vehicles while unfit through drink.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we have no evidence that this practice is widespread.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I wonder whether he knows that over the past year in my own court of quarter sessions every woman juror in cases of this kind has been challenged, and I have heard that the same practice exists in other courts of quarter sessions in the North of England. Will the noble Lord make further inquiries and make quite sure that this practice is not becoming widespread?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I will most certainly make further inquiries, and I hope my noble friend will give me particulars of his own court. But before answering the Question I studied the Report of the Committee on Jury Service, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borthy-y-Gest, was Chairman. In view of the strong opinions expressed on this subject, they had a substantial inquiry made covering the Central Criminal Court, the County of London Sessions, four circuits, including the Northern Circuit, and three major cities. In the Central Criminal Court during the period under review 1,693 jurors were empanelled, 118 juries were sworn to try cases, and in only 14 cases was there a peremptory challenge by the defence. Fifteen women were affected. They were in 7 cases, and in 5 of these it seemed likely that the intention was to obtain an all-male jury. In these 5 cases the charges were grievous bodily harm, robbery of an elderly female with violence, shooting by a woman with intent to murder her lover, rape and sexual

779
intercourse with a girl under sixteen, and drunk in charge and dangerous driving was the charge in only one. It seems that, although this is a serious matter, inquiry has been made and there is no evidence to show that it is widespread.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend if this practice is not opposed to all the democratic principles?
LORD STONHAM: In my view it is directly opposed to all democratic principles, and indeed the Morris Committee, to which I have just referred, have carefully considered this. It is their view—and I quote—that
"People who serve on juries should do so because they are citizens and without regard to their sex."
And the recommendations they make will be calculated to increase the number of women on juries and there should be no differentiation.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what connection democracy has with challenging a juror?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would have thought the proper conduct of cases in court was of the very essence of democracy.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would not this difficulty be overcome by a simple amendment of the 1962 Act to remove the right to trial by jury in such cases?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think that is slightly outside the Question.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, if women were protected from being challenged in some way they would not be equal, unless of course they were more equal.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that was entirely what my noble friend Lady Summerskill had in mind, and the Morris Committee, and I agree.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to make rather more widespread inquiries? The Morris Report, while it is encouraging as far as it goes, is based on a rather small amount of evidence. Does the noble Lord not
780
know that what is done in the North of England to-day will be done in the South to-morrow, and no doubt before long counsel in the Central Criminal Court will be following the practice of counsel appearing in my court of quarter sessions?
LORD STONHAM: I pointed out that the inquiry instituted by the Morris Committee covered the Northern Circuit. I will inquire further. Frankly, the only such case I know of was one where the defendant, a married man, said he was not drunk but had visited his mistress and was very tired, and his legal adviser felt that defence was unlikely to appeal to a female jury.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
TEES AND HARTLEPOOLS PORT AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a. An Amendment (privilege) made: Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (EXEMPTION) (BEER AND CIDER) ORDER 1966
3.20 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that appears in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships may recall that Part VI of Schedule 4 to the Weights and Measures Act 1963 has the effect that draught beer or cider can be sold by retail for consumption on the premises of the seller only in a capacity measure of the quantity in question. In

781
practice the liquor is sold either in a brim glass or mug—that is, in a vessel to contain only the exact amount sold—or else in a glass marked with a line to show how high up the liquor must come. Neither type of vessel may be used before an inspector of weights and measures has duly tested and stamped it.
Since the passage of the 1963 Act, the Board of Trade have examined and approved a number of patterns of beer-measuring instruments which dispense a measured quantity of liquor. Last year the Board made the Measuring Instruments (Intoxicating Liquor) Regulations 1965 (S.I. 1965 No. 1815), which prescribed these instruments under Section 11 of the Act with effect from the end of July of this year. Thereafter it will be unlawful for a licensee to measure out liquor by means of any instrument of this type unless it has been made to an approved pattern and has been tested and stamped by an inspector. These instruments have been and are being introduced at a number of licensed premises, but as the law stands the liquor has still to be delivered into a stamped and tested capacity measure.
Now that these instruments have been found to be reliable, and now that their use for trade is being brought under control it is desirable to permit full advantage to be taken of the benefits that can result. With a brim mug there is always the likelihood that some of the liquor will spill over on to the bar counter or the table. A bigger glass or vessel for serving the liquor would be much more hygienic. In the case of a line glass it is not always easy for the seller to see quickly when the right quantity has been drawn—that is to say, to see when the liquor has come up to the line. The measuring instrument will, however, dispense the right amount automatically. There is also the point that unstamped glasses will cost less than stamped ones and their use will result in the saving of inspectors' time devoted to testing them.
Subject to certain conditions, therefore, this proposed Order will permit beer or cider which has been dispensed through a stamped measuring instrument to be sold in drinking vessels which are not capacity measures. The exemption is limited to those cases where, after the customer has ordered the drink, he or the licensee's other customers in the same bar or other
782
part of the premises can watch the liquor being discharged directly into the glass. The exemption therefore does not apply where, for instance, a waiter brings the drink from a back room. In theory there may be some objection to the proposed order, on the ground that the customer will no longer be able to verify the quantity delivered by eye. But the decision in the case of Marshall v. Searle has weakened the protection of the stamped glass, since the High Court decided in that case that the froth on Guinness could legitimately be counted as part of the pint or half-pint. If a dispenser is used the scope for giving the customer less than the quantity he ordered is reduced, because the regulations for testing the dispensers require the proper quantity of liquid—excluding gas in froth—to be delivered.
Another plea that I would put for speedy acceptance of this very valuable Order is, that a recent development has now introduced a new element of urgency. The licensing justices in a certain city, Manchester to be precise, have granted a licence for selling liquor on the football ground of Manchester United, where World Cup games will be played next month, on condition that the liquor is sold in light-weight plastic containers. We estimate that if these containers, which are to be used once only, had to be tested and stamped, the cost would be at least 9d. a container. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures (Exemption) (Beer and Cider) Order 1966 laid before the House on 14th June 1966 be approved.—(Lord Rhodes.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his explanation, which I think all your Lordships have enjoyed. Certainly the noble Lord enjoyed himself. I am certain that the safeguards that have been devised in connection with this Motion will be thought to be adequate. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that the only reason why provision was not made in the Act at the time was because the instruments, as the noble Lord described them, were not yet perfected and were not yet thought to be fully reliable. As he has assured us that they can now be tested and are fully reliable, I am sure that the House will not wish to oppose this Motion in

783
any way. It may be that when these new instruments are first introduced into public-houses, they will give rise to a certain amount of argument, until the public becomes accustomed to them, but we hope that in this case seeing, at any rate, will be believing.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question on paragraph IV of Article 1? Does this imply that the measuring instrument must be installed in such a position that it can be seen by the customer who has actually ordered that particular drink; or is it in order for it to be installed in such a position, say in the saloon bar, that customers in general can see?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, both.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HORTICULTURE IMPROVEMENT SCHEME 1966
3.32 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Horticultural Improvement Scheme 1966, laid before the House on June 15 last, be approved. I hope, after listening to my noble friend, that this may bring a more sober note to this House. I do not have to remind noble Lords that horticulture accounts for about one-tenth of the total value of agricultural output in the United Kingdom. Therefore this Scheme affects a significant part of our agricultural industry. The purpose of the Scheme is to encourage further capital investment in British horticulture to raise its efficiency and reduce its costs, and to enable it to play its full part in the objectives of the National Economic Development Plan.
This is the third in the line of Horticulture Improvement Schemes. The first, in 1960, was designed to encourage primarily the better preparation and presentation of produce for market. Its scope was enlarged by the second Scheme of 1964—the current Scheme—which provided grants for the equipment needed to reduce the costs of production, as well as an extended range of equipment needed for preparing the produce for market. The Scheme had in mind the need to make home-grown produce more competitive with that grown in
784
comparable conditions abroad. These two Schemes, valuable as they were, did not seem to us to provide sufficiently for the changes that are taking place in the industry, which are at present important factors in its development. For example, the 1960 Scheme provided a grant for improving heating systems in glasshouses, but only in glasshouses already in existence at the date of the Scheme and already heated for two years; and there was no grant for the grower who wished to expand his business.
But, as we know, industries live by change; and horticulture is no exception. This was brought out by the examination of the industry which the agricultural Departments conducted in 1965, in consultation with the farmers' unions. The record of this examination, published last March, revealed some interesting facts. It shows that the industry is very much on the move. For example, in 1954, nearly a quarter of the glasshouse area was in the Lea Valley; in 1965 it was less than one-sixth. In the same period, certain Eastern counties had attained a predominant position in vegetable growing. Thus in 1954, the Holland Division of Lincolnshire had 15 per cent. of the national cauliflower acreage; by 1965 the proportion had nearly doubled. In 1954, 26 per cent. of the land under carrots was in my native county, Norfolk; in 1965, Norfolk had 42 per cent. of the carrots grown. What this means is that in the past ten years many growers must have increased the size of their businesses. New and possibly better land, in more favourable localities, must have been brought into production and, perhaps, less good or worn-out land has been put back to crops or grass. There has undoubtedly been a development in specialisation.
The Schemes of 1960 and 1964 have done much good. Growers have committed themselves to investment approaching £15million, of which a third will come from the Exchequer in the form of grant. Horticultural marketing co-operatives have also taken full advantage of the Schemes. But we now want a Scheme that will not inhibit change or place restrictions in the path of the progressive grower. So we are removing the provision of the 1964 Scheme that land, to be eligible for

785
grant, must have been used continuously for horticulture for at least two years; and we are also making grants available to the bulb growers and others who grow horticultural crops in rotation with other crops. We are extending the grants available to vegetable growers, at present limited to land managed on intensive market garden lines which involves a certain amount of double cropping, to the production of vegetables on a farm scale, including such crops as celery, whose growers have not hitherto benefited from the grants. The Scheme now before your Lordships' House achieves these results by omitting the definition of eligible land incorporated in the 1964 Scheme. A whole page of closely printed and carefully worded conditions has disappeared. I am sure that those in agriculture will be glad about this. Simplification is always a good thing; and the Scheme will as a result be far more flexible and intelligible to growers.
The main condition which remains is that at all times during the two years preceding application, the business must have occupied at least four acres of land (though not necessarily the same four acres); where the land is covered by glasshouses, light and so on, the area will be calculated very much as in the existing Scheme. The occupier of such a holding will be able, with the help of grant to make it better or, if he thinks fit, bigger. But I think we must retain this lower limit; otherwise we should, to all intents and purposes, be encouraging the creation of entirely new holdings rather than the improvement or extension of existing ones.
Apart from these broad changes in the structure and purposes of the Scheme, the main new features appear in the Schedule which has been rearranged in a more logical order. The most important additions are the erection of new glasshouses, mushroom sheds and other buildings in which produce is grown—as distinct from the replacement of existing ones. The 1964 Scheme required an acre of glass to be demolished for every acre of new glass erected with the aid of grant. Similarly, the making of watercress beds will now be eligible for grant where formerly the Scheme went no further than grant-aiding the replacement of existing beds.
786
I think I should say a word about new glasshouses. Many of our growers to-day are, I am sure, managing a larger business than they were ten years ago; and the same will no doubt be true ten years hence. But the fact that we are proposing to help the progressive grower to expand his business does not mean that there will be an excessive expansion in the size of the industry as a whole. Growers, after all, have to put up the greater part of the capital cost, which is substantial. In these matters we are satisfied that we can safely leave the matter to the commercial judgment of the growers and should not impose arbitary restrictions which may stand in the way of progress.
The Schedule now includes several types of machinery which, though their merits were appreciated, were excluded from the 1964 Scheme because of the fear that they might be diverted to non-horticultural uses. These are fork-lift and similar trucks, precision drills and machinery for stapling, stitching, tying and strapping containers for produce. It is important for its efficiency that the industry should have these tools. We have come to the conclusion that there is less risk than the previous Administration thought that such equipment will be sold for a profit by the grower who has received the grant. We are, after all, dealing with a responsible body of men. We shall, of course, satisfy ourselves before offering grant that the equipment is needed and will achieve economies, particularly in the use of labour. We do not believe that any grower, having achieved those economies, will be tempted to dispose of the machinery and revert to his old methods.
As will be seen from paragraph 4 and Part II of the Schedule, grants will continue for the time being to be available to horticultural marketing co-operatives. When the comprehensive system of grants to agricultural and horticultural cooperatives has been established, as provided in the Agriculture Bill now under consideration in another place, no more applications will be entertained for grants to co-operative bodies under this Scheme, as they will be fully provided for in other ways. The maximum sum available for these grants up to the summer of 1974 remains unchanged at £24 million, which may he increased to £27 million. Although

787
the response to the 1964 Scheme has been good, the sum of money provided in the Act seemed likely to be more than ample and this remains our best estimate of the cost of the scheme. So we are not at this stage makingfurther provision for the extra expenditure which the new Scheme is likely to generate. It is not easy at this juncture to estimate how much it will be. We shall see how we get on under the new provisions.
I have endeavoured to be brief and to the point. As I said at the beginning, horticulture makes an important contribution to the economy. It is important, in more senses than one, as will be apparent if one considers the vital need of our huge urban populations for ample fresh fruit, vegetables and—may I add—flowers. This Scheme is designed to encourage horticulture to develop freely in whatever direction the demand for its varied product requires, and to give financial assistance to the business decisions of efficient and responsible growers. I commend the Scheme to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Horticulture Improvement Scheme 1966 laid before the House on June 15, 1966, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
3.44 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for his interesting and informative explanation of this Order now before the House, and may I say a word of welcome to the Order, which will further extend the valuable Scheme started in 1960. Experience has taught, as the years have gone by, that the 1960 Scheme, which was mainly limited to marketing, did not go far enough. The 1964 Act was put on the Statute Book to make it possible to extend the grants to production activities, and the immediate response of growers to the widened Scheme, which enabled them to get grants for production activities, indicated that that was very welcome. As the noble Lord has explained to us, this Scheme now makes valuable further extensions which will no doubt be of great help to growers.
I notice that it conforms with the undertaking given by the Minister of Agriculture last February that the horticultural industry should contribute to a
788
selective expansion programme by providing a substantial part of our additional requirements of horticultural produce which can be grown here; in other words conforming with the objectives of the National Plan. This I very much welcome. In some ways I welcome this without qualification, because, as the noble Lord rightly told us, much change is taking place in the world of horticulture at present and expansion of growers' activities, whether intensively or in field work, can well be the high road to greater efficiency and lower labour costs. Certainly in regard to some rotational practices it is very desirable to bring in increased acreage in order to get the best kind of practices for growing the crops concerned, and this comes in particularly in regard to field vegetables. All these limitations are now to be removed.
There is one aspect of the Scheme which raises some anxiety in my mind, and I should like to put this point to the noble Lord. The grant-aiding of expansion, which this Scheme now provides for, welcome as it is in the ways I have described, could, if it encouraged an undue amount of additional production, lead to surpluses, which would be to the detriment of all existing growers. I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble Lord with his great knowledge of the problems that exist in horticultural holdings. This seems to me to be a point of great importance. The Order under the 1964 Act tried very hard, by defining the limitations, to avoid this danger.
The noble Lord mentioned that there will now be grants for new glasshouses. This is very desirable, there having been great technical improvements in glasshouses in recent years, and it will be of great help to those growers concerned. I should like to see more new glass going up, but glasshouse crops are extremely expensive to grow, and if as a result of this we were to get surplus crops from glasshouses, whether in vegetables or flowers, we should at the end of the day have done the growers more harm than good. I noted that the noble Lord told us that he felt that the commercial judgment of the growers would be sufficient to ensure that a surplus did not occur, and it is true that the building of new glasshouses is not something to be done lightheartedly. It would probably cost at

789
least £20,000 an acre, and the grower has to put up two-thirds of the money. Nevertheless, I feel that your Lordships might be glad to hear a further word from the noble Lord as to what safeguards he and his friends foresee will be used administratively to make sure that, not only in respect of glasshouses but in administering these new and more flexible grants generally, we do not encourage a situation where some kinds of production are unduly expanded with the result that we get unmanageable surpluses.
The horticultural industry is a highly competitive one, and profit margins are extremely small. Many small growers are getting a living out of it by working very long hours and with great skill. For my part, I am delighted to see any measure which will help them to make their business stronger and more efficient and will give them a better living. I join with the noble Lord in acknowledging the great service they do the nation in providing us with a supply of fresh fruit and flowers which are unrivalled in any other country of the world. In that spirit, I warmly support this measure on behalf of my noble friends. But I should like to hear a further word from the noble Lord on the safeguards that he might apply to avoid a surplus occurring in any particular line.
3.50 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for the welcome he has given to this Scheme. I am sure we all welcome anything which is going to benefit such an important industry as horticulture, and I am also sure that this Scheme is going to do just that. It is nice to get this welcome, which was almost, but not quite, unqualified.
In reply to the point made by the noble Lord, that in the expansion which the Scheme will encourage there is a danger that growers might go too far, I think that the noble Lord may have a low opinion of the economic judgment of horticultural growers. After all, they will be investing the majority of the money, as well as receiving a grant from the Government, and I am sure that they are not likely to do this rashly. They have in recent years had experience of a surplus of horticultural produce, and I
790
honestly believe they have learnt a great deal in this connection from past experience. Our aim is to create the conditions in which expansion can take place, and it is up to each individual grower to decide for himself what the opportunities are, and when and how much it is wise to invest. I have every confidence in the judgment of our growers.
I believe that this Scheme will be welcomed by all concerned in the horticultural industry. I understand that the N.F.U. approve the Scheme. Their one complaint is that it is too slow. I hope that your Lordships are going to make sure that we do not hold up this Scheme any longer, and that we shall give it our full support this afternoon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BOTSWANA INDEPENDENCE BILL [H.L.]
3.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Botswana Independence Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. At the Bechuanaland Independence Conference, which was held in London last February, it was agreed that Bechuanaland should become independent on September 30,1966, as a Republic under the name of Botswana. The Botswana Independence Bill implements this agreement and in general follows the form of previous Acts under which other dependent territories have attained independence. The Independence Constitution itself will be provided for separately by Order in Council.
To look back over our association with this country is to review one of the most fascinating and colourful periods of

791
British history. It deals also with a period in which many men of the British Colonial Service in that part of Africa, and elsewhere, have loyally served and guided a community to the point at which it could take its place as an independent member of the Commonwealth and an equal member of the United Nations. We first assumed responsibility for Bechuanaland towards the end of the 19th century when, following trouble between the tribes of the territory and the Boers in the Transvaal, the Botswana appealed to Britain for protection. This appeal was made in 1885 when, with the concurrence of the Chiefs, the whole of Bechuanaland was proclaimed to be under the protection of the Queen—Her Majesty Queen Victoria.
The first constitutional provision for the administration of the territory was contained in an Order in Council dated May 9, 1891, which authorised the British High Commissioner for South Africa to exercise jurisdiction in Bechuanaland. The High Commissioner continued to be responsible for the administration of Bechuanaland until the High Commissioner's post was finally abolished in August, 1964. His powers were exercised through a Resident Commissioner until October, 1963, when the post was upgraded to that of Her Majesty's Commissioner, with the status of that of a Governor and with direct responsibility to the Secretary of State.
The Order in Council of 1891 remained in force until the introduction of a new constitution in 1961, but the intervening period was not without progress. In 1920 two Advisory Councils, representing respectively the European and African inhabitants of the country, were established. These Councils were consulted on major items of policy. In 1950, a Joint Advisory Council was established, consisting of representatives of the two racial Advisory Councils together with a number of Government officials. From its, establishment the Joint Advisory Council was consulted by Government on all important matters affecting both African and European inhabitants. The stimulus for further constitutional reform came from this Joint Advisory Council, which in 1958 recommended the creation of a Legislative Council. As a result of this a Con-
792
stitutional Committee, consisting of 4 Europeans, 4 Africans, and 4 officials, was appointed. The Committee's unanimous Report was endorsed, again unanimously, by the Joint Advisory Council and formed the basis of the Constitution providing for the establishment of Legislative and Executive Councils which came into force at the beginning of 1961.
The tempo of progress quickened with constitutional discussions held locally in 1963.All the political Parties and important groups in the territory were represented at these talks, and here again it was on the unanimous conclusions reached in these discussions (which were endorsed by Her Majesty's Government in a White Paper published in June, 1964) that the present Constitution, introduced in March, 1965, was based. It is worthy of note, as I believe there is an interest in the historical development of this country, that, with the 1965 Constitution, Bechuanaland moved smoothly, and with the unanimous consent of all sections of the population, from a situation in which there was parity between the European and African populations in unofficial membership of the Legislative Council to a Constitution in which there is no provision for separate representation on racial grounds and under which the franchise is based on one man, one vote.
In the latter part of 1965, the Bechuanaland Government sought agreement on a date for independence, and it was announced in October last that the British Government had agreed that Bechuanaland should become independent in the latter part of 1966, and that it was expected that the necessary steps could be taken to enable independence to be achieved by September 30 of this year. At the Conference held in London in February, to which I have already referred, this date was subsequently confirmed as the Independence date.
It was typical of Bechuanaland's constitutional progress that the prime task of this Conference was to consider proposals which had been drawn up locally, and which had been given a general blessing by both the Legislative Council and the House of Chiefs in Bechuanaland. They envisaged the establishment of Bechuanaland as an

793
independent Sovereign Republic to be known as Botswana; and, apart from the change to a Republican form of Government under an executive President, they were, in substance, no more than the adjustments which were required to the 1965 Constitution to adapt it to the circumstances of independence.
Before the proposals were debated in the Legislative Assembly and the House of Chiefs, more than 150 public meetings were arranged throughout the country at which the proposals were explained to the people, and the meeting of the House of Chiefs was postponed to permit those Chiefs who wished to do so to hold kgotlas to discuss the proposals. These kgotlas were attended by Ministers in the Bechuanaland Government.
The Constitutional Conference, the results of which were recorded in the White Paper (Cmnd. 2929) published in March this year, approved the Bechuanaland Government's proposals subject to certain minor modifications, and, as noted above, confirmed September 30 next as the date for independence. It is not proposed that any fresh elections should be held before independence, and the Prime Minister, Dr. Seretse Khama, will become the country's first President; the Ministers in the present Bechuanaland Government will become Ministers in the new Botswana Government; and the members of the present Legislative Assembly will become members of the new National Assembly. With a General Election having been held as recently as March last year, and with a clear-cut result, there is clearly no case for a further election before independence.
My Lords, as this Bill has not been considered as yet in another place, I think I ought to deal in more detail with its provisions. Clause 1 provides that Bechuanaland shall cease to be a protectorate and will become an independent Republic under the name of Botswana on September 30, 1966, from which date Her Majesty shall have no jurisdiction over the territory. Clause 2, in subsections (1) and (3), makes provision (on the lines of that included in section 2, subsections (1) and (3), of the Zambia Independence Act 1964) preserving the operation of existing law of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and certain existing law of other dependencies, as if Bechuanaland had been renamed
794
Botswana but there had been no change of status. Clause 2, subsection (2), and the Schedule relate to certain United Kingdom enactments which require amendment to take account of the establishment of Botswana as an independent republic within the Commonwealth.
Clauses 3 and 4 make provision on the usual lines regarding nationality matters consequent upon attainment of independence. Certain provisions establishing Botswana citizenship will be included in the Constitution that will come into operation on September 30, and they will be supplemented by local legislation. Clause 3, subsection (1), adds Botswana to the Commonwealth countries listed in Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act 1948, and omits the Bechuanaland Protectorate from Schedule 2 to the British Protectorates, Protected States and Protected Persons Order 1965. Clause 3, subsection (2), provides for the withdrawal of British protected person status, and Clause 3, subsection (3), for the withdrawal (except as provided in Clause 4) of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from persons who become citizens of Botswana. Clause 4,in subsections (1), (2) and (3), provides for the retention of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by a person who has such a connection with the United Kingdom or its remaining dependencies as is described in these subsections. The remaining subsections of Clauses 3 and 4 contain minor consequential provisions.
On independence, Botswana will have its own Court of Appeal, and Clause 5 provides that Her Majesty in Council will cease to have jurisdiction. It is, however, intended that the Parliament of Botswana should be empowered by the Constitution to confer jurisdiction on the Judicial Committee to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal. Clause 5 makes provision (on the lines of Section 5 of the Zambia Independence Act) enabling Her Majesty to provide by Order in Council for jurisdiction to be conferred on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In Clause 6 there is provision, again on the lines of Section 6 of the Zambia Independence Act, enabling Her Majesty to confer on the Judicial Committee jurisdiction for the purpose of disposing of Bechuanaland appeals to Her Majesty in Council that are pending immediately before September 30.

795
Clause 7 permits Orders in Council or other instruments varying or revoking previous Orders in Council or instruments in consequence of the change of status of the Bechuanaland Protectorate and any Order under Clause 6 to be made after independence, but so as to take effect from the date of independence. Clause 7, subsection (2), contains certain other supplementary provisions relating to any Order in Council made under Clause 6. Clause 8 contains the short title and a necessary interpretative provision, and calls for no special comment from me.
My Lords, Botswana will face many problems after independence—we discussed a number of them in detail last week, when my noble friend Lord Mitchison asked his Unstarred Question. I do not propose to go into all those issues again, but those of us who heard what was said, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, will remember very keenly that it is a poor and, as yet, largely undeveloped country, and its precarious economy has been badly hit by the recent famine. There is an urgent need to broaden the base of the economy, and in particular to develop its water resources and agricultural potential. Difficulties are bound to arise as a result of the inevitable strains present in a society moving from a largely tribal basis into nationhood. Its peaceful constitutional progress to a non-racial form of Government will be under the leadership of a President whose dignity in adversity is well-known to the people of this country. Seretse Khama's personal circumstances provide the most effective answer to those who promote racial policies. Progress in Botswana will mean a bright ray of real hope in a part of the world so torn by the doctrines of racial discrimination.
I think, my Lords, I can do no better, in conclusion, than to quote from Dr. Seretse Khama himself, speaking at the opening of the Independence Conference in London in February of this year, when he said—and I quote:
"I would nevertheless emphasise that I believe approval of our proposals"—
these were the constitutional proposals—
"may affect the spiritual and material interests of other people too. I think I need not dwell on the present state of racial tensions
796
in Africa, and in Southern Africa particularly. It has always been my belief, as it is now, that Bechuanaland, small country though it may be, has a role to play in Southern Africa and in the unnecessary conflicts between black and white. The proposals I have put forward aim at establishing a non-racial society, in which each individual will have an equal right of expression and of opportunity no matter what his race or colour. It will be an essentially democratic society, in which men and women of different colour will live together in mutual respect and understanding".
My Lords, these are noble words from a courageous and enlightened man, and I am sure we all hope that we shall live to see them amply fulfilled. I have great pleasure, therefore, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
4.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we welcome this Bill, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining it. The provisions described by the noble Lord are all acceptable to us, and therefore my remarks will be purely of a general character. It seems to me that Botswana, the former Bechuanaland, is fortunate in having a stable Government with a sizeable majority at the start of its independence, unlike some other countries which have recently become or are about to become independent. I am glad, too, that Dr. Seretse Khama has no illusions about the difficulties inherent in independence. I notice from his closing speech at the Independence Conference, which has already been quoted by the noble Lord, that he said that, having rounded the last bend in their journey, they had realised that this was to the very great satisfaction of all the people of Bechuanaland. Yet his feelings were, I see, nevertheless, a little mixed. There was at the same time, he felt, a strong measure of nostalgia for present security and present relationships and a measure of trepidation in respect of the future.
We must remember that Bechuanaland's geographical situation is at present extremely important. The only rail link between South Africa and Rhodesia runs through the country, and it carries a high proportion of the goods now flowing from South Africa to Rhodesia. In addition, Her Majesty's Government have set up a radio station in order to beam

797
propaganda to Rhodesia from Francis-town in the North. This station is protected by a company of British soldiers. But I think it right that Botswana should become independent; for Seretse Khama's idea of a non-racial society is greatly to be commended. In this society, as Dr. Khama said and as the' noble Lord has repeated:
"each individual will have an equal right of expression and of opportunity, no matter what his race or colour. It will be a…democratic society",
Only a week ago, as the noble Lord said, we discussed the present drought in the country and expressed our sympathy with its people. But, despite the drought, Dr. Khama believes that with our help, with that of the World Food Programme and with other assistance, they can get on their feet and demonstrate to the world their ability to maintain political and constitutional advance with economic progress. We wish them well and we are delighted that Botswana is, as I understand it, to ask for Commonwealth membership and that therefore their links with this country will be maintained and, perhaps, even strengthened. The country finds itself in the middle of racial passions which are dividing Southern Africa. Under wise leadership it has decided to devote its energies to bettering the lot of its own people while co-existing with its neighbours to the North and South. Good luck to Botswana and to its new capital Gabarone! The famous town of Mafeking used to be the Protectorate headquarters. When that town was relieved in 1899 there was great rejoicing in London. I hope, despite the drought, there will be rejoicing again in Gabarone as well as in Mafeking when the country becomes independent on September 30.
4.15 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Bill. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the very clear way he expounded it and also for the happy ending to his speech in which he set the Bill in relation to what most of us feel about Botswana and its future. This House should take particular interest in this debate, because it so happens that fifteen years ago, almost to the day, on June 27, 1951, we had what was for this House a heated debate—not, perhaps, 'heated" in terms of the other place, but certainly so for
798
this House. It was on the subject of Bechuanaland and there were two Motions on the Order Paper. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, moved one of them and the late Lord Stansgate moved the other. They were replied to by the late Lord Lucan and by me. I do not think anybody on June 27, 1951, could have imagined that in fifteen years' time, almost to the day, there would have been this very happy result. In my view, it reflects the greatest credit on everyone who has brought it about: on Dr. Seretse Khama, on Mrs. Ruth Khama (who played a great part in this) and on the Civil Service, both African and British, who worked hard in preparing it. Credit is due, too, to the Commonwealth Development Corporation and to many civilians of various races who worked there.
I am very pleased indeed that the trouble of the Bamangwato has long ended. Now we can see, in the new State of Botswana, a happy future for what we called Bechuanaland. This country, as was said only last week, has many problems of an economic nature; but we hope that fortunately there are not many of a social and political nature. In the first place, it is considerably larger than France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Luxembourg put together; and with that vast area it has the population of a middle-sized English town. That, in itself, constitutes a considerable problem. Its resources, as we have heard, are few and consist mainly of its cattle. There is a great deal of water low down, but there is not much water in the subsoil. That also entails great problems in getting water, not only to the cattle but to the grass. It constitutes two separate problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, speaking a few minutes ago in this House on a horticultural measure, talked about—and I took a note of what he said—the danger of unmanageable surpluses in horticultural production in the United Kingdom. This danger, the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, hastened to reassure him, was not a fact: measures would be taken to ensure that there would be no surpluses in horticultural production. I can assure your Lordships there is no danger of there being an unmanageable surplus of anything, except land, in Botswana. It seems to me extraordinary, in this day and age, that we

799
take great care in Parliament and that the Government takes measures in order to prevent surpluses of foodstuffs, when two-thirds of the world's population are living below the hunger line; and that a member of the Government can reassure a member of the Opposition here that measures will be taken—in a subsidised scheme—to ensure that there are no surpluses. This seems to me to be "haywire". It is quite extraordinary to hear two debates of this kind following one another. They do not match up to reality.
I think Botswana has got off to a good start. The country is in fact a republic. Previously, as we know, a country gaining independence started off by being, as I suppose one could say, "under a crowned head"; and then very shortly afterwards, in about a year, a Bill would be introduced under which the country was made a republic within the Commonwealth. I think it is a good thing that in this case Botswana has started off as a republic within the Commonwealth, rather than it should go in for a two-tier movement such as has been the case generally in the past.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, could help us in any way regarding some of the more detailed proposals that are likely to be made in regard to the country; perhaps he can do so later, if not to-day. But we have heard nothing about defence. This place is utterly undefended at the present moment. Its neighbours are, on the one hand, South Africa, and, on the other, Mr. Smith's Rhodesia. What is going to happen suppose it quarrels with its neighbours? Are we under any obligation to come to its defence; and, if we are, how do we get there? These are the kind of problems I should like to hear something about, if not to-day then at some other time. What about diplomatic arrangements? Are there to be any arrangements for the exchange of Ambassadors with South Africa? Do we know that? Presumably there should be, because Botswana will be very dependent in every possible way on SouthAfrica—very dependent economically and in other ways, so I presume they must have an exchange of Ambassadors.
What finance commitments are there? Are we balancing their budget for some years ahead? We are giving £5 million
800
a year to Guyana which is not, in my opinion, anything like as dependent on us as is this country. The trouble in Guyana is not that it has no great resources but that it has not much political sense. They have not been able to come down to brass tacks and live together. They have plenty of resources to develop. In Botswana there are no great resources, and it seems to me that over the next few years we ought to give them at any rate some money to balance their budget; and I am sure we are going to do so.
When we come to this point, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will say to me, as he said to me and to others on Tuesday, "It is all very well your talking about giving aid to these countries, but are you prepared to go to the country and recommend more taxation?". In many speeches I have made in this House and in another place, and in the country, I have recommended not more taxation but, rather, more expenditure on aid for underdeveloped territories. I do not admit that if we want more aid for these territories it necessarily implies more taxation. I do not think that this is the occasion to do so, but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that I—and, I have no doubt, other noble Lords—should be only too happy to give him a number of instances where I suggest that the Government could cut down substantially on expenditure which in my view is unnecessary. Thus we could make money available for these underdeveloped countries. I, at any rate, think that it would be far better that the money should be spent on Botswana, and on other people, than on some of the nonsensical schemes on which it is spent to-day.
There are two other points which I wish to make. First, I hope that Dr. Seretse Khama will not follow the bad example of many Western countries, developed countries, and, unhappily, also many underdeveloped countries, and have a lot of Odeon-type Embassies around the world and "Cadillac ambassadors", wasting money, as is done in so many cases, on this vulgar ostentation. We in the Western world have given a very bad example to the underdeveloped nations in this regard. I feel ashamed as I go round various countries in many parts of the world and see this vulgar ostentation at Embassies.

801
I can assure your Lordships that every pound and every dollar they can get hold of is needed for the poor people of Botswana and should not be spent on ostentation outside the country.
My final point is a question of which I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. It refers to the little bushmen. I asked a Question on this matter of the former Government, on November 27, 1956, and I got a fairly good reply. I have for many years been concerned about the bushmen; there are not many of them left. They are, as your Lordships know, a primitive people compared with Western standards. I have no doubt that when there is a bit of food around they are happy, but they live an extremely hard life in the Kalahari Desert and in parts of Bechuanaland, or Botswana as it is now known. In answer to my Question I was informed that the Government were making inquiries into the position of the bushmen and appointing a district officer, a civil servant, to look after them and to see that they were not being prejudiced or harshly treated by other tribes more able to look after themselves than are the little bushmen.
I should like to know whether, in the complicated arrangements being made for the future of Botswana, any regard has been had for these little people. They are little in many senses of the word. They are happy people, but they are small in stature and there are not many of them. I should like to feel confident that some regard has been had for their future in the arrangements that have been made for the future of Botswana. I have no other points to raise. I would only say that we on these Benches wish Botswana every possible happiness and success in the years to come.
4.26 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, a week ago I held out a begging bowl on behalf of these people. I am not going to repeat what I said then. I think we all wish them success and such prosperity as they may have in difficulties which are as great as any which have confronted a small country facing independence, as they are doing now. They are plucky people, they are intelligent people, and they have a history of advance from a fairly recent condition of inter-tribal warfare to the rather high level they have
802
now reached. I believe that advance will continue, and it is surely right that they should direct it themselves. But, my Lords, we have never given independence to a hungrier or thirstier lot than the people of Bechuanaland, and there are one or two things that we ought to consider when we pass this Bill. We may not have other opportunities to do so.
My Lords, I say no more about famine relief than this: that I have since discovered a solution for the one-third of the population which is at present living on a diet of 10 oz. of maize and I oz. of vegetable oil a day. The wisest thing they can do is to get imprisoned as rapidly as possible. They will get much better food. The prison diet is 1½ lb. of maize a day, and the prisoners get fresh vegetables or dehydrated vegetables, sugar, tea, and all kinds of things. The only difficulty is that I am afraid the prisons are rather overcrowded already. My Lords, it is not right to leave a country in that condition and to consider that you have done your duty by them. It was eighty years ago, or thereabouts, when we took this country under our protection; our protection, as it was then, mainly against people living in, or concerned with, what is now the Republic of South Africa. But I think we owe them another protection too. If you give a country political freedom, as is being done by this Bill, you are bound to secure that they have a certain amount of economic independence, for without it the forms of political freedom may prove to be of little value.
This is, at the moment, mainly a pastoral country. As I told your Lordships the other day, these people have lost a third of their herd of cattle in the drought which has been going on now for years; and of course that cannot be put right until there is a proper water supply. We in this country have had the Protectorate, and some responsibility for it, for all these long years, and we have never, so far as I can see (and nothing said by my noble friend Lord Beswick the other day showed the contrary), had a proper hydrological survey, a proper investigation of what are the water resources, let alone a proper scheme for getting the water round in the country where it is needed; and, my Lords, it is needed both for men and for cattle. This is absolutely the first thing to be done.

803
We were told the other day by my noble friend Lord Beswick—I am not complaining about this; it is a matter unfortunately too common in the history of colonial dominion and something that I cannot think is right:
"An approach is now being made to the United Nations Special Fund for the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the development of irrigation…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 275 (No. 25), col. 449, 23/6/66.]
And then as to the cost—not very large—we were told:
"I have no doubt that some will say that Her Majesty's Government have a responsibility to provide additional funds for this water development, but I can only point again to the total aid which has already been allocated to Bechuanaland, and to say that it is primarily for the Bechuanaland Government itself to decide priorities as between one form of economic development and another." [Ibid.]
No doubt this is so, but this is not merely a case of economic development—I will have a word to say about that in a minute; it is a case of relieving acute suffering in a country where one-third of the population is now on famine relief and where the pastoral industry of the country has had a severe shock for the time being.
These are matters of common charity and humanity between people living in an advanced country, as we are, and people in a poorer part of the world. I do not believe that we shall ever get peace in the world unless we are prepared to consider this kind of problem as the human and social problem that it is. I do not mind where the money comes from. I do not mind if the Treasury cannot afford it at the moment and gets it from somewhere else. But we must see that it is done. We have to decide about this, not on any constitutional question but in discharge of our duty as in an advanced nation.
I read with interest the other day the life of a Member of your Lordships' House—my noble friend Lord Boyd-Orr. No man in the world, I think, has done more than he to charge civilised countries and civilised people with the importance of this duty and of the terrible dangers that await mankind unless this responsibility is discharged. It is no good saying to people in the position of Bechuanaland that we are giving them independence and then washing our
804
hands, to some extent at any rate, of the responsibility which we assumed towards them eighty years ago. So, while I welcome this Bill most cordially and trust that this plucky and intelligent people will be helped in every way in the performance of their duties under it and in the advancement of their country, I feel that it does not discharge us from the responsibility I have mentioned.
Before I sit down, I desire to put the matter in another way. Intensive efforts are being made to start industries in Bechuanaland. It is going to be a difficult business: it always is in a country as poor as this. There may be cases, for instance, where protection is needed for the time being for a growing industry. I ought not to have to impress on noble Lords opposite the occasional advantages of a measure of proection. The position in Botswana is that the customs and excise revenue is simply a percentage—between 2 and 3 per cent.—of the customs revenue of the Republic of South Africa. My noble friend will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but in these circumstances it seems to me that in practice the independence of Botswana will not make any change in these customs duties. Botswana may wish to protect some growing industry against the competition of the Republic of South Africa itself. That shows a measure of dependence, I think. I could go far beyond that.
It seems to me that if their independence is to be the reality and the opportunity for which we all hope, we must do rather more than we are doing at present. by way of securing real independence from their powerful neighbours in South Africa. The two countries are very close. They do not like South Africa. They are not going to form part of South Africa willingly. They may be driven into it by sheer economic need—and that again is a reason why I suggest that we should consider at least the primary responsibility to provide food and water in the country as something which will remain with us, not on any constitutional ground, but on the ground of common humanity and on the ground of founding the future peace of the world on proper relations between developed countries, such as our own, and emerging countries, like this small, plucky, poor

805
one, to which we are to-day giving independence.
4.37 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I am confident that there will be no reservations on the part of any Member of your Lordships' House in welcoming this Bill and in extending good wishes to all the people of Bechuanaland on the establishment of the Botswana Republic. I think that the statesmanlike words of Dr. Seretse Khama, which my noble friend Lord Beswick quoted, are an indication of the philosophy which will guide him in the capacity of President of the Botswana Republic in the future.
Over past years, this House has seen a succession of Bills granting independence to what were once dependent States, and we have marked the steady dissolution of what was once an Empire. Such a course was inevitable, in spite of the nostalgic feelings of those who sought to retain the British Empire and its influence. Perhaps there is some consolation to them, and some credit for Britain, in the manner in which we are effecting the transition. I believe that history will judge the worth of our action, not by decisions such as that we are taking to-day with regard to Bechuanaland, but by our conduct after independence is granted and the Republic is established.
My noble friend Lord Mitchison has already indicated the appalling difficulties which will confront this young Republic. I am sure that the first flush of enthusiasm following independence may obscure some of the difficulties which they will experience in developing the new State. Botswana is a small country, with 500,000 people at the most, with little or no resources, and with the constant threat of drought and famine. These are terrible conditions under which to establish an economically viable country, and it is no criticism of the establishment of the Botswana Republic when I say that it is a pity that independence is found in so small a unit, making it so difficult for them to establish a sound and developing economy in the future. But in spite of those difficulties, independence had to come. I believe that the difficulties that lie ahead will be recognised by Seretse Khama and by the people. Facing those difficulties will be
806
part of the process of growing up; and, indeed, as all nations have experienced in the past, there is no easy passage to nationhood.
But we did learn, in the course of the debate a few days ago, something of what was being done by the people of Bechuanaland in an effort to develop and sustain their own economy. I had the privilege of making reference to the development of co-operative organisations in Bechuanaland. It is true that such organisations are comparatively new, compared with other African territories. I repeat now the tribute that I paid on a previous occasion to OXFAM for providing the initial funds a year or so ago; providing for a registrar of cooperatives, introducing the staff, and seeking to develop a co-operative organisation in those territories. It is simply incredible that, despite the almost total failure of the crop in 1965, there has been substantial progress in the agricultural marketing societies, in cattle marketing societies and in thrift and loan societies, all within a period of two to three years, stimulated, I believe, by a recognition on the part of the people that they were approaching nationhood, and there was a necessity not only to secure political freedom, but also to develop experience in order to be able to be economically independent.
There is at the present time in Bechuanaland a project to establish four consumer societies, one in each of the four principal tribal towns. The main purpose of this development, I believe, will be to bring about the stimulation of training—training organisation—and to give those people a stake in the commercial life of their own country. Those who know the area know that in the past the people of Bechuanaland had little control over what was commercial practice in the country: it was left to other nationals. I believe that this development will make a substantial contribution of aid to the people of Bechuanaland in developing their own Republic of Botswana.
But my main purpose in speaking this afternoon is to indicate to this House, and to people outside the House, that it would indeed be a tragedy if it were felt that independence relieved Britain of its' continuing moral responsibility to

807
Bechuanaland. If anything, I believe that it will be greater in the future than it has been in the past. For 80 years it has been under the protection of the British Government. I believe that we shall be judged, not by the fact that independence has been granted on this occasion, but by the progress of the new Republic in the years that lie ahead. I am confident—and I base that confidence upon what has already been expressed by my noble friend on the Front Bench—that Her Majesty's Government will recognise that continuing responsibility.
I also hope that the many private and co-operative organisations in this country which have recognised their responsibilities in the past and given aid to Bechuanaland, will, despite independence—or probably because of it—increase that aid rather than diminish it. I hope that, with the establishment of the Republic of Botswana, and with a full recognition of the enormous economic problems that confront the country and the people, the many folk in our own land who have given assistance in the years past will maintain, or indeed increase it in the years to come.
4.45 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have welcomed this Bill and expressed good feelings towards this new country of Botswana. I am sure that what has been said will be welcomed by the people of Botswana. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that, if we look back to 1951, there was not a great deal of reason for the assumption that by this year, 1966, we should he considering an Independence Bill. As he said, and as I said in my earlier speech and now echo, the fact that we have reached this point reflects great credit on many people, some of them British, and we need not be ashamed of this, as well as the political discipline of the people of Botswana itself.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about this undoubted anachronism—and, indeed, one might almost say crime—that we have allowed in the world some areas with a food surplus and other areas with a food famine. I do not disagree with the noble Lord when he emphasises that this is some-
808
thing that ought to be changed. I would, however, refer him back to what I said in the debate last week, when I pointed out to him, as I did again to-day, that the World Food Programme is now providing food for something like 114,000 people in Bechuanaland, and that provision has been made, under the food-for-work scheme, for extending that to over 300,000 people. This, at any rate, indicates that something is being done, and to some extent we in Britain have helped in this.
My noble friend Lord Mitchison was, I thought, rather unfair in comparing the allowance, being made under the World Food Programme, to the food allowance which is issued to a person in prison. After all, an individual in prison is not in the same position to supplement that diet. People in prison are not able to go out into the fields and kill an animal for food; they are not able to sell an animal; they are not being given food for a limited amount of work a week—limited in order that they can earn a certain amount of other money with which they can supplement their allowance. I do not need my noble friend, or anyone else, to tell me that the amount issued to them is inadequate. Of course it is. But I do not think that we should belittle the effort that is being made, and I do not think we should exaggerate the problems which are being tackled, or which some good people are trying to tackle, in that part of the world.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend for one moment, I would first of all say that I am sorry that he thought I was being unfair. However, I had in mind what he said about the diet of 10 ounces of maize and one ounce of vegetable oil. He said that it was a standard diet, which was considered reasonable and balanced by the experts of the W.F.P., who went into this most carefully. Some of the people who are receiving it—for instance, children, sick people and others—are not in a position to supplement their allowance.
LORD BESWICK: I think if my noble friend had read further he would have read the fact that I did give details of this scheme, and it is for work for 25 hours a week; and that was that the people who were receiving this amount of

809
food would be able to earn money and there was food available for them to buy in the shops. I also pointed out then, as I pointed out a minute or two ago, that they were able to add to that amount by the cattle which they had—the killing of cattle—and that in some cases they had been selling cattle. I do not underestimate the poverty that is there. I do not think that any of us would wish to underestimate the poverty there. But when one makes comparisons of the kind that my noble friend made earlier, I think it is a little unfair, and he may well lose some of the undoubted sympathy which he gained during the last debate, if I may put it to him in a friendly way, if he over-exaggerates the problem that we are trying to tackle.
I was asked, in quite a different field, about defence aid to this country. I think we all understand the difficulties there must he so far as any defence arrangement is concerned with a country like Botswana, in that particular geographical situation. The Bechuanaland Government has not sought any assurances from us about post-independence defence. The geographical situation would, I think, make it virtually inaccessible to us after independence, without the cooperation of neighbouring territories. On physical and logistical grounds alone, I am sure that most noble Lords would agree that it would be quite impossible for us to honour any obligation which we might undertake for direct military assistance there.
Having said that, I would also say that there is no reason to envisage that Bechuanaland will suffer from any threat of external aggression. One noble Lord used the phrase "co-existence". I believe that co-existence there is one of the facts of life that will have to be learned. I spoke about Basutoland. So far as that country is concerned, they are ready to accept this necessity for co-existence with their republican neighbour. As I have already indicated, Bechuanaland are prepared, without in any way sacrificing principles, to live as good neighbours next to the great republic. I only wish that some of the same common sense were apparent in one of the other territories in that part of the world.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned a particular problem, namely, the Central African relay station which
810
has been erected. I think he was referring to the station in Francistown. This is a quite separate defence issue, and the question of the protection of that station will be a matter for discussion with the Bechuanaland Government. I was asked about the provision of Ambassadors for this new small country of Botswana. This, of course, would be a matter entirely for the Botswana Government. I have no doubt that the advice the noble Earl gave, which seems to sound even more persuasive every time he gives it, will be noted very carefully by the Government of Botswana.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, gave me notice that he proposed to raise the question of the bushmen in Bechuanaland. I inquired what had been done since he first raised the question some years ago. I understand that a trained anthropologist was commissioned to consider the welfare or the position of these people. He made a survey, and a copy of the report was published last year and is in the Library of the House. It may be that the noble Lord has seen it, but if not I am sure that both he and I will read it with great interest. Responsibility for the bushmen's affairs has been placed within the Portfolio of the Deputy Prime Minister, and the extent to which the Bechuanaland Government can devote funds, especially to assist these people, will depend upon other competing demands. However, there is no reason to suppose that the bushmen will not be treated by the Botswana Government with understanding and sympathy, as everything that they have done, so far, indicates that this will be the case.
There is one other aspect of this matter. As the noble Lord knows, these bushmen are dependent to a large extent upon the food which they themselves obtain by hunting. I am advised that the game reserve which was established a few years ago to safeguard their hunting interests will be continued under the new dispensation, and, indeed, there is a fundamental rights provision in the existing Constitution, which will be carried on into the new Constitution and which will make specific provision for the safeguarding of this hunting area.
I am assuming that my noble friend Lord Mitchison was not arguing that, because we have not yet discharged all the obligations that

811
we should like to discharge to those people in Bechuanaland, as well as all the other colonial territories for which we have had responsibility, we should withhold independence. Having been prepared to grant the independence which the people of Bechuanaland themselves requested we readily accept that by the granting of this independence we do not, by this token, discharge all other obligations.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, if my noble friend will excuse me for a moment, he need make no such assumption. I said quite clearly that I welcomed it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am glad to have that assurance from my noble friend. I was going on to say that we accept the obligation for continuing aid, and in July my right honourable friend, whose sympathy with this part of the world I am sure my noble friend will accept, will be having talks with representatives of Botswana. These talks will take place against the background of the economic needs of the country and the special needs which are presented by the famine. I hope very much that the aid which will be given, if not entirely commensurate with the needs, will at any rate bear in mind all the pleas which have been put forward by my noble friend and others.
Finally, I must refer to what was said by my noble friend Lord Peddie. I welcome what he said about the co-operative organisations there, having myself in some little measure helped to encourage the work in that Colony and other areas in Africa and Asia. I greatly appreciate what he said. He then went on to say that there was reason to have some doubt about the wisdom of launching into the world these small units as separate independent nation States. I am sure that this last week especially, as we have been considering one country after another, many of us will have had similar doubts. Is it wise, in a world in which there is too much national sovereignty, to encourage too readily these further independent nation States? There is cause for reflection in this.
As I listened to my noble friend the thought went through my mind that we in Europe, at any rate, have no reason to preach to these people, when we think
812
of the way in which boundaries have been drawn and redrawn in our own Continent, and that in the course of these changes there have been, in the lifetime of most of us in this Chamber, millions of people slaughtered, and only now are we beginning to think how we can get together and how we can eliminate national boundaries and live together in closer harmony. I hope that, we having granted independence for these small units, they will learn from our experience, and that they will cut out some of the stupidities in which we in the Western world have indulged and will move, for one purpose or function or another, in closer union with their neighbours around them. I hope that in the years ahead this will be possible. Meanwhile, I trust that, having considered the Bill, we shall agree this afternoon to give it a Second Reading.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD BOOTHBY: I am for the first, and probably the last, time in my life. speaking as a Prelate.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD BOOTHBY: Am I not allowed to speak from this Bench? All right, I will go back. I am sorry because I should have liked to be a Bishop.
The only remark I want to add to the speech that has just been made by the noble Lord is this. I think he missed the basic problem. The basic problem confronting all these countries is not that of independence of one another but, ultimately, of birth control in some form or another. I feel this is absolutely vital and that over the next decade it has to come. A great friend of mine who has made a life-long study of India said to me the other day: "It does not matter what economic measures they put in hand, within a matter of months they are submerged again in the torrent of countless births". I believe that to be absolutely true, and it is a point which ought to be made.
It cannot be done overnight, but it will have to be done in the end, because basically I think Malthus was right, and I recommend the noble Lord to read the "Essay on Population" which was published. I think, in 1798, when Malthus

813
was only 32. He was not far off the mark, and we ought to bear that in mind. I am not prepared to advocate a tremendous campaign, but I do not see how we can compete in the small countries, or the large countries, in Africa and Asia with the problems confronting them over the next 40 or 50 years unless we make determined efforts to tackle this problem.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MALAWI REPUBLIC BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DRUG-TAKING BY YOUNG PEOPLE
5.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY VISCOUNT AMORY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken or are under consideration to counter the apparent growth of the habit of drug-taking by a minority of young people, a trend which is causing much public concern.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like to make it clear to the noble Lord who will reply that I have put down this Question with an exploratory aim. I have no direct or first-hand knowledge of this subject. One must have run across youngsters who take drugs, but I am not conscious of having done so in this country, although I was recently asked in quite a respectable café whether I should like to buy some pills. I did not buy them.
It is not my aim to describe or to uncover any sensational developments, or to paint a picture of an appalling situation in the United Kingdom. I simply do not know what the facts are, and I very much doubt whether the knowledge is available in a handy form. My worry derives principally from three facts which I believe to be true. The first is that over recent years there has been a substantial increase in the taking of pills by youngsters of both sexes. Secondly, in some cases I understand that the habituation with mild kinds of pills does lead on to the use of more potent and more destructive drugs. The third fact is that in some other countries, and
814
notably, I think, in parts of the United States of America, drug-taking by the young has assumed proportions which almost amount to a national calamity.
I recently visited the United States as a member of the now abolished Royal Commission on the Penal System, and we visited a variety of penal institutions there. We had the advantage of some discussions with American penal administrators of undoubted dedication and competence, and we talked with quite a number of inmates. I came back appalled at what we were told, and, indeed, at what we found evidence of there. How close the connection is between drug-taking and delinquency I would not attempt to say: it is a subject on which the results of research are still rather scanty. But that there is a connection, that drug-taking is an aggravating factor in delinquency, is something of which there can be no doubt. Nor, I imagine, can there be the smallest doubt that drugs demoralise: they destroy self-respect; they destroy the power of resistance, and ultimately they destroy personality itself.
Some of the experienced American administrators we met told us that if the problem had been tackled there earlier the current level of damage might well have been avoided. In some areas and in some social categories, they told us, the problem was almost out of control. I came home with my feeling confirmed that the habit of drug-taking is one of those self-inflicting wounds that could, unless checked, prove almost mortal to a modern society. As a layman I would venture to hazard the opinion (although the noble Lord may be able to "shoot me down" on this) that the use even of drugs authorised by medical practitioners may, in some cases, add up to quite an insidious influence tending to weaken personal responsibility.
I said just now that it is not my aim to build up an alarmist picture of the situation in the United Kingdom to-day. I believe that we simply do not know the statistical facts. My aim is to urge that, although this habit seems to be on the increase, there is still time to tackle the problem in an effective way in this country. And my real purpose in asking this Question is to try to satisfy myself, from what the noble Lord says in reply, that we are taking steps—and

815
effective steps—before this trouble develops into something really serious from the national point of view. I think that was the substance of some remarks made by my noble friend Lord Derwent quite recently in this House. I must express serious doubt whether what we are doing, in the case of the young, is anything like what is required by the urgency of the situation. I would also say, with all the force I can, that if, through complacency or drift, we were to allow this corrupting cancer to spread, we should never forgive ourselves; and I am sure that we should never be forgiven by those who come after.
I have mentioned a connection between unauthorised drug-taking and delinquency. I read an interesting article written by a psychiatrist, Dr. P. D. Scott, and a pathologist, Dr. D. R. Wilcox, published in 1964, and entitled "Delinquency and the Amphetamines". Those two distinguished people mentioned that entrants to two remand homes in London had been examined, and of the admissions there was proof that 16 to 18 per cent. had taken unauthorised drugs—rather a higher percentage in the case of girls than boys; and they thought that in fact the percentage was considerably higher.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Viscount, actually it was a rather lower percentage in girls than in boys. The figures were 18 per cent. in girls and 20 percent in boys.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am sorry; I apologise to the noble Lord. I had it exactly the other way round. I think I will change my ground and say there does not seem a very great deal of difference between boys and girls.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Antifeminist.
VISCOUNT AMORY: It is not essential to my argument to prove that fact. I thought I was just giving some useful information. I think the noble Lord has scored once, and if there is any other case where I am wrong I hope he will not hesitate to tell me. I am greatly relieved to see there are no further statistics in what I am going to say.
816
I come to the questions I want to ask the noble Lord, and I hope he will get his pen out and jot them down. The first is: What information is available as to how widespread among youngsters the habit of taking the milder forms of pills such as purple hearts is, and are there any particular categories of young people that seem particularly prone to this habit, such as, for instance, inadequates? The second question I should like to ask is how frequently the use of the milder forms of pills seem to lead to the taking of the more serious types of drug? The third question, which I think is a difficult one, is: What are the main sources through which youngsters are believed to obtain their supplies? The fourth is: Is there one authority which is charged with the responsibility of keeping this evil under study? Is there some body whose duty it is to inform themselves as well as they can of what is going on, so that they can call the attention of the appropriate authorities, educational, social, medical or police, to any untoward developments so that action can be taken? I fear the answer the noble Lord may give is that there is not one particular authority, but I should like to wait and hear what he has to say on that.
Having asked those questions, I should like to stick my neck out a little bit and hazard two opinions. The first is that I think there are grounds for thinking that it is still far too easy to obtain quite serious drugs in dangerous quantities through authorised medical channels. The second is that one understands that there are many all-night clubs, clubs that stay open all night, in Sotho and similar districts in other cities where, one is told, young teenage lay-abouts of both sexes are to be seen openly taking and distributing pills and equally openly suffering from the effects of them. I do suggest that there is at any rate a prima facie case for thinking that these places ought to be subject to far closer inspection and supervision than they are at the present time.
The third and last opinion I should like to express personally is that I think peddling dangerous drugs to young people should be regarded by society as an offence second only in gravity to murder, if I may put it in as extreme a form as that. I really do believe we have not much time to waste or to lose

817
in this matter. I cannot feel sure that we are yet treating this dangerous evil with the gravity that it calls for. I am not necessarily calling for maximum publicity in this matter. I am not sure it is through that that the answer will be got, because sometimes, particularly with the young, maximum publicity can be counter productive. I would say that, if publicity is going to be used, it must be used very carefully and discriminatingly in the case of the young. I would ask the noble Lord to urge his colleagues in the Government as a matter of urgency to ensure that, if there is not already, there should be one national body charged with the responsibility as far as possible of exorcising this lethal, corruptive force at any cost from our social system.
I said I was going to put this Question interrogatively; and I have spoken mainly in that sense. I would think perhaps it might be worth our while at some convenient time having a debate in a rather broader way and going in rather greater depth into what I believe is a very serious problem. I hope that that suggestion may appeal to your Lordships, and perhaps in a few months' time we may hold such a debate. I think the last one we had was about two years ago on the occasion of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Bill, in which my noble friend Lord Derwent took a prominent part. We are rightly devoting great national resources to education and the development of a sense of responsibility and character and individual personality. Let us beware that that effort is not undermined and frustrated by an insidious and deadly influence, to which I think there is some evidence that modern society may be particularly prone.
5.15 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think we all ought to be very grateful to my noble friend for raising this Subject, because although in fact we are all on the same side in this, it ought to be raised at fairly frequent intervals to find out exactly what is going on and indeed that in fact something is going on. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, although it gives him extra work, is probably of that view too. I am not going to cover the ground that my noble friend covered, because he covered it better than I can and he has put many of the questions that I
818
should like answers to. I, too, when in America recently was appalled at what is going on there. It has, I think, got out of hand. Since I got back I put down a Question on one aspect of this, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, misunderstood me somewhat, because he kept on stressing that it had not yet got out of hand here in this country. I never suggested it had. But it is of the utmost importance that we see that it cannot get out of hand here, and it is this that I want to talk about.
I got worried even when I was at the Home Office, and I have been getting more worried ever since, whether in fact our drug legislation is entirely adequate, in particular—and I raised this in May—in dealing with new drugs which come, if we may so call it, on the market which are particularly attractive to the young, which are not on any poison schedule as yet, and about which very little seems to be done until the new drug becomes something of a scandal. I referred in particular to the drug the young seem to be taking to in the United States, LSD.25. A good deal is known about it, but not everything. When I raised this question on May 11 the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, in answering me, said:
"The Poison Board has recommended that the supply of LSD.25 should be restricted to duly qualified medical practitioners, and effect will be given to this recommendation in…consolidated Poison Rules which my right honourable friend expects to make shortly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 274 (No. 11) Col. 661; 11/5/66.]
My first question is whether in this short time anything further has happened about this.
The real trouble seems to me that the control of drugs comes under two Acts. The first one is the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. It is virtually impossible, as I understand it—I think I was confirmed in this view by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, last time—to get any new drug put on the Schedule of this Act in a hurry because the Schedule is governed by international agreement. This is not an easy way of getting an Act altered. I think I am right in saying that it has to go to the United Nations Committee. There are years of discussion before you can add a new drug. All this does not seem a satisfactory way of putting a new drug such as the young

819
are using, on a poisons Schedule. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, can tell us a little more—I fully understand that he may not be able to—about any discussions that may be going on about this at the United Nations. I do not think the matter will have got much further than when we last spoke.
The next question I want to ask the noble Lord is about the Drugs (Prevention and Misuse) Act 1964, which I had the honour of helping to pilot through your Lordships' House. This Act does not go so far as the Dangerous Drugs Act. It is a much smaller Act. First of all, it makes it an offence to be in possession of unauthorised drugs—that is, drugs which are not authorised under the Act. The penalties are quite severe. For being in possession, on summary conviction there is a fine not exceeding £200, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both. On conviction on indictment, there is a fine, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. The penalties are quite strong. Apart from unauthorised possession, all importers in this country of drugs on the list have to be licensed. That did away with a few, though not many, importers who were really not responsible or respectable people. Manufacturers have to be registered, so we know who makes the drugs, or we hope we do; and wholesale dealers have to be registered. That is a fairly strict control, although it is not as strong as I should like.
But the great advantage of this Act is contained in Section 6, which says that the Minister may by Order add new drugs to the Schedule. The Order has to appear before the House, but it does get the Act used. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, whether we are using the Act sufficiently. As the noble Lord knows, I am rather fond of this Act. I have a feeling that perhaps we are not using it, and I want it to be used. First of all, drugs that present a danger, even if the danger is not actually proved, may in many cases be put on the Schedule to this Act. This can be done before we are in a position to prove or disprove that they are likely to corrupt young people. I see no reason why we should not do this.
820
That is the point I want to make to-day. It may be that we need still further legislation, but this is such a serious matter, when one considers what has happened in the United States, that it is no good for anybody to say that the matter is not yet out of control here. We want to control it before the danger arises. That is the point I want to stress to-day.
5.25 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for but a few minutes. I have not had a great deal of experience of drug addiction in this country, but I did some work on this problem for the World Health Organisation in Switzerland. I think that here there is an interesting comparison. Switzerland has many problems connected with this matter. One of them is that in certain cantons, such as Geneva, you can go into a chemist's and buy any drug you wish. Drugs are also peddled throughout most of Switzerland. If a person takes to drugs, unless he seeks medical guidance it is difficult for anything to be done about it.
The extent of drug addiction in this country is fairly small. Of the known addicts, an independent committee report says that those who take morphia numbered 204; those taking cocaine some 30, and those taking pethidine about 116. These were known cases of addiction. The trouble is in regard to those people who are taking drugs and who are not known to be so doing. The same comparison can be drawn in dealing with the question of drink: a person may be a heavy drinker, but you cannot persuade him that he is an alcoholic. A person may be in a serious condition through taking drugs, but may not want to seek guidance; and, until he chooses to control it, a doctor has to persuade him that he is a drug addict. It is a big psychological problem to get him to accept this fact.
We have heard a certain amount to-day about drugs taken in the field of psychiatry. I think that most of the drugs that are now coming on to the market and are being prescribed by the psychiatrists are not addiction drugs. There may be some trouble in regard to a certain number of tranquillisers but, on the whole, I do not think that this

821
takes the form of addiction; although where young people are concerned this certainly is a problem. It always has to be watched. I saw this in psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland, where, before the latest developments on the new psychiatric drugs had emerged, there were cases where young people who had gone to doctors for a cure for certain problems had been given drugs and had then become addicted. This in itself starts a new cycle of events, which is most serious.
I think that one of the other problems connected with addiction is the question of the medical profession itself. There are no people for whom I am more sorry than doctors who are in the unfortunate position of having access to drugs; and in this connection I include also the anesthetists. After all, anesthetists have to work enormously long hours in hospitals and in theatres, and if they take to addiction with anesthetics, it becomes a problem of the highest order.
Here I would make one point which I think has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Derwent—it is the question of the LSD. Certainly no drug has been produced which has caused greater trouble in this world than LSD. It was discovered by the Swiss. When I was in Switzerland, it was certainly being used continually by doctors on out-patients. They were given this drug and for two or three hours were in an hallucinatory state. Then they were given an antidote to it, and were sent out again into perfectly normal life. One now hears that this drug is in some extraordinary way being manufactured by young people. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have seen anybody under the effects of this drug. I have. If some of the young people could see their condition after taking this drug, they would never touch it again.
I should like to end by saying that, basically, this whole problem is a psychiatric one. Partly I think the question is that more staff are needed to be able to help out in psychiatric hospitals. The other thing (I know that it is an "old chestnut". and is always a difficult matter to deal with) is, that without any doubt, more money is seriously needed for mental health research. This covers the whole of this problem, and
822
I think that more research could be made into the reasons why certain groups of young people are susceptible to addiction. One knows that it is probably due to character defects, but it is a subject which needs a great deal of experiment and research.
5.30 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be deeply grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, for raising this vital topic this afternoon. There is not very much to be said about it. The only reason I have risen to my feet to-day is that it so happens that recently, by chance, I was brought into pretty close contact with the drug department of Scotland Yard. I will mention no names, but I had a long and interesting conversation with the inspector in charge of it (who, incidentally, is a good Scotsman).
He told me two things that alarmed me. He said that in regard to the young population of this country, particularly in London and the great provincial centres, the problem was gradually getting out of control. He said that "purple hearts" led on to marihuana and ultimately could lead to heroin. He said another thing that was extremely interesting. We are all alarmed about the situation in the United States with all the heroin-addiction there, but the inspector said that the heroin in this country is about three times more powerful than in the United States. The reason is that in the United States, in order to make money, they heavily dilute the heroin with sugar and water. He thought that in the next five years this would prove to be one of the gravest problems confronting us; the young were in great danger, and he said that his department had enormous difficulty in catching up with the problem.
I think that is all I have to say. There is little more to be said. The Government are doing what they can; Scotland Yard is doing what it can; and gradually we are becoming aware of the extent and magnitude of the problem, for, as I have said, this could be an enormous problem over the next five years. I would say to my noble friend Lord Stoneham that if it ever seems to Her Majesty's Government to become necessary to take far more extensive powers to control these drugs and to stop their sale, they should not hesitate to take them.
5.33 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships to any great extent, but there are one or two random observations I wish to make at this stage. This is a most important subject which the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has raised, and really deserves a full-scale debate, preferably one based on the very exhaustive report of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, on the subject. Unfortunately, the wording of the Question is rather wide. I should have preferred this afternoon's discussion to be confined to the amphetamine group of drugs, the use of which is increasing on a vast scale. I do not subscribe to the view which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has just put forward that the position is out of control.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I said that it was getting out of control.
LORD SEGAL: I should like to insist that the means and the machinery for controlling this problem is available and is being adequately used. It is important that a distinction should be drawn between the group of dangerous drugs such as heroin, morphine, cocaine and so on, and the group of lesser drugs to which addiction is much more prevalent and in much vaster quantities in the amphetamine group. I believe that the control of dangerous drugs such as heroin, morphine, cocaine, et cetera, is at present fairly strict, but I am equally convinced that some further degree of restriction is advisable in relation to the present widespread use of the amphetamine drugs.
I have always been absolutely opposed to the complete prohibition of heroin, and your Lordships will remember that an attempt at this was made not many years ago: there is a recognised and definite use for heroin prescription. But what I should have liked to see is an absolute prohibition on all doctors to prescribe heroin for any new patients, because there is available a whole range of substitute drugs, though perhaps not as efficacious or as immediate in their effect. Nevertheless, I should have liked to see incorporated in legislation that no new patient should be prescribed heroin on any account.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, with his great know-
824
ledge, will forgive me for interrupting him. Surely the noble Lord would say that in certain cases of cancer heroin is the only pain-killer?
LORD SEGAL: No, my Lords, I would not. There is a very great difference of opinion among people more expert on this subject than the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, or I, who do not all take that view. There are a vast number of new drugs which have been placed on the market which are regarded as almost as efficacious as heroin: pethidine is one among many others. But this is a digression. I feel very strongly that there should always be placed on the doctor an obligation not to increase the quantities prescribed, but wherever possible to reduce them. Whenever a doctor feels himself bound, for whatever reason, to increase greatly the quantity of drugs prescribed, I feel that he should at the same time notify the Home Office of his intention to do so. One is completely against any question of registration, certainly of patients who are given the amphetamine groups. One is against any strong restriction, but I feel that it should be made obligatory on a doctor to have to notify this matter to the Home Office.
I feel that some tribute ought to be paid to the highly skilled and experienced officials, many of them police inspectors, of the dangerous drugs department of the Home Office. They bring an extraordinary degree of understanding in every case of drug addiction which they handle. To my mind no finer body of men exists in the public service to-day. I have been amazed at the detailed knowledge shown in their reports of these individual cases. This occasion ought not to pass without our paying due tribute to the skill and excellence of our Home Office dangerous drug inspectors.
Having said that, I feel that some drugs which are now known to be under a certain schedule are still prescribed in very large quantities by certain doctors and. as your Lordships know, in the case of prescription of vast quantities of heroin, morphia, and cocaine, for example, as a last resort the Home Secretary has the power to withdraw from the doctor the prescribing of any dangerous drug. I am not certain in my own mind, and I would ask my noble friend who is to reply, whether this same ultimate prohibition ought not to be extended in the

825
case of doctors who prescribe excessive amounts of amphetamine drugs. I am not convinced in my own mind whether this is not a step which is long overdue, but on this matter I should very much like to hear the noble Lord's opinion. There is the further matter that a doctor who prescribes a highly dangerous drug is under an obligation progressively to reduce the dosage. If he is unable to do that, it is his duty to refer the patient to a consultant for treatment, if necessary for in-patient treatment.
I am beginning now to come round to the view that even addicts of the lesser group, of the amphetamine group, who need these drugs in large quantities ought at the same time also to be admitted to special homes for treatment of this particular addiction, in the same way as we have our homes for the treatment of cases of chronic alcoholism. Instances of the habit of taking the amphetamine group are very well known, I am sure, to all Members of this House. Your Lordships will recall that only recently a competitor in a Round Britain cycling race was disqualified when it was found that he had been taking large quantities of amphetamine. That we acknowledge is not a legitimate therapeutic use of this drug. Equally, I believe it is open to question whether the prescribing of amphetamine by some doctors in University towns, where students in their last year have to face the prolonged ordeal of going through their final examinations, is a legitimate use of this drug. Cases have certainly been known to occur where doctors have prescribed amphetamine to such students. I think this is a matter on which some sort of action ought to be advised by my noble friend, when he comes to reply.
Having said that, I think the time has now come when homes of some kind—which I prefer to hospitals—or hostels, if you like, should be started in various parts of the country, preferably run by voluntary effort, in the same way as many of our homes for alcoholics are run. But, certainly, this is a new field in which I believe the Home Office ought now to take some action.
5.42 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, for giving the House an opportunity to explore this very serious social problem, and
826
I personally am grateful to him for the incisive, restrained and exploratory way in which he introduced the subject. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken, and who have shown great knowledge of the subject, as well as intense feeling and concern. I am only sorry that other engagements have made it impossible for the noble Lord, Lord Brain, the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, and my noble friend Lord Taylor to speak in the debate, as I know that they wished to do so.
No one who has seen drug addicts shivering and sneezing outside all-night pharmacies in the West End, waiting to get their "fix" and barely waiting to get outside before relieving their distress, can be in any doubt about the appalling consequences of living in what Sir William Connor, "Cassandra" of the Daily Mirror, described recently in newspaper articles as the appalling "paradise of heroin addiction". No one can be indifferent to the consequences to the nation of allowing teenagers to take 30 "pep" pills a day and drift into a life of mindless and delinquent futility. But, serious and dreadful as these things are, I want in the course of my speech to put the matter into proper perspective as it is in this country, as regards the population at large, and young people in particular. Bearing in mind those two factors—both the seriousness and the relativity—I propose to give fully the facts of the situation and to answer, in the course of my speech, the questions which have been addressed to me.
Within the last decade there has occurred a sudden and sizeable outbreak of drug abuse, taking a variety of forms. There has been a vogue for cannabis (marihuana), amphetamines ("purple hearts") and others; recently increasing addiction to heroin and cocaine and, most lately, misuse of hallucinogens. Except in respect of addicts to narcotics, about whom I will say something in a moment, there has been no ready means of identifying those who have been misusing drugs, and no means of measuring the various forms of drug-taking, or of analysing and understanding the reasons why a section of our population, and particularly numbers of young people, have been resorting to harmful drugs.
There can be no two views, of course, about whether young people should be

827
protected from that menace, and the objective of the Government is to eliminate the menace by all appropriate means. But it is a formidable task. The illicit profits are very large. The other day I heard from some young people the story of an amateur buying three kilos of cannabis in Tangier for £25. It was brought back overland by car, with a girl sitting on it, and was sold here for £8 an ounce; that is, about £500. The distribution is not difficult. I asked about "reefers", and the young person gave me one. It looks just like an ordinary cigarette of a well-known brand. It could pass just like that. It is a very difficult task when the law has to deal with, and check and stop—and, indeed, punish—a situation like this.
I should now like to enlarge a little on the current situation, before I turn to the Government's policy in dealing with it. In 1964 the total number of addicts to dangerous drugs, other than cannabis, known to the Home Office was 753; and of that number, 342 were addicted to heroin and 211 to cocaine. About half the total number of addicts were of non-therapeutic origin. Forty addicts taking heroin were less than 20 years old, and 257 were in the age group from 20 to 34. I am now in a position to give the figures for 1965. These show that the total number of addicts coming to the notice of the Home Office in 1965 was 927; that is to say, an increase of 23 per cent. in a year. Of these, 521 were addicted to heroin; that is, an increase of 52 per cent. over the previous year. The number of young addicts under 20 years of age increased from 40 to 145, all but11 being addicted to heroin.
There is another figure which must also cause concern, and that is that 77 of the new addicts who came to notice in 1965 had obtained their drugs from unknown sources. In previous years no more than 5 addicts had, to our knowledge, obtained drugs otherwise than on prescription. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said it was his opinion that it was all too easy to obtain drugs from authorised sources. The Brain Committee's Report gave all the information one needs in confirmation of that belief. But the figures I have given show that there is now a clear sign of significant
828
trafficking in narcotic drugs. These figures are disturbing; the trend is alarming. Moreover, I readily acknowledge that there may well be many other addicts who have not yet come to notice.
But, my Lords, when every allowance is made, the actual numbers, I am thankful to say, are still small, representing only one addict for every 30,000 of our population. This is a comparatively low rate, judged by the experience of some other developed countries. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, asked me for comparisons. I can give some, but these comparisons are never quite exact as the methods of computation are not the same. But compared with our figure of addicts of less than 3 per 100,000. the figure in New York is 130 per 100,000: an approximate figure of 40,000 addicts—which is many times more than the total in this country as a whole. Though when I say that, do not think for one moment that we take this lightly or fail in our efforts to deal with it.
I was asked about the extent of amphetamine abuse. With regard to these drugs, it is very much more difficult to form an estimate of the extent of misuse. My noble friend Lord Segal made particular reference to this, and asked for consideration to be given to adding to the prohibitive powers of my right honourable friend. But many millions of these tablets are in proper, legitimate use, which adds to the difficulty. Most of the 1,400 convictions so far recorded for unauthorised possession have related to small quantities—less than 500 tablets. Some observers think—
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but could he just say over what period that is?
LORD STONHAM: Certainly. That is since October, 1964, when the favourite Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, became an Act of Parliament. The 1,400 convictions so far recorded for unauthorised possession have related to small quantities. Some observers think that misuse of amphetamines is an established part of adolescent experience, particularly among those who are disturbed. My own inquiries—and I give them for what they are worth—suggest that three out of four young people have no experience whatever of illicit drugs.

829
But in London, perhaps one in every four young persons between the ages of 16 and 21 has had some experience of illicit drugs. The majority experiment tentatively with "reefers" and purple hearts, or perhaps both, and then they forget all about it. It is a very small number who persist and become habituated. But I believe that the noble Viscount is right in thinking that these lesser evils—shall we say?—do, in a minority of cases, lead to narcotic taking.
The noble Viscount made reference to the researches of Dr. Willcox and Dr. Scott. Whatever the slight difference of opinion about the exact figures, I am sure we shall both agree that one-fifth of the delinquents in those two penal establishments had taken amphetamines shortly before admission—and that, of course, is a significant figure. I would tell the noble Viscount that further studies since then at these remand homes have confirmed similar proportions among new admissions in 1965.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I noticed the noble Lord said, "shortly before". That is an important factor, I imagine, because it might be that the proportion who had taken it in, say, the previous two months or so might be fairly considerably greater. I imagine these were cases in which they had taken it within a few days before.
LORD STONHAM: That is an assumption it is quite proper to make, and I am unable to refute it. The reason why I used the words "shortly before" is because that is how the doctors became aware of it. But I would ask noble Lords, in considering the significance of these figures—that is, the figures for delinquent youngsters—to bear in mind that in 1964 the total number of young persons under 21 received in penal establishments was at the rate of 68 per 100,000 of the total population of males (that is, 1 in 1,500) and, my noble friend Baroness Summerskill will be pleased to know, 2 per 100,000 of the total population of females (that is, 1 in 50,000). It is right to put this in its proper context. Therefore, without being in any way complacent, it is reasonable to suggest that the proportion of young people who misuse drugs is still quite small.
Furthermore, the position in London is not necessarily typical, because most of the 1,400 convictions I have men-
830
tioned recorded under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 have been obtained in London. In a number of provincial cities the police have no evidence at all of significant trafficking or misuse. There is also virtually no evidence from the school medical service that drug abuse is a significant problem in the compulsory school years. The author of the Central Council for Health Education's publication The Sexual Behaviour of Young People found after sample investigation that the incidence of drug-taking was too small to draw conclusions about a pattern of relationship between drugs and sex behaviour among young people.
The noble Viscount also asked me a question about the places where young people forgather. A number of local authorities who have been keeping a close watch on the situation are concerned about drug trafficking in premises where young people congregate. As noble Lords are aware, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has introduced a Bill to provide for the control of clubs. He was good enough to discuss the whole matter with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and myself, and the Secretary of State has expressed his readiness to give all possible assistance to the Lord Chief Justice with a view to ensuring that his Bill is in a form best suited to eliminate nuisances caused by the existence of clubs set up, often in sordid surroundings, to provide entertainment for young persons. This problem goes much wider than drug trafficking, but full account will be taken of the dangers of drug trafficking in the general exercise.
My Lords, the situation clearly gives cause for anxiety. On the other hand, it is easy to exaggerate the menace and to infer too much from limited observations. In that respect, I feel sympathy with the resolution passed at the recent annual conference of the National Union of Teachers, which, among other comments, expressed the conference's view that:
"The sensational publicity given to drug-taking by young people has not only created a false impression of the extent of this problem but has tended to intensify it."
I turn now to what Her Majesty's Government are doing, or intend to do. Our constant aim is to cut down the volume of drugs in illicit circulation. The police and the Customs authorities are

831
taking, and will continue to take, vigilant action against illegal trafficking in amphetamines and in cannabis under the existing law. Whatever might be the position five years hence, I do not for a moment accept the opinion which was expressed or recounted by my noble friend Lord Boothby, that this matter is in any way out of hand at the moment. This is not the case. A number of police forces have been using special groups on drugs work with success, and there are further developments on these lines to be expected. The establishment of the dangerous drugs squad at New Scotland Yard was increased in March to twenty officers.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, I should have said that what was said to me was that it could get out of control. I think I went a little beyond what my terms of reference were. I should have said that it could get out of control if we were not careful. I think the noble Lord will accept that.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord; and what I am now doing is outlining the steps that we are taking to make quite sure that it does not get out of control. As I mentioned, the staff of experimental officers in the dangerous drugs squad at New Scotland Yard has just been stepped up to twenty, and the Home Office Drugs Branch will keep under special review ways of facilitating enforcement. We already have close liaison with enforcement authorities overseas.
I now want to deal with the question of heroin and cocaine; and, on behalf of the Government, I should like to express deep appreciation of the valuable Report made by the Interdepartmental Committee on Drug Addiction under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, which was published last November. That Committee was reconvened in 1964 when evidence was seen of an increase in the numbers addicted to heroin and cocaine. The latest figures for heroin addiction that I have given to-day will have emphasised, if emphasis is needed, the significance of the Committee's conclusions that the increase has been caused by over-prescribing of heroin and cocaine by a few doctors and that there is a pressing need for new control measures.
832
Noble Lords may wonder why, in the light of the Committee's findings, Her Majesty's Government have not acted already to give effect to the Committee's recommendations for new controls. The reason is that some of the recommendations—for instance, for confining prescription of heroin and cocaine to treatment centres, for compulsory notification of addicts, and for enforcing these restrictions—would involve complicated provision, and this must be worked out in consultation with the medical profession. Much work has already been done, but there are difficulties. The proposals for restricting the numbers of doctors authorised to prescribe heroin or cocaine to addicts raise considerable problems in relation to the organisation of treatment and the likely behaviour of addicts.
Lord Brain's Committee recommended that the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council should assume responsibility for enforcing new restrictions. Unfortunately, this proposal has proved to be impracticable, because it would require the Disciplinary Committee of the Council to exercise a function inconsistent with its present responsibilities; so, instead, alternative tribunal procedure is being considered for discussion with the professional interests. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Viscount that this problem—he put his finger on it—must be tackled at its source. I am sorry that I cannot give any undertakings to-day about when it will be possible to introduce the necessary legislation but I can assure your Lordships that the work is being pressed on as rapidly as possible, taking full account of the information I have given earlier about a further increase in the number of young addicts.
The Government have already announced acceptance of the Interdepartmental Committee's recommendations about treatment centres and the setting up of a standing advisory committee to keep under review the whole problem of drug addiction. My right honourable friend and his colleagues hope to be in a position soon to make an announcement about the membership and terms of reference of the committee. The intention is that it shall have a general function of review over the whole field as suggested by the Interdepartmental Committee, and that it shall have a broad balance of

833
medical and lay interests competent to review the social as well as the medical aspects of the problem and to advise on corrective health and social measures. The Government attach the utmost importance to the establishment of this committee as a guide to fuller public knowledge and more effective management of the problem.
My Lords, I will not go into detail about treatment of heroin addiction, but I ought perhaps to say a word about the present arrangements and those which are under consideratoin. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, urged a central control department or a person at the head who is to be responsible. The Home Office is that department, and my right honourable friend has the personal responsibility; but obviously some ancillary matters will be dealt with in other Government Departments, such as the Ministry of Health. The medical view endorsed by the Interdepartmental Committee in its Report in 1961 is that treatment can be given satisfactorily only in suitable institutions such as hospitals. Treatment falls into two stages. The first stage involves the progressive withdrawal of heroin by substitution of other drugs, to prevent painful physical symptoms, and then the subsequent withdrawal of the substitute drugs. For this stage, which is usually successful, the addict needs to be in hospital. The second stage aims at removing psychological dependence on the drug, and this usually requires the patient to be under pyschiatric supervision in hospital or in a local authority hostel. These hospitals are being provided, and there is no reason to confine them to those addicted to narcotic drugs. The centres will deal with anyone in such need.
Following the 1961 Report, hospital authorities in England and Wales were encouraged to provide facilities on these lines. In 1964 (the latest year for which figures are available) the total of admissions to psychiatric hospitals and units of persons suffering from all forms of drug dependency was 1,138. This figure included persons dependent on dangerous and other drugs; it also included readmissions as well as first admissions. Last year, about 160 hospitals treated persons suffering from all forms of drug dependency. There was a good deal of specialisation and about 70 per cent.
834
of the treatment was given in 35 hospitals. In the London area alone there are now four hospital units which cater exclusively for patients who are dependent on drugs or drugs and alcohol.
It is true that a heroin addict who is simply deprived of the drug suffers unpleasant, painful physical consequences. Because one of these is that the flesh becomes cold and the hair stands on end, the condition resulting from deprivation of heroin has been called "cold turkey". But I should like to emphasise that this is not the kind of treatment that is given in hospitals. Hospitals accompany the withdrawal of heroin by the administration of substitute drugs to prevent the painful symptoms associated with "cold turkey" which the addict may have heard about or experienced himself when temporarily deprived of heroin. Furthermore, the addict will be in the hands of doctors and nurses whose professional skill is to understand his problems and to bring his treatment to a successful conclusion. I very much hope that the fact that this treatment is available will encourage any young person who wishes to be rid of this terrible scourge of drug dependence to seek help without delay.
With regard to future arrangements for hospital treatment, Her Majesty's Government have been carefully considering the recommendation in the Brain Committee's Report. Present treatment facilities have been reviewed, and consultations are in train with the various bodies concerned. These consultations must cover the nature, scale and location of treatment facilities in the future, involving estimates of the nature, scale and incidence of demand. There is also the question of the extent to which treatment should be provided in specialised institutions, to which my noble friend Lord Segal referred. These are not simple matters. Her Majesty's Government are conscious of the need to reach early and sound conclusions, and hope to do so shortly.
The Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964, making unauthorised possession of amphetamines an offence, and introducing other restrictions, came into full operation only on October 31, 1964. But the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will be glad to know that we are already actively reviewing its effectiveness. Inquiries have already been made of the trade, selected police

835
forces, the prison and other services with relevant knowledge of the working of the Act. It is obvious why we are inquiring of the trade. A great deal of information has been collected and further inquiries are being made to see whether the Act could usefully be strengthened, for example, as regards the security of the very large quantities of these drugs during production or distribution. There has been a marked increase in forcible thefts from warehouses and pharmacies. These are sources of supply, and the problems of security in such premises will be closely considered. A special committee of the United Nations Narcotics Commission will be meeting in Geneva in August to study the question of international control over stimulant and sedative drugs.
As for cannabis—which is not a narcotic but an intoxicant—trafficking and consumption appear to be growing throughout the world. This trend has been reflected in the increasing number of offences recorded here in recent years. In 1946 there were only 17 convictions. In 1965 there were 614 convictions. Although the traffic appears to be on an extensive scale, enforcement authorities last year seized no less than 1,037 kilograms of the stuff here. I may say that the efficiency of our authorities in this matter is the well-respected envy of international authorities.
Your Lordships will recall that the law against cannabis was strengthened in 1964 by the inclusion in the Dangerous Drugs Act of that year of a provision penalising the use of premises for smoking cannabis and the cultivation of the cannabis plant. It is rather early to judge the effect of that additional provision, but twelve convictions were obtained in1965 for permitting premises to be used for cannabis smoking.
Reference has been made in the debate, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to the question of the misuse of LSD 25, and perhaps I should say a word about it. There is no reliable information about the extent of its misuse in the United Kingdom. LSD 25 is listed as a poison in Part I of the Poisons List and can be sold at present only by a pharmacist on a prescription. The Poisons Board recently recommended that the supply of this substance should be restricted to duly qualified medical prac-
836
titioners and persons or institutions requiring it for research. Effect has been given to this recommendation in a new rule which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has included in consolidated Poisons Rules made recently and which will come into operation on July 6.
Loin DERWENT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, because this is interesting to me? Is it an offence to be in possession of this drug?
LORD STONHAM: In possession of it? My Lords, I do not know what would be in the regulation, but I have one or two more points to make about this drug, because the Home Secretary is also considering whether LSD 25 and similar hallucinogenic substances should be controlled under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964. He hopes to take a decision shortly, and the noble Lord will be the first to hear, after I have heard.
The noble Lord also asked whether it was in the Government's power to add a new substance to the Schedule of drugs controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, or the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964. The position is that Section 12 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 permits a substance to be scheduled only if the United Nations Narcotics Commission or the World Health Organisation decide or appear likely to decide that the substance should be controlled under the Single Convention. As the noble Lord said, it is very difficult when we have to get international agreement on these things. This Convention is not designed to control drugs other than narcotics. But we can of course add drugs to the Schedule to the 1964 Act, subject to consultation with the Poisons Board. So far as strategy is concerned, we will certainly bear in mind the noble Lord's point that action should be taken as soon as possible, and certainly taken before a drug appears to be liable to abuse. I can reassure him that the Poisons Board has most attentively been keeping this matter under review.
The noble Lord also asked me about the use of Section 6, relating to adding a new poison to the Schedule. So far, we have made no use of it, but we are urgently considering the question of adding LSD 25 to it. As he so well knows, the Act came into operation less than

837
two years ago so that the need for addition is, in any event, likely to be small.
My Lords, I have perhaps spoken overlong, but the length of my speech will, I hope, be taken as an earnest of the great seriousness with which the Government view this situation, or, perhaps I should say the prospective situation. I hope that I have been able to give some indication that there is no question whatever of playing down the problem, no question whatever of complacency. The trends do give genuine cause for anxiety, and I have said so. But, on the other hand, I hope I have made clear, by putting the figures in perspective, that it is unwise to exaggerate it. In the comparatively few years in which drug abuse has become a problem many counter-measures have been taken. I have outlined some of them, and others are being urgently considered. Everything which has been said in this debate by your Lordships will be most carefully considered, and in again thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, for raising the subject, may I assure him that the Government will continue to press forward energetically with whatever counter-measures are needed.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I should like, if I may, simply to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for the information which he has given us, which I think is extremely interesting and useful. We should all like to study it in detail, and perhaps one day before very long it would be a good plan to examine this problem over a rather wider field. I thank the noble Lord.

ISLE OF MAN DEVELOPMENT
6.17 p.m.
LORD STRANGE LORD STRANGE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would be prepared to consider sympathetically suggestions for development in the Isle of Man, of mutual benefit to the Island and to Britain, such as a technological University. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question against my name on the Order Paper. I must declare a small financial loss in the Isle of Man, but it is shared by the whole population. I trust that your Lordships will credit me with speaking for the island and not for myself.
Your Lordships may have noticed that in a Question I asked earlier this afternoon I mentioned the term, "loyal". The Manxmen have proved their loyalty to this country in many ways. During both wars there was a higher proportion of freely enlisted Manxmen per head of the population than of nationals from any other country in the British Empire. They have paid their debts honourably and paid their defence contribution. They have been striken down suddenly by the seamen's strike in a manner which has proved devastating to the island. When the strike happened it hit the tourist trade which was just beginning, which was taking bud for the season.
The Tourist Trophy Race, which is internationally famous, had to be put off and this meant that lodgings which had been hooked up for a year ahead had to be cancelled. It hit the Steam Packet Company which had eleven vessels all laid up in harbour. Among those vessels are two drive-on—drive-off ferry boats capable during the season of taking on a double journey over 300 cars a day. It has also hit the provision of spare parts for hire cars. Many hire-car merchants in the Isle of Man buy their cars new every year, and these vehicles were left lying undelivered at Liverpool. One car manufacturer has £25,000 worth of carslying at Liverpool. Gradually the turn-round was slowed up and hit the whole pace of this happy island.
To give spot details, a hotel which has fifty bedrooms, and is normally packed, had one visitor. A small boarding house was expecting 27 visitors and did not get any. All its accommodation was booked. We got to the stage when there were more staff in the shops than customers. The island was reduced to a state of complete frustration which will affect the future. In fact it will be difficult for the island to recover. Although the island has tremendous power and guts, and will definitely fight to recover its losses, this will be very difficult to do. I know that suggestions have to be put through official channels, which would be the House of Keys, the Lieutenant Governor and the Home Office. I am sure that the Home Office, recognising the loyalty of the Isle of Man, and that they have always paid their debts and their defence contributions, will jump over backwards to help them.
I can say something on this question, because it is a national and not a local one. As I look at your Lordships, I see the faces of Manxmen who have come to me and said, "Try to do something". This is the first time I have had the honour of initiating a discussion in your Lordships' House and I am extremely nervous. I should never be nervous of your Lordships, with your kindly and learned faces, your sympathy and good manners, but I am nervous, when I am making this appeal, that I may put it wrong in some way. I am sure that your Lordships have felt this at some time or another. After an interview, or perhaps a row with your wife, in the morning you wake up and say that you wish you had said that or were sorry that you had said this. That is how I feel now, approaching this subject.
The problem is that we are leaving the hot war for the cold war. What were formally munition factories have to be changed into universities, and the production of shells has to be changed to the production of brains. That is the cold war, which we are bound to go into for the future and which, in many ways, is a better thing than the hot war. As your Lordships know, China and Russia are making universities on a scale undreamed of in the world before. They are of such a complexity and technical scope that they make our universities seem like naked houses.
In the Isle of Man, there is the ideal site on which to create one of the large universities of the future. I have thought it all out carefully. I have paced the corridors of your Lordships' House trying to get it down to something simple to tell your Lordships. I have cut it down to three points, and your Lordships will know at the end of the third that I am going to stop, which will give you relief. Although we have a great many universities in this country and they are dedicated to expansion, any form of expansion means more student accommodation, the cost of which comes either from the Government or from a gift from some kind person or institution or company. Your Lordships know that the national housing scheme has to catch up with all sorts of derelict houses, including bungalows rushed up which are already out of date and need replenishing. There is also the building of new houses at a rate which is difficult
840
to fulfil, and finally there is the housing problem created by the fact that the population will probably be doubled in less than thirty years.
In the Isle of Man this student accommodation problem does not exist, because the vacation period of the university will coincide with the tourist season. Nowadays students go away to work in factories and laboratories with the idea of gaining technical experience, and this period, along with the normal vacation, is going to work in exactly with the tourist season. This means that during the university months there will be over 47,000 accommodation units, and many more if desired, for students. I do not think we can produce that so readily around our universities in this country.
My second point is this. The main trouble of the universities in this country is the brain drain. It is difficult to attract the top teachers in technological subjects. As your Lordships will remember, the old charming classical professors of our youth did not want very much. If they had good meals, good wine and good company, they were quite prepared to take their holidays in Switzerland, roping themselves together and climbing hills. When they got older, they rode on bicycles on the roads for exercise, and when they were older still they went with their wives to see classical ruins and poked about them with umbrellas and were quite happy. That will not do for the technical teachers of to-day. They are teaching about money and they want it for themselves. In this country, we have the most colourful system of taxation in the world. In the Isle of Man, with which Her Majesty's Government could well co-operate in the taxation system, the brain drain would change to a brain flood, from which the best teachers could be taken.
The third point—as your Lordships will be glad to hear—is the question of site. The Isle of Man has over 200 square miles of the finest green belt country in the British Isles. It is a beautiful place, with hills and mountains, clear streams, plains and valleys, and miles of beaches. The air is so clear that the flowers look unnaturally bright and the tourists wonder if there is something wrong with them. The meadows are filled with delight, with flowers everywhere, and everybody is gay and happy and energetic. What a place for

841
young people! In addition, there are over 400 miles of good roads.
I was going to talk about winter climate, and knowing that there might be a lot of doubting remarks I took the trouble of checking up a few universities against the Isle of Man. The University of Durham has 160 hours less sunshine in the winter than the Isle of Man. A University called Keele in Staffordshire has 89 hours less. Coming South, there is a University called Reading which has 15 hours less. All these places have a lower temperature in winter than the Isle of Man, and have more snow.
I have said my say, and I know that to-morrow morning I shall wake up and say, "I wish I had said that". I shall kick myself, but I cannot keep your Lordships here for ever. I am British through and through, and I know that we have a system of "muddling through" by which we carry on. Foreigners think we are extraordinary for having this system and laugh at us. But I like it, because I know that in times of trouble our hereditary leopard will change its spots. When it changes its spots it can get going in doing things.
This is a time that we have to change and get going doing things, and we have to put some of the millions we are spending on rockets which go off like damp squibs, into a new university for the future on a scale that we have not anticipated before, and that university should be in the Isle of Man. I like not to tread on corns, and I know I have said a lot that people will not agree with. Therefore, I should like to end with something rather pleasant—a text or something like that. In Westminster Abbey yesterday, in that beautiful service, I was very struck with a quotation from Proverbs which was the First Lesson. If I remember it anywhere near correctly, it was something like this:
"Those who hate wisdom love death."
6.31 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to address the House for two or three minutes. I must confess that I am always sympathetic with the lone campaigner, but that is not the only reason why I am supporting the noble Lord to-night. When I was at the Ministry of Food I was sent to the Isle of Man to discuss rationing with the hotel and
842
boarding-house keepers on the island. I arrived in this delightful spot—every noble Lord will agree that islands exercise tremendous fascination—and I said: "Why have I not found the Isle of Man before?" The description of the island that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Strange, is indeed not an overstatement. Everything seems so green and balmy, and the people are cheerful. Perhaps, having been attacked at the Ministry of Food for so many years, I was particularly impressed with the fact that they received me in a kindly fashion and courteous manner and were not aggressive.
Then fate decreed that I should go from a constituency in London, which I had represented for eighteen years, to the North, to Warrington, and I became familiar with the Universities of Manchester and Liverpool. I also became familiar (I hope those in the North will forgive me for saying this) with the grime, the darkness and dreariness of some of the places in the North where our young people have to live. Many of them went to the Isle of Man for their holidays. I often used to think what a pity it was that all this accommodation on the Isle of Man was used for such a short season. Why, oh why, could not the adolescents enjoy the wonderful air and the beauty of the Isle of Man for a longer period?
Now I have heard the noble Lord put his case for a university. On educational grounds, I agree that I cannot say to the representative of the Government here tonight whether it is feasible or not, but I would put this point to the House. When these new universities were under consideration, some of us thought: is this the right place? How was it that this place was chosen? To take one example, there is the University of Sussex. When the University of Sussex was established, some of us, accustomed to the Universities of London, Oxford and Cambridge, thought: "This place will never do down there, with Brighton as its focal centre." On the contrary, Sussex University, I am told, is sought after; it is attractive and has already proved successful. I am told that now, if men and women cannot get into Oxford, they sometimes put Sussex first on their list. Why is that? Well, in life Jack must not only have work; he must have a little play, as well. The young

843
people, and indeed ourselves, like to go to places where there may be opportunities for study, and where the buildings are attractive. Nevertheless, the open air, the Downs, in Sussex, and the sea have attracted these people; and now they are so attached to Sussex University that they are persuading everybody who can possibly get a place to go there.
In the light of these thoughts, I hope that the claim which the noble Lord. Lord Strange, has made for the Isle of Man as a site for a university will be recognised. If the Ministry of Education say that we do want another university in the North, there could be no more delightful place for these young people in the North, brought up very often in the darkness of their native homes, to go. I heartily support the noble Lord.
6.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, there is a saying in Shakespeare that
"the words of Mercury are harsh after the songs of Apollo."
Not being Mercury, I feel that after the last two speeches I may do more harm than good by saying anything at all. I shall, therefore, not say any words of my own, but merely read an extract from Encyclopœdia Britannica which contains one of the only two facts that I know about the Isle of Man. It is one which seems to support what the noble Lord, Lord Strange, has so admirably said. The other fact I did not extract from any encyclopædia but from my own memory. It has to do with the Island's history. Speaking from this Bench—I am not, of course, speaking officially for the Liberal Party—I feel that the Isle of Man has not been as liberally treated in the past as it has been liberal in its institutions. Indeed, I was rather surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, did not mention that one of its peculiarities is that women are entitled to inherit property in default of a male heir, in the same way as the Crown does, which might give it a certain possible right to be considered. The Encyclopœdia Britannica says that at the beginning of the last century
"The hereditary Lords"—
who were members of a certain family, and I hope I may say this without treading on anybody's corns—
844
"were far from being model rulers, but most of them had taken some personal share in its government and had interested themselves in the wellbeing of its inhabitants. Now"
—and this, of course, was long before a progressive Government came in, I suppose before 1800—
"the whole direction of its affairs was handed over to officials who regarded the island as a pestilent nest of smugglers from which it was their duty to extract as much revenue as possible.
"Some alleviation of this state of things was experienced…when the fourth Duke of Atholl was appointed Governor, since although"—
I will leave out the next remarks as the noble Duke is not here, but it goes on to say that, in spite of what it says about his being unduly solicitous for his pecuniary interests,
"he did occasionally exert himself to promote the welfare of the island. After his departure the English officials assumed their sway."
That shows that in the past also we had a certain debt to the Isle of Man.
The only other thing I know about it is the heraldic symbol, which I think is three legs in a wheel—I do not know the heraldic term, whether it is "three legs extended in a wheel revolvement", or what; nobody knows what it symbolises. The wheel might symbolise the bad times coming back—
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Viscount, the Manx say that it symbolises kicking the English off the island.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: I was about to say, in a more tactful form, that it might symbolise two legs to stand on, one, possibly, to remind the Government of their obligations by prodding them in the seat of the trousers. If that is a correct interpretation, I should like to congratulate the Isle of Man on its present Third Leg. I will not say anything more, as it might put me in the position of a square leg dropping a catch.
6.38 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strange, is one of the few people I know who never wakes up in the morning and says, "I wish I had said that", because he always seems to cover every possible point in his speeches. And certainly on this occasion, if he had left out anything at all, which

845
I think is unlikely, my noble friend Lady Summerskill has most certainly filled the bill.
I personally have never visited this beautiful island, and apart from novels, my knowledge is confined to an observation which was made on one famous occasion by Sir Winston Churchill, which I will not now retail. But I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Strange, that his picture of the Isle of Man, drawn in such glowing colours by one who so obviously loves the island, was such that my noble friends are only waiting until I sit down before dashing out to make arrangements to spend their holidays there. Indeed, since there is common ground between us that the Isle of Man mainly depends on tourism, and that an increase in tourism would solve many of the problems he has mentioned, I think he should now devote his life as an advocate for the island, as I am sure he must be the very best advertisement for it.
I was glad that the noble Lord commenced his speech by making reference to the well-known, respected loyalty of the Manxman. That has never been in question. We all regret that the T.T. races in which, apart from Manxmen, the whole population of the United Kingdom takes a good deal of justifiable pride, has been cancelled this year. I hope he is quite wrong in thinking that it is likely to be a permanent cancellation. Indeed, it is regrettable that the island has suffered grevious losses through the curtailment of the holiday-making industry during the last six or seven weeks. I am very glad indeed to feel that it is possible that this week-end the influx may be starting and the troubles in future may well be over.
The noble Lord, Lord Strange, is perfectly well aware that suggestions for schemes for relief in the island would have to come from the Government. I am bound to say that he did not mention what cynically-minded people might regard as yet another major attraction to his beloved island, and that is that income tax is 4s. 3d. in the pound—only half that we have to pay in this country. This is a factor of no little importance when we arc considering the kind of proposals and suggestions which the noble Lord has put before us. The Isle of Man Government return a proportion
846
of their Customs and Excise revenue to the Exchequer as a contribution to defence and common services. Apart from these dealings, the Isle of Man is financially independent of the United Kingdom (of which it never formed part) and the island Government's revenue is their own to spend as they will. They may also tax the Manxman as they will.
It is the case that the Isle of Man enjoys a large measure of independence which is dear to the people of the island, and fully recognised by Her Majesty's Government—as the noble Lord has just said, by a three-legged symbol which says, "Kick the British off the Island." While that feeling is cherished, it is something to which we must have regard; and, so far as I am concerned, good luck to it! But independence of that kind entails obligations and liabilities as well as advantages, and under the present constitutional relationship the island does not look to the United Kingdom for financial support. Very strong arguments would have to be produced to persuade the United Kingdom taxpayer, paying double the tax, that he should be taxed to support projects of which the benefits would flow to the island. I know that the noble Lord would say at once—and I would agree with him—that the proposition he put forward of a university might be considered to be of benefit to the people both of the island and of the United Kingdom. But I am bound to say that, although the Government are naturally willing to give sympathetic consideration to any proposals for developments which would be of mutual benefit, those proposals could be considered only on their individual merits and against the background of the Isle of Man Government's prime responsibility for the island's welfare.
I would deal now with the one suggestion which the noble Lord made of a project, and which he mentioned in his speech, of a technological university. Here somewhat different considerations have to be taken into account. I am sure he will agree that the considerations which apply to the siting of a university anywhere in the United Kingdom should, and must, also apply to his proposal in respect to the Isle of Man, quite apart from anything that I have already said. I have before me the plea based on his three points he just mentioned, including the fact that there are some 47,000

847
accommodation units for students, which is a matter not without its importance. Any proposal to establish with United Kingdom funds, or mainly with United Kingdom funds, a university of the island would in any case he in competition with claims from other places in the United Kingdom which naturally want their own university. The University Grants Committee have set out in paragraphs 276 to 290 of their Quinquennial Report certain criteria which they have applied in deciding on the location of the six new universities which they recommended between 1959 and 1961. My noble friend Lady Summerskill has referred to Sussex, which had to satisfy those six considerations. I am bound to say that so far, from what I have heard, the only one of those six which is satisfied by the noble Lord's proposition is that there is plenty of lodging available, at least in the early stages.
While the Robbins Committee on Higher Education did not wish to criticise the criteria which the Grants Committee applied, they placed great emphasis in their Report on the importance of siting future new universities in great centres of population or in their vicinity and, in addition, to providing a large catchment area, supplying lodging and stimulating cultural activities in the city, because such a location would bring great benefits to the institution itself. Paragraph 499 of the Robbins Committee Report says this:
"It is most valuable for the teachers and students in academic institutions to have convenient access to national institutions such as libraries, museums, galleries and other cultural centres and to learned societies. It is also important for them to have easy access to centres of industry, commerce, medicine and law, to institutions of central and local government, and to research institutions. Two-way traffic between such centres and universities is of great benefit particularly in the natural sciences, technology"—
the points the noble Lord has made—
"medicine and the social sciences. Such intercourse is most readily established in large centres of population and particularly in great cities."
I am bound to say that it seems very doubtful whether the Isle of Man could establish a strong case on academic grounds for priority consideration for a new university, even if another university were needed to achieve the Government's objectives. As the noble Lord will doubt-
848
less be aware, it is not possible to go any further with this at the moment because the Government have decided that there should be no new United Kingdom universities for the present—at least for the period of some ten years—because the Robbins Committee has estimated that the number of university places which are, and will be, required can be provided by existing universities and other institutions of university status. Therefore, much as I genuinely admire the noble Lord's love for the Isle of Man, and his anxiety for the welfare and wellbeing of her people; much as I agree with him about their loyalty and, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill said, their kindly and courteous manner; much as I should like to be able to say "Yes" to him, I am afraid that, apart from wishing them "Jolly good luck, good hunting and a very good summer's business," I can do no more on this occasion.

WHITLEY BAY PIER BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.